Byblos wrote:Pierson5 wrote:There, I presented some of the evidence for the theory of evolution with regards to birds. Your turn Jlay, post the evidence for your side.
What you've provided are similarities, commonalities, and artists' renderings based on a priori assumptions. To prove these assertions beyond any reasonable doubt all you have to do is to provide the exact biological pathways by which one species transitioned into the other and that were verified by the scientific method.
What!? The artist's renderings are based on the fossils I posted in the exact same post and was published in Nature. Do you honestly believe scientists can just make up and draw whatever they want to support their position and get it published in one of the most rigorous journals available? Your second statement is logically absurd. Would you accept an argument like this: To prove these assertions beyond any reasonable doubt all you have to do is provide the exact biological pathways by which HIV transitions to Aids and are verified by the scientific method. These are the EXACT same style of arguments used by HIV deniers and is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. "Science can't explain some part of X, therefore I'm justified in believing Y or dismissing it altogether." There are plenty scientific disciplines where you could make this argument, going back to the clouds example earlier, or you could go with the nuclear/strong force of atomic theory, or many areas of physics, or even gravity. Here's an interesting bit of information: Phillip E. Johnson, father of the ID movement is an HIV denier. You can say I'm making an ad hominem attack, but I'm just pointing out the similar lines of reasoning used by evolution deniers and HIV deniers. If you are truly interested in the question you proposed, there is ongoing research in that area: //
www.pnas.org/content/103/44/16337.abstract
In summary: Argument from ignorance. Also, moving the goalpost. Provide the evidence for your side. Here is a 5 minute video about "Selective Acceptance: A Psychological Phenomenon": //
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sNyh6UccAk&feature=relmfu
jlay wrote:Piers,
I think Byb has answered. I provided renderings from pro-evolutionary sites. So, when you say, these aren't the same bones, I'm a little confused.
The bones you are referring to are the pelvic bones. That is where the conversation began. The bones I posted a little after are not the pelvic bones, but leg bones that happened to show up in this specific whale. A good comparison would be that of pelvic bones found in some species of snakes. We have the Leptotyphlopidae and Typhlopidae groups possessing remnants of the pelvic girdle. Then you find something like this:
If you took a look at the previous source for the bones I posted, this is a similar situation to what we find in whales.
jlay wrote:Also, the other info you link only provides info on extinct species. We have a wide variety of birds today. Some that fly, some that glide, some that don't. Some with very differing feather patterns. Many sizes. Many different cranial shapes. So what?
It's not about the variety, it's about the order of appearance. We have a variety of dogs today. If you saw a fossil record showing the evolutionary path from wolf to Great Danes and Chihuahuas would you make the same argument? It's a clear transition. We see an increase in "bird like" morphology combined with the morphology of reptiles. This goes hand in hand with the molecular/genetic evidence. Comparing genetic evidence of modern birds with reptiles shows they share a common ancestor (see the TED talk I posted earlier). And when we look at the fossil record, what a coincidence, it shows a clear transition from reptile like animals to bird like animals. This isn't an isolated case.
jlay wrote:
And just why is the burden of proof on me?
You are the one claiming the thousands of professional scientists in multiple fields are wrong in their analysis of the evidence. This is extremely arrogant in my eyes. It's so obvious to you (and many scientific laymen in the general public, overwhelmingly with religious axes to grind) that evolution is false, but for some reason the scientific community (made up of people from different cultures/religions/ideologies/etc...) can't see it. Now, this doesn't mean you are wrong (although very unlikely you are right), but you better have some pretty amazing evidence for your side if you are going to be making such extravagant claims. If you don't have any evidence, it seems very hypocritical. As I've said many times before, if you don't accept the evidence for evolution, that's fine. You're an adult and can believe whatever you want. I started this thread because I see a lot of "Evolution is false, therefore ID is true" false dichotomy. That's what I care about. If you are going to promote an alternate to evolution and bypass the scientific process to get it taught in schools (i.e. take it straight to court), show me the evidence for it. Go back to page 1 and re-read the statement under "The Point."
jlay wrote:...We don't find whale fossils with both fins and fully functional legs. Or whales with partial flippers and partial legs. We find whales with flukes, blow holes and filppers. What we do find are scientist, such as the one who claimed that Rhodocetus had a fluke, and had drawings made up as evidence. Only to find a better fossil later that revealed, guess what? No fluke. The scientists had no conscience about slathering his Darwiniam religion all over the evidence, because it was what he wanted to find.
Actually we find whales with both fins and leg remnants today. (see my previous post). They don't have to be fully functional (see picture of snake). As far as the fluke goes: [citation needed]. I did, however, find this: //ncse.com/rncse/20/5/origin-whales-power-independent-evidence
It is also likely that Rodhocetus had a tail fluke, although such a feature is not preserved in the known fossils: it possessed features — shortened cervical vertebrae, heavy and robust proximal tail vertebrae, and large dorsal spines on the lumbar vertebrae for large tail and other axial muscle attachments — that are associated in modern whales with the development and use of tail flukes. All in all, Rodhocetus must have been a very good tail-swimmer, and it is the earliest fossil whale committed to this manner of swimming.
jlay wrote:Why point out the footnote? I mean, no one is denying chihuahuas and bull mastiffs being related, right? Size is irrelevant. I don't know what your hangup is on artist's renderings. They are based on fossil evidence, as well as other lines of evidence.
Exactly. And no one is claiming that one of those animals is a move up the evolutionary ladder either. That creates a problem for you, not me.
Regarding the renderings. Because we know that artists have doctored photos to imply Darwinism. We know features were imagined into Archeoptryx on early drawings that included both scales and feathers, which was false. Drawings, as the one I linked, are exactly why. It is imagination based on the presumption of Darwinism, which is then used as evidence. That is deceptive.
1. Evolution isn't a "ladder" it's a branching "tree." We've been over this before:
//i.imgur.com/TCeQi.gif
//i.imgur.com/ziyju.jpg
2. The analogy was only addressing the issue you seemed to have with the footnote addressing size. You are taking this and diverging to a completely different topic.
Scientists are not infallible. Pointing out things they have been wrong about doesn't discredit evolution. The fact they are willing to admit they were wrong and get behind the evidence to the contrary (something that almost never happens in organized religion) is a virtue of the scientific method. This only strengthens the reason you should present the evidence for ID to the scientific community. When you present valid, reliable evidence for the phenomenon you believe in scientists will accept it. What they won't do is behave like the individuals who reject things like evolution and the big bang (deny monumental bodies of evidence for one scenario, while expecting others to accept another scenario with no objective evidence). When your opinion is in conflict with facts established scientifically by an international community working with the most sophisticated knowledge and techniques available, you can either go the legitimate rout and get your objective evidence recognized by peer reviewed scientific journals (which shouldn't be a problem if your opinion is based on something more substantial than bias supposition), or you can leave science to those with the discipline and integrity to do what you are unwilling and/or unable to do and leave science education to those who know what they're talking about.
I'm not familiar with the drawing including scales. Regardless, there are MANY features Archeoptryx has that are similar in birds AND reptiles. You are just focusing on one feature someone may have gotten wrong at some point. Also,
please cite your sources. I'm still waiting for the evidence for your side.
A couple other features of Archeoptryx:
Long bony tail (see fossil)
The site of neck attachment to the skull: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1976.tb00244.x/pdf
Simple concave articular facets in vertebrae: //earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1993/11.1993.09Jenkins.pdf
Teeth
And many more...
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:Oh yes, a definition of ID from the Discovery Institute which wouldn't be biased at all. Seeing as >40% of the PhD's held by the faculty are in philosophy/theology and <15% in actual biological sciences. Not to mention...
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#Controversy
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
//
www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
This is no more or less biased than the definition for evolution. If you disagree with it then you can provide evidence that they do indeed imply a specific designer as you keep implying.
Evidence? Did you even look at the wedge document or the links I provided? Have you watched the Dover trial or read the transcripts? Are you familiar with the "Of Pandas and People" textbook? If you have honestly looked into these and still claim they are not implying a designer/creationism, I don't know what else I can say...
KBCid wrote:In essence ID can can posit the need for intelligence not who that intelligence may belong to. Here would be a prime example of where this science can be used. //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monument
Take a look at videos of this site and try and form a conclusion on whether it is a naturally evolved formation or a natural formation intelligently modified or a completely man made artifact. Then consider what evidence you based a conclusion on.
I am not an archaeologist or professional in the field. I would not make a conclusion on whether or not is it man-made. Whatever the scientific consensus is, I would get behind that. If the evidence is shaky and no consensus is established, I would be no position to claim one way or another. Right now it looks like we are left with a mystery. Until further evidence presents itself, I'm on the fence. You can say there is evidence of intelligent design there, but the difference is, we can compare this structure with other man made structures and look for similarities. If the evidence concluded it was intelligently designed, I don't think anyone would deny the designer was a human/group of humans. The difference between this situation and the one we are currently discussing is, we aren't comparing human design to potentially human design. You are comparing human design to something that is alive and contrary to the evidence which says otherwise. The evidence is extremely one sided.
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:Yet, when I asked for evidence, what do you think the evidence was (see page one)?
You asked for evidence that ID doesn't posit a specific designer?
I asked for evidence for ID in general, not a designer.
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:So I apologize for making assumptions and putting you into the same category. Let me re-word the question. What area in science do we invoke an unknown designer, for which there is no evidence, as an explanation?
You would have no need for an apology had you simply asked "does ID posit a specific designer?" rather than voicing an assumption first that you can't readily provide evidence for. When I reference evolutionists beliefs I can provide a multitude of references that provide its defining points.
Once again you setup your favorite strawman form of arguement in the form of a question with the implication that ID is positing a specific designer without evidence as an explanation. Again for the fourth or fifth time I will answer this tired old strawman arguement.
There is no science that invokes an unknown designer for which there is no evidence as an explanation for anything.
All scientifc areas that deal with intelligent designers work with known types of information produced by the action of intelligence. Thus, they don't specify a designer but rather show cause and effect from intelligent action and the results that only inteligence has empirically proven to produce which allows one to identify when .....intelligence..... (not a specific designer) would be required to explain the specific form of observable information.
I was not making blind assumptions. I gave you several evidences from the "think-tank" promoting ID (see above). Regardless, can intelligence exist without a vessel? Can we have intelligent design without a designer? I for one, have seen no evidence to suggest that consciousness/intelligence can exist separate from the organism to which it belongs.You don't have to specify a designer, there has to be one. In my question, I pointed out the designer was unknown. How is that a strawman?
Also, looking at the other thread you started, I saw this:
KBCid wrote:Nature is a creation of God the father, God almighty
You can say ID doesn't identify the designer, but it is pretty clear based on the evidence I provided at the beginning of this post, and by your comment, who the designer is.
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:There are plenty things intelligence cannot mimic in nature.
So it would be your position that since something has not been mimiced by intelligence yet that it will always remain beyond its ability to do it, right? (See how I'm asking a question here? This is because your statement is not quite clear to me so I'm going to ask before I proceed)
No. I think it's optimistic thinking that we will have EVERYTHING figured out one day. But I don't know. Maybe? That wasn't the point of that statement, it was leading into my next statement with regards to:
if you understood how intelligence worked you would understand that there is almost nothing that inteligence cannot mimic in nature. There is simply a level of intelligent design that falls within the same observable characteristics as natural formation where one cannot empirically assert its necessity to explain the observation.
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:Up until a few years ago, it was impossible to produce clouds in the lab. Do we assume that because the cloud is so complex we cannot produce it in the lab, we therefore would need some sort of great intelligent designer?
Don't know where you got that idea about cloud production. I could create clouds since I was in my early 20's and I learned it from information that already existed even then. A spa typically has machines that produce clouds and it doesn't take any major engineering to design such a thing and really there is nothing complex about a cloud for me anyway. Crystal formations are in the same level of complexity as a cloud in my understanding.
Water vapor/steam are not clouds. The issue is more complicated than you think.
//phys.org/news/2011-12-cloud-droplets-ready-prime.html
That said, this is not to argue about the complexity of clouds. The point is, there are some things humans can and cannot design (yet?) with regards to what we observe in nature. I think you agree clouds are formed through natural processes. I'm trying to figure out how you decipher what is designed in nature and what is not. If we can mimic both, what objective criteria do you use to determine if something arose naturally vs. designed? Also, for the sake of argument, accept evolution occurred. Could we not mimic something that arose by evolutionary processes? I have pointed out before we can use evolutionary logarithms to develop things that some individuals were having a tough time designing (NASA's antenna, jet aerodynamics, etc..).
Further criticism stems from the fact that the phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus definition. William Dembski, for example, has written that "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature". The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.
For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies
//en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_81_of_139
KBCid wrote:What is intelligent design?
1) Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.
2) The theory of intelligent design holds that CERTAIN FEATURES of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
3) Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.
4) Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. //
www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
1. Seek evidence of design in nature... Sorry, that's not how the scientific method is done. I'm sure you are familiar with something called the null hypothesis. You don't start with a theory and seek out evidence to support it. You gather evidence and the theory develops from there, as was done with the theory of evolution. In the very first sentence, ID points out it is not scientific. You supposedly seem to be a big supporter of the scientific method, it's not hard to see what's wrong with this statement.
2. Natural selection is not an undirected process... While it may not be directed by a designer, it is guided by a fundamental logic inherent in the way the populations of species develop through time.
//
www.pnas.org/content/94/6/2091.full
//
www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12398.full
3. Chance? As I mentioned above, natural selection is hardly random or a matter of chance. Even some mutations have identifiable causes which can be observed and assessed.
//learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html
Theorists can determine if natural structures are a product of ID? How? What would a non-designed organism look like? What would an unintelligently designed organism look like? I can't find the criteria they use anywhere.
4. The objects we know come from intelligence are things like automobiles, paintings, "3 dimensional structuring" etc... In other words man made objects, maybe with a beaver dam thrown in there. But:
The problem is, we know that man-made objects are designed a posteriori. We know companies that make cars/motors/workshops. They are made out of many materials such as polished, purified metal or plastic which does not occur in nature. We know these things are designed because we have evidence and knowledge of these situations and can logically conclude they are designed.
This isn't just making a point about the materials used. That was just one example. These objects clearly have design and purpose because we have either created them ourselves or have observed them built and used. There are many different reasons we know something is man made. This is not the case with biological organisms.
You can say: "Engineering and design are evidence." But, evidence of what? Engineering and design? Engineering (noun) and design (noun) are only evidence of engineering (verb) and design (verb) if we know that the evidence before us is in fact engineered and designed. To assert that certain objects/animals/functions are intelligently designed, is not only to assert an understanding of what intelligent design looks like and entails, but is to claim an understanding of what non-design and/or unintelligent design looks like, and also to be able to tell the difference between them using what will undoubtedly be arbitrary criteria.
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:Aren't you also begging the question as to whether something can be too complex to have come about through evolution?
Would I be begging the question if I say that pink elephants and fairies don't exist? You obviously feel that the 'belief' that evolution can form any of the structures of life we observe REQUIRES evidence to prove it wrong. This is not how science and the scientific method function. This is how religion functions.
If you wish to follow the scientific method then you need to provide REPEATABLE empirical evidence for your hypothesis and until you have such evidence then no one including myself is required to scientifically disprove it.
It's one thing to say pink elephants and fairies probably don't exist, seeing as there is no evidence for it. The difference is, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I'm not sure what you would classify as repeatable empirical evidence... You have everything on page one, we observe speciation, we observe vast changes in morphology, changes in chromosome variation, etc... What are you expecting to see exactly? I have posted plenty of evidence. I'm not asking for the evidence which proves evolution wrong. I'm asking for the evidence which proves ID is correct. That said, where is the repeatable empirical evidence for ID? (not an example of humans building something, you know I mean biologically, with regards to evolution)
KBCid wrote:KBCid wrote:So if an experimenter theorizes that all life evolved from a common ancestor then he must also define an experiment to test his theory. Tell me what test can be performed to test this theory?.
I see that you bypassed this particular question. You appear to sidestep anything dealing with the scientific method... very enlightening.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_scientific_method
Logical deduction is part of the scientific method. Without it, many disciplines in science would come to a halt (see my examples in the beginning of this post regarding HIV, strong force etc...).
Here are the links again. There are many, many lines of evidence supported by experiment, pointing to a common ancestor. With your high standards for evidence, show me the experiment done for your side which says otherwise. Or even the logical deduction supported by the many lines of evidence backed up with experimentation. If you don't have an alternate explanation, then I don't care.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Universal_Common_Ancestor
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent#Evidence_of_universal_common_descent
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
//
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n729 ... 09014.html
I cannot say with 100% certainty that life evolved from a single common ancestor.
Certainty does not exist in Science, only varying degrees of certainty. Of course, the possibility that we did not evolve from a common ancestor is extraordinarily low; but if evidence presents itself, it is subject to change.
Relevant: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
//philosophy.fsu.edu/content/download/57844/672553/Justus2011a.pdf
It is not necessary for the process you are examining to be repeatable for you to infer that it happened, after all that would rule most of history out, but that the observations you use to examine it are repeatable and consistent.
In the case of evolution you have thousands of observations of fossils which are internally consistent, as well as additional and separate lines of evidence from genetic analysis (again, repeatable consistent observations) and comparative anatomy which all individually lead to the same conclusion. Of course we can't wind back the clock and watch life on Earth evolve again. Evolutionary theory makes certain predictions about genetics, morphology, etc. and these predictions can be repeatedly observed to be true in many different populations.
Repeatability doesn't refer to the entire phenomenon...it refers to the measurements of the phenomenon. You construct a hypothesis, use this hypothesis to make predictions, and see if those predictions match observation. And this is exactly what evolution does, and it is highly repeatable. It may predict a certain gene is present in mammals and not in fish. One scientist looks a dog and goldfish genomes, and confirms this. That's observability. Another scientist does the same thing. That's repeatability. Another confirms it with mice and salmon. More observability and repeatability. Finally, one scientist finds an inactivated pseudogene in fish, that shows intermediate forms in reptiles and birds towards the mammalian gene. That's explainability. Now, these are only a few examples, there are plenty more (see page 1).
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:What religious agenda? The scientific community is made up of all kinds of cultures/religions etc... And 97% of them don't have an issue with evolutionary theory.
Do you and they hold the belief that everything must be explained by naturalism? This BELIEF is a foundational point that controls how evolution theory is composed. Only that which is defined as a force of nature is allowed to be considered.
Naturalism
Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws. //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
A philosophy is not derived by scientific method. You do understand what the scientific method is correct? The philosophy of naturalism is used to guide current scientific inquiry... nothing that does not fall within its rigid definition is accepted by mainstream scientists. This is a religiously held belief. It has no method of being confirmed scientifically.
If you are asking me personally, I would classify myself as a naturalist, sure. That said, if something supernatural was CONFIRMED by the scientific community, I would change my mind on the subject in a heartbeat. But you are flat out WRONG if you think the entire scientific community are made up of naturalists. The naturalism that science adopts is
methodological naturalism (explanations that include supernatural elements, for example: that atoms are held together by tiny spirits, are not considered scientific). It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have.
The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (dowsing, psychics, prayer, astrology, medicine [//sites.stat.psu.edu/~rho/mindon/distant.pdf]). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. However, science is eminently practical. The reason scientists don't consider supernatural explanations is that there is no way to test them to see whether they're correct. As another example, an auto mechanic may hypothesize that a problem was caused by evil spirits, but there is no reliable way to either confirm or disconfirm this hypothesis.
To put it bluntly, the reason that scientists don't consider supernatural explanations is that they don't work. Naturalism is not a requirement for science. Many reputable scientists already reject naturalism. They accept an active, personal God, and yet they also accept evolutionary theory and reject intelligent design theory. Some of them, in fact, are among the greatest contributors to the theory of evolution, and some are among ID's harshest critics.. I have brought up Kenneth Miller several times. I do find it funny that the complaint about naturalism is applied unfairly to discredit only those parts of science that naturalism's critics oppose on ideological grounds. Despite their complaints of science being naturalistic, ID advocates use that very science when it is convenient for them. To this end, they cite scientific authorities and claim scientific evidence. Granted, their use of science hardly counts as such because it is selective and out-of-context, but the point remains that, when it serves their interests, they make extensive use of the very tools they claim to detest.
If you have a better way of deciphering truth and understanding the world than the methodological naturalism the scientific method implores, let's hear it...
KBCid wrote:I have provided evidence which you have not commented on. The not so simple understanding of how to reproduce precision 3 dimensional forms which you don't yet comprehend is really all the evidence needed in this case....
I could have sworn I addressed your evidence with your cited source back a few pages ago...
Pierson5 wrote:If we take a look back at the "evidence" KBCid cited on the previous page:
//
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9975/
The author proposes a few questions.
How is it that the embryo is able not only to generate all the different cell types of the body, but also to produce them in a way that forms functional tissues and organs? How are the cells that differentiate into the embryonic bone specified so as to form an appendage with digits at one end and a shoulder at the other?
If you look at the bottom of the article, the author provides a few possible answers
The positional information needed to construct a limb has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system.* During the past decade, particular proteins have been identified that play a role in the formation of each of these limb axes. The proximal-distal (shoulder-finger; hip-toe) axis appears to be regulated by the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of proteins. The anterior-posterior (thumb-pinky) axis seems to be regulated by the Sonic hedgehog protein, and the dorsal-ventral (knuckle-palm) axis is regulated, at least in part, by Wnt7a. The interactions of these proteins determine the differentiation of the cell types and also mutually support one another.
Further reading:
//embryo.asu.edu/view/embryo:125126
Today those who study morphogenesis are asking many questions and trying to determine, for example, how tissues form from populations of cells, how tissues construct organs, how organs grow, how growth is coordinated, how migrating cells are oriented, and how polarity is achieved. The problem of morphogenesis is recognized by many to be one of the most elusive questions of development as it is intertwined with questions of regulation and how the organism functions as a whole.
This "evidence" says NOTHING about the need to invoke an Intelligent Designer. This is just another case of "science isn't sure/doesn't have the answer for "X", therefore I can believe "Y" (ID) is true." That's not how science works and is a classic argument from ignorance. Remember, every "mystery" solved in the history of mankind hasn't had an answer that breaks any physical laws of nature or involve magic.
With the line of reasoning "We only have evidence of intelligence creating these structures," I could use the same reasoning and go one step further to say that humans are the only ones we have evidence of designing these structures. Therefore, the designer is human. That said, we can take this discussion to the thread you started if you'd like. As it seems you have more references posted there. It looks like Sandy is doing a pretty good job thus far addressing the issue.
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:Evolution is absolutely falsifiable. Here are a few things that would falsify evolution: If we found a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian period, a static (non-changing) fossil record over time,
If a rabbit were found in the precambrian then it would falsify variability. The truth is there is no need to pull a rabbit out of the precambrian since we have already pulled a Coelacanth out of the Late Cretaceous. Same rationale applies here... a current living form existed 65 million years ago and did not vary to any great extent nor did it evolve and grow legs.
It's not about finding a current living form in the pre-cambrian... It's about finding a MAMMAL in the pre-cambrian that would be the problem.
KBCid wrote:KBCid wrote:How much of a genome is compared between assumed 'ancestors'? What exactly is compared?
Pierson5 wrote:See page one on "converging lines of evidence." Every field in biology and every experiment confirms that this tree of life (//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg/600px-Tree_of_life_SVG.svg.png) is the proper, most correct fit.
Which experiments prove this? Let us analyse what you consider an experiment that provides empirical backing to a hypothesis. I have noted also that you avoided answering both of my questions. I will ask again;
"How much of a genome is compared between assumed 'ancestors'? What exactly is compared?"
I didn't avoid it. When I said "see page one on converging lines of evidence." That was your answer. But, I see you can't be bothered to go looking for it on post #1. Here are a couple short videos (by biologists). They also address criticism by the Discovery Institute:
Are you familiar with paternity testing?
Paternity tests use inherited DNA markers as a way to determine relatedness. So does phylogenetics.
//
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjm64g3VRuE
and
//
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq3mKJxxZgg&t=5m32s
There are other methods used to determine relatedness and common decent (and what a coincidence, they all have the same conclusion):
Shared chromosome errors (like those in primates and humans.): //genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/778.short
Shared Bornavirus sequence insertions: //
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n727 ... 08695.html
Gene conversion: //
www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/225/
ERV's: //
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10773466?dopt=Abstract
Phylogenetic trees: see page 1
Vestigial genes (vitamin C synthesis gene [//
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10572964?dopt=Abstract, //
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1400507?dopt=Abstract, //
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8175804?dopt=Abstract], tooth enamel pseudogenes [//
www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi ... en.1000634], genes for sense of smell in dolphins [//
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9839455?dopt=Abstract], etc...)
Transposons: //
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8994846?dopt=Abstract
The chance that the same virus could have infected both species and left nearly identical transposons in the same part of the chromosome is extremely small.
Evidence of past gene duplication: //
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15004568, //
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16890400, //
www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi ... bi.0020076, //
www.pnas.org/content/106/24/9836.abstract
Evolutionary predictions made by analyzing ancient DNA: //
www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5875/499.short
Universal Imprints of genome growth: //
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20418954
Viral remnants in the fossil record: //
www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi ... en.1001191
I think does a pretty good job of taking care of convergent evolution. If you are wondering how scientists determine they are viral remnants:
Viruses, including retroviruses, including endogenous retroviruses, don't speak the same language as humans. Sure they use A, T/U, C, G nucleotides in codons, coding for amino acids that make proteins. But viruses and humans don't speak this language with the same accent. Its called codon bias, or codon-pair bias.
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:Is there a specific one you would like to know about? The eye is a popular one. All steps in the evolution of the eye are known to be viable because they exist is many different species today. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly the paths laid out in these papers, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
This: //
www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html
Is based off of this: //rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/256/1345/53
Here is a pretty lengthy pdf published in the International Journal of Developmental Biology: //
www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s ... iICi9EKigQ
Let us review one of your evidences;
How Long Would The Fish Eye Take To Evolve?
Nilsson and Pelger...concluded that the whole sequence, as shown, required 1829 steps.
Based on
...a science called population genetics, and it has mathematical formulae for how quickly favorable genetic changes can spread throughout a population of sexually reproducing creatures. From these formulae, Nilsson and Pelger concluded that the 1829 steps could happen in about 350,000 generations.
They also follow the belief that it is quite easy for an eye to evolve.
...In fact, taxonomists say that eyes have evolved at least 40 different times, and and possibly as many as 65 times. There are 9 different optical principles that have been used in the design of eyes and all 9 are represented more than once in the animal kingdom.
Here is a reply to population genetics by Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan)
...being also an academic teacher in population genetics, I found it necessary to play down the evolutionary explanations given in textbooks, for the simple reason that I find no evidence to support them...
//
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n3/genetics
and
Population Genetics Made Simple
David A. Plaisted
...This model is actually not realistic, because it does not take into account the interactions between various mutations. Nor does it distinguish major mutations, which change the shape of proteins, from minor mutations, which do not. Furthermore, it does not consider that the beneficial mutations observed are generally only of a restricted kind that cannot explain evolution.
//
www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/genetics.html
There are actually a variety of arguements against the rationale of population genetics as a realistic backing for evolution and a number of arguements are condensed in the biotic message by Walter Remine //saintpaulscience.com/CostTheory1.pdf
Of course you may simply dismiss any or all of the arguements. For me the bottom line is that there is no way to empirically back the theoretical Population Genetics assumptions to historical reality.
Did you even look at the 5 page citation published in the International Journal of Developmental Biology? You attacked one source which is only speculating the amount of mutations it may take for the eye to evolve, and then delve into population genetics. All the while citing sources from articles published in creation magazine and others with serious religious affiliations (with the exception of Dr. Plaisted, a computer scientist). I think Sandy addressed this earlier.
Regardless, for the sake of argument, let's throw population genetics out. Now, take a look at the citation mentioned earlier. I skimmed through it and there appears to be no mention of population genetics.
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:Could you propose an experiment on how we could test (or falsify) ID?
The test for the necessity of ID is the identification of ...the types of information produced when intelligent agents act... To falsify this necessity you simply need to show that there is no observable information requiring it.
Could you propose an experiment? I have given you several ways evolution could be falsified, why don't you give me an example for ID? Here is one proposed by a scientist: //
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkED8cWRu4Q
Do you have something better? I don't mean an example of humans building something. If your alternative does not make specific predictions that might distinguish it from evolution, it is not a useful scientific model.
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:What is "better" based on? Comparative analysis. A popular example: Tiger woods had Lasik which improved his eyesight to 20/15.
Indeed that is my specific question to you... what exactly is better? and how does it impact everything else?
If nothing else, he seems to be a pretty good golfer
. I don't know every part of his life personally, but I haven't heard of any negative impacts of this type of surgery (besides the obvious surgical complications).
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:lol, I was going from a functional standpoint... Not why/how they develop. All humans are based on the same default genes, this is a given. Modifications of this genetic default state equates to the differences between males and females. These modifications aren't only made on the X and Y chromosomes. The SRY gene on the Y chromosome acts as a signal to set the developmental pathway towards maleness. In a simple sense, this gene determines whether certain genes on other chromosomes are "switched on/off." I don't know, if I was a designer, I wouldn't see the need to keep the nipples "switched on." (I could be mistaken obviously).
The concept here would be that muscles need bones to form properly, so in essence the nipple structure may have some relevance to begin other structural formations.
Keep in mind here that if something has no positive affect on an organism then its loss would have no effect. Thus, it would be a cost savings to eliminate it. So rationally speaking the fact that it is always persisting in the male structure means it has positive value in its continued existence and this question should never arise as a question of why a designer applied them in this instance.
Notice when you say "if I was a designer, I wouldn't see the need to keep the nipples "switched on." you are making a determination of a structural necessity based soley on what you do know. The problem of course is that you don't know the entire story of structural formation. A test that I could conceive of here would be along the lines of a knockout experiment where you could 'switch' off the nipples and see if everything still structurally forms correctly. I would also point out that this is entirely dependant on there being a switch available.
So a designer
may have put them there for some use unknown to us. How is this not an argument from ignorance? Obviously we can't "switch off" nipples on male human beings in a test situation for ethical reasons. That said: //
www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/05/4241/ucsf-cre ... e-switches
If you want a good example of altering these things with little to no detrimental health affects to the organism, watch the Ted talk I posted earlier about chickens.
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:Interesting. I stand corrected. Do you have an explanation for the leg bones in whales (from page one). I proposed the question a while back (not directed at you) and have yet to get an answer. Just curious.
Look we are both intelligent beings here. There was no need for me to produce the reference to the tailbone functionality. You could look all this up yourself and not depend on other to find it for you. If you are really interested in understanding something do a bit of research prior to posting and save yourself the wasted time in discussion. These type of questions and arguements are pretty much propaganda points that are typically restated ad nauseum as an attempt to make an opponent in a debate appear less than logical. But really are you trying to win a debate or gain understanding?
So, in reference to the question you pose "Do you have an explanation for the leg bones in whales" I can simply answer "what leg bones" I can honestly say that I have not observed one whale with legs yet. therefore I would not expect there to be leg bones. If you interpret some bone formation within the structure of the whale as a leg bone then I would of necessity ask how you derived that concept?. Bones come in many shapes and sizes for a mechanical reason. If you don't 'know' that reason then you can hypothsize what ever you can imagine but don't assume that everyone is going to agree with your imagination.
I fail to see how spending vast amounts of time researching a position from your point of view to get an understanding of what you might think of the subject, and instead I ask you directly is irrational. When I don't know a question about a field I'm unfamiliar with, I ask a supposed expert. I guess you could classify this as a discussion. Not a debate. Although it has qualities that make it appear like a debate, I would say it's lacking in some other qualities/formality. Regardless, this seems irrelevant.
I have posted the citation with a whale found with legs (some with toe digits). Obviously whales are hard to find to begin with. The one in the citation was discovered back when whaling was still legal. Saying they aren't legs is like pointing to the snake above and saying that's not a leg.
KBCid wrote:Pierson5 wrote:I understand what you are trying to say coming from an engineering perspective. This goes back to what I was saying about designer a posteriori. Do you have a list of converging evidence from a biological standpoint? Has this evidence been published? Perhaps start out slow and just give me one or two and we can go from there. I am genuinely curious.
Much of this perspective is in developing stages of realization as pertains to biology. There are several papers published in the past few years that have concluded that in order for a structure to form in a precise manner consistently requires 3 dimensional positioning control. I know I provided a link to this from a single scientific source but there are more that also touch on this necessity. The problem right now in biology is that they don't understand how the precise positioning is occuring, they are at the speculation stages on an understanding I have understood for many years now... It requires 4 reference points to precisely position structural formation components and there are no shortcuts. I'm sure you can do a search for spatial coordinates or the like and fish up some of the references that scientists have written but as I said they are at the dawning of understanding this basic mechanical engineering concept.
In 1995, Purdue University biomedical engineers Richard Borgens and Riyi Shi proposed that endogenous electric fields provide spatial coordinates for the establishment of embryonic pattern.
You can watch some of the magic happen in real time from this video but again it is an observation that is not yet empirically defined. They just know that 3 dimensional spatial control occurs //
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULjzX__OM
So, biologists don't know exactly what's going on, but humans/engineers are able to build structures with 3 dimensional positioning control. Therefore designer? I still don't see any publications coming to that conclusion. Aren't you "jumping the gun" a little?
KBCid wrote:KBCid wrote:Evolutions engine of change presumed / assumed to be random mutation and natural selection over time is the process by which alleles change. All you need to do is prove that the changes are really random.
Pierson5 wrote:Not quite. As an analogy, I could say "I'm just as good as Phil Hellmuth at Texas Hold'em because all the cards are random."An ordered process can have random components. This is an expanding area in evolutionary biology, and we can get into it if you REALLY want to, but I don't see the point. I just want the evidence for the alternate theory.
I have already provided the dice analogy the shows why it is not random. If the variability within life is by design then it is not simply random mutation. It would then be controlled limited randomization. As anyone who studies evolution knows the concept of random mutation is not considered limited in how 'random mutations' can be. It is absolutely believed that RM + NS allows for every observable form of life hypothesized to have begun from the unproven single common ancestor of life. The concept of controlled randomization is in opposition to the current evolutionary belief.
And I have provided the card analogy to show it is not completely random. Randomness/chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but the fundamental role of natural selection is the exact opposite of random. Random, in the form of mutations (I also touched on this a little earlier in the post), provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
KBCid wrote:KBCid wrote:Evolution is the fairytale that adults use to assert that molecules can change bit by bit into any living thing they see.
Pierson5 wrote:And is supported by many convergent lines of evidence, which I have yet to see for ID. What does that make ID?
It is assumed to be supported by many lines of evidence which when closely scrutinized fails to deliver as actual evidence. This along with the lines of evidence being generated for ID makes ID a more plausible alternative.
When closely scrutinized by biologists in the field fails to deliver? Which is why the thousands of biologists (99% in the field) accept the scrutinized evidence? The only evidence I've seen so far for ID is some sort of analogy and argument from ignorance. "Science doesn't know the answer, but humans can design something similar, therefore ID."
KBCid wrote:Strangely there are more variations of life than ever before in existence right now and logically they are all in some stage of macro evolution so why can't we see some of them perform this barrier crossing point where new information is added to a life form and it is able to better survive?
What?
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
//
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC167468/
Gman wrote:Pierson5 wrote:
Yep, I guess I just have to keep rephrasing everything i say a bunch of times.
All you have provided is mindless dribble.. Very sad... I can't believe how easy it is to debate this stuff.
Sure, it's easy when you are using fallacious logic to argue your case
Gman wrote:Pierson5 wrote:
Again, as I have stated many, many times. I don't care if you do not accept the evidence for evolution. It is good enough for the many thousands of professionals in the scientific community. You can believe whatever you want to believe. We aren't getting into this again. What I care about are the ones who say "Evolution is false, but Intelligent Design is true." Many of these people think it's necessary to skip the whole scientific process and go directly to court to get their idea taught in school. If you fall into that ballpark, post the evidence for ID. If you can't, we don't have anything to talk about.
"I don't care" are not scientific terms... Just because a "so called" scientific community" accepts it doesn't mean anything if they can't cop to their scientific bias. Frankly don't I think they are very professional about it. Having a PHD or a MCD in something doesn't mean that they have all the answers either. Many times they are handicapped in their thinking. Also I never said that evolution was false nor did I ever say that ID was true. As far as I'm concerned both are "faith" based.
What? I never said it was a scientific term. If you are posting something irrelevant, then I don't care. I've gone over degrees of faith with you.
You are correct. Having a PhD doesn't make them correct. See page 1 about the argument from authority. If you don't have evidence for the side opposing evolution, this thread isn't for you.
KBCid wrote:KBCid wrote:And each of these concepts were accompanied by the scientific evidence that refuted them. The fact is that each of them was revealed in school. The place where children should be given all the concepts and all the evidence for or against them and then the children could make a determination for what they would accept as truth.
sandy_mcd wrote: Really? The teachers just gave you the evidence and let you decide what was true? Totally unbiased?
I had fairly cool teachers who typically encouraged thinking. I was not told to simply accept anything. One of my teachers even went so far as to say that even though the current evidence seems to refute something there is a possibility that new evidence can overturn an old refutation. She knew her stuff. A good teacher encourages students to study the rationales that caused historic occurances and not simply to accept anything that other humans say. Of course I'm sure there are a great variety of teachers and among them are the evolutionists and the atheist who by their method present things differently.
However, the point I made is valid. Even refuted theories were taught in school. Theories that most anyone would agree are not true. So real science isn't about only teaching what is currently assumed to be valid, it covers the whole spectrum from invalid to validated and was accompanied by evidence used for those rationales. Of course there was one theory that wasn't available during that time... Intelligent design, it took a little time to evolve.
If you want your theory taught in school, all you have to do is convince the scientific community that your theory has some merit. When invalid theories get overturned, it's due to conflicting
evidence. Provide the evidence for ID. If it holds up to scientific scrutiny, not only will you win the Nobel prize and become incredibly famous, but your theory will now be taught in school. Arguments from ignorance and incredulity are not evidence.
Phew, I think that's everything. Sandy covered a lot, but I may have missed some.
). It wasn't to show a slam dunk for evolution, merely to show that it is ridiculous to think they are anything other than legs/hip bones. 