Intelligent Design - Are we ready for a new thread?

[LeadBolt]

It takes no less faith to believe in random selection than it does in intelligent design.

[Chizzang]

So the fact that a chimpanzee and a human are (approximately) 96% identical means nothing..?
Even the biblical apologists who have spent millions and millions of dollars modelling their own genetic Chimp vs. Humans studies are forced to concede no less than 96%



Have you read the book "Who moved my cheese?" if not - you should...

It's actually 98.7% of non junk DNA. What does that tell you?

By the way, Bessie the Cow and you are 80% similar. I'm going to squeeze your udders later.

All Mammals are at least 72% identical (Excluding bats and marsupials)
And I haven't seen the "Cow Report" but I'm sure the God Squad is deep into financing a project to fuzzy things up as much as possible

[CID1990]

You know, the evolutionists quit the whole "missing link" concept back in the middle of the last century

You ID'ers need to get with the program

There are no missing links, because they aren't missing. There are no hard divides between one species and other, similar species.

[Grizalltheway]

It takes no less faith to believe in random selection than it does in intelligent design.

Bullshit.

[Chizzang]

It takes no less faith to believe in random selection than it does in intelligent design.

Bullshit.

I'm not sure on this one yet...
I think as long as both tirelessly work to find the truth - then - that could be a true statement
But if one (or the other) is simply a means to say: "God did it" then we're stopping short

Whatever god did - or didn't do - should never impede the search for truth
After all it's possible that the more we learn about the universe
and the scientific mysteries - we might actually be getting closer to God (not farther away)

It is ONLY the fear of the Bible becoming irrelevant or at best peripheral that keeps ID afloat
If the TRUTH really mattered what would we all believe..?

[Wedgebuster]

So...what is the point?

[Chizzang]

welcome home... Obiwan

[SeattleGriz]

To answer your question about grants and there being enough money out there no matter what you are researching, as long as you make your results known.

It has to do with the fact that evolution has been so entrenched in the science community that there are those that see the shortcomings of the "making the data" fit, they are willing to give money elsewhere to try and prove evolution needs more than just mutation and natural selection.

Why would this site be starting up?

These guys seem to have some respectable degrees.

http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. There is a need for a more open “third way” of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations.

[SeattleGriz]

It's actually 98.7% of non junk DNA. What does that tell you?

By the way, Bessie the Cow and you are 80% similar. I'm going to squeeze your udders later.

All Mammals are at least 72% identical (Excluding bats and marsupials)
And I haven't seen the "Cow Report" but I'm sure the God Squad is deep into financing a project to fuzzy things up as much as possible

72%. Geez, if I was in Intelligent Creator, I would use the same substance to create everything.

On the evolution side, this 72% means we can construct a tree of life by comparing the phylogenies? Or to take a bit from JMU DJ, he said his friend told him it more accurately should be like a spider web, not a tree.

[SeattleGriz]

You know, the evolutionists quit the whole "missing link" concept back in the middle of the last century

You ID'ers need to get with the program

There are no missing links, because they aren't missing. There are no hard divides between one species and other, similar species.

That has got to be the biggest line of shit you have ever said. I have to believe you are kidding.

So we just made the jump from our predecessor to humans and chimpanzees without any distinctions?

Maybe they try to give it up because the fossil record has huge gaps and they have no clue for the Cambrian explosion.

[Vidav]

You know, the evolutionists quit the whole "missing link" concept back in the middle of the last century

You ID'ers need to get with the program

There are no missing links, because they aren't missing. There are no hard divides between one species and other, similar species.

That has got to be the biggest line of shit you have ever said. I have to believe you are kidding.

So we just made the jump from our predecessor to humans and chimpanzees without any distinctions?

Maybe they try to give it up because the fossil record has huge gaps and they have no clue for the Cambrian explosion.

He is right. They are small changes. Not a jump without distinctions. There are no missing links. If you don't understand that you can't properly argue about evolution.

[SeattleGriz]

That has got to be the biggest line of shit you have ever said. I have to believe you are kidding.

So we just made the jump from our predecessor to humans and chimpanzees without any distinctions?

Maybe they try to give it up because the fossil record has huge gaps and they have no clue for the Cambrian explosion.

He is right. They are small changes. Not a jump without distinctions. There are no missing links. If you don't understand that you can't properly argue about evolution.

I get that. My point is we have plenty of distinct fossils of different species, but very little that shows the gradual changes you speak of.

In fact that is what punctuated equilibrium is about - another band aid applied to the fossil record to try and answer why we don't find the gradual changes.

Not trying to be a wise ass here, but what is so far fetched with our DNA somehow doubling and a brand new species arises. That is an absurd example, but it does fit the story of distinct species suddenly arising, living and the dying out without any record of gradual changes to or from.

This has been my whole point. So many instances where evidence does not support the theory, but still gets crammed in through a ton of highly unlikely scenarios. Let's start barking up a new tree and get back to science. And no I am not saying the whole field is that way.

[LeadBolt]

I've always wondered how life made the jump from single celled animals in the primordial soup to multi-celled animals where the cells had specialized purposes. How did they randomly get together and decide who which cell would be the eye, which the ear and which the asshole, etc.?

[SeattleGriz]

I've always wondered how life made the jump from single celled animals in the primordial soup to multi-celled animals where the cells had specialized purposes. How did they randomly get together and decide who which cell would be the eye, which the ear and which the asshole, etc.?

Silly question. That has been known for years! Damn empirical evidence. Next you can expect the simpletons to step in and tell you how dumb you are.

Beware of those who proclaim whale evolution as irrefutable and quote Galapagos finch PDFs from the web as proof. Classic douchebaggery!!!

[Vidav]

I've always wondered how life made the jump from single celled animals in the primordial soup to multi-celled animals where the cells had specialized purposes. How did they randomly get together and decide who which cell would be the eye, which the ear and which the asshole, etc.?

Silly question. That has been known for years! Damn empirical evidence. Next you can expect the simpletons to step in and tell you how dumb you are.

Beware of those who proclaim whale evolution and quote Galapagos finch PDFs.

Seriously though. These questions only serve to show how little you guys understand evolution. You may think you are clever but really you are showing ignorance.

[SeattleGriz]

Silly question. That has been known for years! Damn empirical evidence. Next you can expect the simpletons to step in and tell you how dumb you are.

Beware of those who proclaim whale evolution and quote Galapagos finch PDFs.

Seriously though. These questions only serve to show how little you guys understand evolution. You may think you are clever but really you are showing ignorance.

Sure it was tongue in cheek, but since you have said we are ignorant, please give us a BRIEF summation of how we evolved from primordial soup to organ specialization.

You should be able to do that eh?

I do appreciate your joining of the thread. No dickishness here.

[LeadBolt]

Silly question. That has been known for years! Damn empirical evidence. Next you can expect the simpletons to step in and tell you how dumb you are.

Beware of those who proclaim whale evolution and quote Galapagos finch PDFs.

Seriously though. These questions only serve to show how little you guys understand evolution. You may think you are clever but really you are showing ignorance.

Laugh much? Seriously, do you understand the difference between intelligent design and creationism? ID does not either confirm nor deny either evolution or creationism, right?

Francis S. Collins, who headed the Human Genome Project for 15 years explained the case for intelligent design in theistic evolution fairly well in "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" if you confuse creationism and id.

[JMU DJ]

All Mammals are at least 72% identical (Excluding bats and marsupials)
And I haven't seen the "Cow Report" but I'm sure the God Squad is deep into financing a project to fuzzy things up as much as possible

72%. Geez, if I was in Intelligent Creator, I would use the same substance to create everything.

On the evolution side, this 72% means we can construct a tree of life by comparing the phylogenies? Or to take a bit from JMU DJ, he said his friend told him it more accurately should be like a spider web, not a tree.

You can use phylogenetics to show distant relationships, yes. As for the tree, it's not something a friend told me, it's biologist. Spiderwebs, bushes, networks, etc is the way it's being discussed (I believe) from the evolutionary/phylogenetic picture.

[CID1990]

Seriously though. These questions only serve to show how little you guys understand evolution. You may think you are clever but really you are showing ignorance.

Sure it was tongue in cheek, but since you have said we are ignorant, please give us a BRIEF summation of how we evolved from primordial soup to organ specialization.

You should be able to do that eh?

I do appreciate your joining of the thread. No dickishness here.

We want to see your evidence of the guiding hand first

[SeattleGriz]

Sure it was tongue in cheek, but since you have said we are ignorant, please give us a BRIEF summation of how we evolved from primordial soup to organ specialization.

You should be able to do that eh?

I do appreciate your joining of the thread. No dickishness here.

We want to see your evidence of the guiding hand first

No, no, no. Evolution first. It is the "consensus', so it has to have this nailed down. Evolution has had since what...1858 to refine it's thoughts. Besides, I already stated I believe God is the Intelligent Agent and know that won't be proven. I know that is a cop out, but there are many others that do believe a new natural law will be exposed that will give us direction.

In regards to the evolutionary path, I'll save you time and submit that the Neo-Darwinist view, after 164 years cannot be proven and is constantly being revised. The one piece I will agree with, is that science does self correct and we will eventually figure this out.

But it will be a shame that the Neo-Darwinist crowd will chime in that "they were right all along", when in fact they had to change their path a ridiculous amount of times...like now. Evolution of the gaps is rampant in this field.

[SeattleGriz]

72%. Geez, if I was in Intelligent Creator, I would use the same substance to create everything.

On the evolution side, this 72% means we can construct a tree of life by comparing the phylogenies? Or to take a bit from JMU DJ, he said his friend told him it more accurately should be like a spider web, not a tree.

You can use phylogenetics to show distant relationships, yes. As for the tree, it's not something a friend told me, it's biologist. Spiderwebs, bushes, networks, etc is the way it's being discussed (I believe) from the evolutionary/phylogenetic picture.

If you have a chance, what do you make of this? Bolded below. Dropping data because it doesn't fit into conventional wisdom? Not sure, but I don't know of any experiments that can get away with that. This is what we are getting out of the phylogeny field?

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.0040352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three observations generally hold true across metazoan datasets that indicate the pervasive influence of homoplasy at these evolutionary depths. First, a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality. For example, Wolf and colleagues [9] omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom (Figure 2D). Second, in all studies, a large fraction of characters—genes, PICs or RGCs—disagree with the optimal phylogeny, indicating the existence of serious conflict in the DNA record. For example, the majority of PICs conflict with the optimal topology in the Dopazo and Dopazo study [10]. Third, the conflict among these and other studies in metazoan phylogenetics [11,12] is occurring at very “high” taxonomic levels—above or at the phylum level.