How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


125 posted 01-16-2006 11:11 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
But I was asking you to give me examples of what may lie between asexual and sexual reproduction


And my point is that they developed concurrently. There ain't nothing in between because one did not develop from the other.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


126 posted 01-17-2006 12:47 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Reb:
quote:
Not so.  The majority that ruled on a flat Earth did so not on the basis of evidence but upon the basis of dogma.  It isn't, necessarily, ludicrous for uneducated masses to follow the dictates of the powerful.



And that is my main contention with Neo-Darwinism, that it is much more "dogma" than science.  I'll be demonstrating that soon enough in a separate post.  


quote:
The reason falsification is the measure of science is because scientists always seek to falsify, or prove wrong, a concept rather than attempting to prove it right.  If they can prove it wrong, then it is wrong.  If they can't prove it wrong then it is a conditionally operative explanation of the observed events/phenomenon based on repetition and duplication of results.



Macroevolution, by nature is beyond the pale of proof / disproof ... unless you know someone with a couple of billion years to spare.  And the "evidence" for it is tenuous.  Again, more dogma than science.


quote:
The micro macro issue has been asked and answered already in this thread.



Answered?  You mean the distinction has been merely denied.  That's convenient.  I guess that means, since bacteria become drug resistant, we can assume a light-sensitive spot became a seeing eye over billions of years.  Big assumption.  Just because random mutation, and natural selection, works on small scale changes, it can't be extrapolated that such explains all the variation and complexity we see.


It's actually a bit underhanded to call small-scale changes in populations "evolution", then, once people believe in that process, to say that it covers quite different phenomenon (in scope and variety).  


If evolution merely means that genetic mutations cause some organisms to fail, and become disadvantaged in the race for life ... then I too believe in "evolution".  But obscurantism, is to blur the distinctions, and to always talk as generally as possible, so as not to alert people to the very distinct and complex nature of the issues at hand.


quote:
There is no controversy in the scientific/biological field over whether or not speciation occurs.



Only because common ancestry is taken for granted.  Therefore the mere existence of different species, is said to prove that such a thing happened.  That's the way I've heard evolutionists describe it for the longest, and just recently Brad said something like that too.  But the mere existence of species, with homologous parts, does not prove that species evolved from one into another.    

quote:
It certainly is... more importantly in preventing and predicting them.  Such as the potential evolution of the bird flu into a human to human pathogen.  Or in the case of the Ebola outbreak in Zaire where Paul Ewald was able to predict that it would fizzle out on its own.  Try to separate evolution from biology.



Again, if you mean by "evolution", genetic change within organisms .... I am a full fledged evolutionist.  You're making a straw man.  I've never tried to separate that kind of process, from biology.  Nor have ID scientists, that I'm aware of.  
Brad:  
quote:
And my point is that they developed concurrently. There ain't nothing in between because one did not develop from the other.



And my point is that science holds no plausible record of development at all, regardless of whether "concurrent" or otherwise.  If sexual reproduction developed seperately from asexual reproduction, then describe (in detail) the steps of it's development.


Oh, and if you believe in common ancestry, don't you have to believe that sexual reproduction developed from asexual reproduction?  


Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


127 posted 01-17-2006 10:38 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Doesn't change the fact that moths really did change color (over generations) to more closely resemble soot during the industrial revolution. When the pollution disappeared, they changed color again.


But Brad, that's not the whole story is it?


quote:
Most textbooks fail to mention, however, that the peppered moth story began to unravel in the 1960s, when biologists noticed that dark moths were unexpectedly plentiful in some unpolluted locations. When anti-pollution legislation led to cleaner air in the 1970s, light-colored moths made a comeback; but, contrary to theory, the comeback occurred without corresponding changes in tree trunks. Then, in the 1980s, biologists realized that peppered moths almost never rest on tree trunks (as Kettlewell wrongly supposed when he initially released the moths onto tree trunks, creating atypical conditions). Instead, these night-flying insects probably spend their days hiding underneath horizontal branches high up in the trees, where they can't be seen.

In 1998, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote: "From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong." According to Coyne, the fact that peppered moths rarely rest on tree trunks "alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-and-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks." Coyne concluded that this "prize horse in our stable of examples" of natural selection "is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention" (Nature, Nov. 5, 1998).  (From "The Peppered Myth" By Jonathan Wells)



Stephen.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


128 posted 01-17-2006 05:49 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Stephen,

You're all over the place there. Okay, we should probably start another thread because the questions your asking and the assumptions behind them need a lot of space and time (Quite possibly years given my time limitations these days ).

Three quick questions:

1. How do you define sexual and asexual reproduction? (Don't laugh, it's a trickier question than you might think.)

2. From what point to what point am I supposed to start and end this (detailed) description?

3. What exactly do you think common descent is?

And believe me that's just the beginning.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


129 posted 01-17-2006 08:30 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

To readers, participants, and those just looking at the pictures -- if I don't address something that is not an indication that it is correct -- it is either out of the scope of discussion or beyond my ability to address in a succinct posting at present (it takes time to be brief)

quote:

And that is my main contention with Neo-Darwinism, that it is much more "dogma" than science.  I'll be demonstrating that soon enough in a separate post.  




Stephen... true or false -- through any two points there is exactly one line.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


130 posted 01-17-2006 09:20 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Stephanos,


“But to protest, "criticizing the opposition" as you do, seems to me another telltale sign of a devotee.”

Criticism is a valid tool when backed by evidence but criticism alone cannot be offered, and indeed shouldn’t be taken, to be the sole basis of a viable theory, oh and btw I think you’ve labelled me wrong; I’m more a devotee of nothing in particular (apart from the truth) – a soft sceptic by any other name.

My reason for asking for a clear explanation of ID theory without reference to Evolutionary theory was to point out that ID isn’t really an independent theory; it’s almost entirely a construct of evolutionary critique. I don’t make that claim from ignorance of the subject either, my bookshelf contains more books on creationism and ID theory than evolution, I fervently believe Dawkins would have served his cause better if he’d have said:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in something without examining the evidence for AND against, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)".

Every opinion or theory has a counter opinion or theory whether it’s evolution, abortion, the death penalty or book of the year. Before I comment on anything I like to know both sides of the argument to the point where I can, in most circumstances, argue for or against either side (and often do). Debating from both sides is a useful exercise and a sure way of seeing the flaws or strengths of a particular argument, in this case I could just as easily have argued against evolution. However, I don’t believe I could construct a reasonable argument FOR ID without it degrading into a simple critique of evolution or a defensive retreat into the bunker of belief commonly referred to as the “God made it” syndrome.

I could use irreducible complexity but that’s an old argument and resurrecting the watchmaker doesn’t get us any closer to the ‘how’ of anything whether eyes, ears flagellum or mousetraps are used as examples and that’s the difference between ID and evolution I was trying to highlight. One says this is a theory of ‘how’ and the evidence that supports it and the other says this is a theory of ‘who’ and the evidence against the other theory.

You keep mentioning the ‘wedge’, obviously you know the significance of the term and it’s relevance to IDT, perhaps it would be worthwhile explaining the relevance – understanding the motives and history behind IDT is essential if you want to understand the issue as a whole. I fear if I explained it I’d be accused of being biased  (or an uneducated devotee) – could you (or anyone else) post a short synopsis for people who are unaware of the wedge?


"However, I am not even sure that we (at PIP) can debate the intricacies of microbiology enough to evaluate Michael Behe's ideas ... or that we can meaningfully evaluate whether or not Dembski's "explanatory filter" is valid."

Michael Behe, Dawkins and the like write for the masses, including the masses at PIP, their explanations and ideas are written so we can understand and debate them, I don’t doubt for a minute that you or anyone else posting here is capable of understanding them.

My 15 year old son understood Dembski’s filter when I explained it:

(1) Does a law explain it?
(2) Does chance explain it?
(3) Does design explain it?

He suggested it wasn’t valid as an argument for ID claiming the filter only worked if evolutionary theory was assumed to be incorrect (it begs the question). I tend to agree, assume for a second that evolutionary theory is correct and run it through the filter number 3 has to be resounding NO.

BTW my son wants to point out that he actually said “ I dunno it depends on if evolution is right or not” apparently my poetic license made him sound like a dork.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors