You are not logged in.
Well, I suppose I can't debate with irrational people like you.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Online
The feelings Mutual.
How dare you compare me to CyberEnforcer and lschl13?
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Online
You may like the concept or promise of the ID movement but it's hard to compare it with the theory of evolution at the moment.
Even the founder of the modern ID movement, Philip Johnson, has said that ID doesnt have a scientific theory yet, while TOE is a "fully worked out scheme". He goes on to say that ID doesnt have a "product" ready to compete in the educational market.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
Overview here but there is a pdf from the Berkeley Science Review online somewhere. I just lost the link.
Offline
You may like the concept or promise of the ID movement but it's hard to compare it with the theory of evolution at the moment.
Even the founder of the modern ID movement, Philip Johnson, has said that ID doesnt have a scientific theory yet, while TOE is a "fully worked out scheme". He goes on to say that ID doesnt have a "product" ready to compete in the educational market.
TOE says nothing about the origin of life, only how it got from one form or another. Thats kind of important.
Though technically neither does ID, it intentionally avoids that, though it's implied by the source. But ID basically is the TOE with the implication that there is a greater purpose behind the forces that drive it.
That we too can now drive it with a greater purpose has far greater implications than some blind religious and political communities are willing to admit.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Johnson was referring to the TOE, which doesnt cover abiogenesis, of course. But the point of his quote was to say that no, they don't have a theory yet capable of competing with the TOE. He's being pretty honest about it here. He also goes on to say that they wont be getting into public schools any time soon after the disaster at Dover. The Discovery Institute didnt even back that move as it was clearly a loser from a legal standpoint.
Offline
ID basically is the TOE with the implication that there is a greater purpose behind the forces that drive it.
Is it really? Isn't a God of the Gaps even less satisfying that Creationism? At least "Let there be light" has poetry. This whole "scientists can't explain that, so God did it" and then, when science explains that, "well ... you still can't explain this different thing, so God did it instead." I mean it is just embarrassing. They are shooting themselves in the foot by making God just another name for ignorance.
Fan of [url=http://www.red-oasis.com/]Red Oasis[/url]
Offline
I think it's hard to say what ID is exactly because they have their big tent model. Many of the "ID" supporters you meet online are just young earth creationists who use the ID name to get themselves another hearing. They start off ID, ID, ID, and then 3 minutes in are telling you the universe is 6k old. heh.
But at the highest levels it is more of an "evolution assisted by god" type of thing. I know behe admits common descent, not sure about the others.
Offline
One of the key ID arguments is that there's a glaring lack of fossil evidence for the failed mutations that would have been necessary to produce the species that were successfully selected by their environment. Given the wasteful nature of evolution, there should be vast numbers of unsuccessful offspring. So where are they?
On reflection the answer may be clear. There are no intermediary species, that's why there are no fossils. Every living organism belongs to a species, offspring are always slightly different due to mutation and genetic variation however when they die, they are essentially still the same species. Fossils won't show these tiny changes in each individual or they simply appear as variations in the same species. When sufficient changes occur in a subset of a species it's unable to interbreed with the rest of the species and a new species appears, so there is no intermediate species.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Meh, fossils aren't a very likely thing to happen. It requires very specific conditions. Tyrannosaurs where a pretty successful species that lasted millions of years, but we have only a few complete specimens.
If a mutation is very unfavourable, that species isn't going to last very long. It will be probably be weeded out before it even gets a chance to be fossilized.
What can be seen from the fossil record is that before humans, several species were gradually becoming more like homo sapiens and less like more primitive primates (like Chimpanzees) All those species aren't around anymore!
Do the ID'ers want to explain why I still have an appendix?
Offline
Tyrannosaurs where a pretty successful species that lasted millions of years, but we have only a few complete specimens.
What! You're saying I've been believing that T-rexs exist but there are only a few complete specemins?
On reflection the answer may be clear. There are no intermediary species, that's why there are no fossils. Every living organism belongs to a species, offspring are always slightly different due to mutation and genetic variation however when they die, they are essentially still the same species. Fossils won't show these tiny changes in each individual or they simply appear as variations in the same species. When sufficient changes occur in a subset of a species it's unable to interbreed with the rest of the species and a new species appears, so there is no intermediate species.
Those differences should show up in the fossil record.
Please explain the Cambrian explosian to me. Remember that one? Lasted 5 million or less years (the time limit given for Humans and Chimps to diverge) and produced 20-35 of all phyla in the world. Now, since we have fossils telling us what life was like in the precambrian, why don't we have fossils of vertebrates there? They are much more likely to be preserved than Jellyfish. We have fossils of Jellyfish, where are the Fish?
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Online
This makes me yawn.
Yep , I want some.
Vincent
Argument expected.
I don't require agreement when presenting new ideas.
-Dana Johnson
Offline