falsification of evolution

[jeafl]

I brought up the topic of the falsification of evolution in the thread on Archaeopteryx. A link to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html was posed in reply. I give here a brief analysis of this link.

Prediction 1.1: The fundamental unity of life
According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past.

Since evolutionists have yet to show how living things originated through abiogenesis (they have not even fully documented what the earth’s abiotic conditions were), how do we know that every living thing now extant came from a single primordial species? What proof do we have that living things originated on just one occasion and in just one place?

And just how would the Darwinian prediction that everything is descended from a single primordial species be falsified? What would Darwinists take as evidence that there were not multiple primordial species?

In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life.

And these criteria are not subjective? Haven’t Darwinists based their definition of life on what they have observed in nature rather than creating a definition and then seeing what parts of nature meet that definition?

Darwinists see a correspondence between the arms of a man and the fore-flippers of a whale or the wings of a bird. But, where is the independent, unbiased authority that can say the correspondence is merely illusory- or the product of a common design by an intelligent creator?

Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism).

This a bare minimum definition of life. You can find much more extensive definitions in many freshman biology textbooks.

And shouldn’t # 3 be included within #4?

If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion).

If every living species descended from an identical created species (or an identical genus depending on how you interpret the “kind” of Genesis), shouldn’t the living species have these four obligate functions?

Again, what would a Darwinist accept as evidence that common life processes are the result of common intelligent design and creation, rather than evolution?
Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.

Again, why does common characteristics mandate evolution, but not creation by a common intelligent designer?

The structures that all known organisms use to perform these four basic processes are all quite similar, in spite of the odds. All known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions. Organic chemists have synthesized hundreds of different polymers, yet the only ones used by life, irrespective of species, are polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides. Regardless of the species, the DNA, RNA and proteins used in known living systems all have the same chirality, even though there are at least two chemically equivalent choices of chirality for each of these molecules. For example, RNA has four chiral centers in its ribose ring, which means that it has 16 possible stereoisomers—but only one of these stereoisomers is found in the RNA of known living organisms.

How does this exclusivity of biochemistry indicate evolution any more than it does intelligent design?

Ten years after the publication of The Origin of Species, nucleic acids were first isolated by Friedrich Miescher in 1869. It took another 75 years after this discovery before DNA was identified as the genetic material of life (Avery et al. 1944). It is quite conceivable that we could have found a different genetic material for each species.

Why? Why would we expect an intelligent designer to create different biochemicals for each species?

In fact, it is still possible that newly identified species might have unknown genetic materials.

And this would prove what?

In all known organisms, enzymatic catalysis is based on the abilities provided by protein molecules (and in relatively rare, yet important, cases by RNA molecules).

Base on what comes next in this article, the writer seems to understand the fact that DNA replication and transcription are dependent upon enzymes. But, enzymes are protein molecules. Protein molecule production is dependent upon biochemical reactions involving DNA and RNA. So where did the first enzymes come from? If you have to have DNA and RNA to make enzymes and you have to have enzymes to make DNA and RNA, how did the process get started?

Thousands of new species are discovered yearly, and new DNA and protein sequences are determined daily from previously unexamined species (Wilson 1992, Ch. 8).

Gee, according to the Algores of the World the earth is losing biodiversity.

At the current rate, which is increasing exponentially, over 20,000 new sequences are deposited at GenBank every day, amounting to over 34 million new bases sequenced every day. Each and every one is a test of the theory of common descent.

As opposed to common design by an intelligent creator?

Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material.

Intelligent design would not make the same prediction?

And isn’t this Darwinian prediction based on observations? I though a good scientific theory was supposed to be able to predict things before the real-word evidence is known. Aren’t the Darwinists simply adapting their theory to fit the observed data?

In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 1070 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code (Yockey 1992).

Again I ask why would a common genetic code indicate common descent any more than it does common design?

And suppose that the earth’s living things did include non-nucleic acid genomes at one time. If the nucleic acid genomes are superior, wouldn’t Darwin’s natural selection have eliminated all other genomes? Would the discovery of non-nucleic acid genomes in fossils be a confirmation of Darwinism rather than a falsification of the theory?

And if we did find living species with non-nucleic acid genomes, and if such species were rare, couldn’t evolutionists simply conclude that they are in the process being driven to extinction by natural selection? How would the discovery of such species not be confirmation of evolution rather than falsification thereof?

This possibility could be extremely useful for organisms, as it would preclude interspecific viral infections.

Only if you assume than the existence of non-nucleic acid genomes would not also come with the existence of non-nucleic acid viruses.

However, this has not been observed, and the theory of common descent effectively prohibits such an observation.

Why common descent and not common design?

As another example, nine new lemur and two marmoset species (all primates) were discovered in the forests of Madagascar and Brazil in 2000 (Groves 2000; Rasoloarison et al. 2000; Thalmann and Geissmann 2000). Ten new monkey species have been discovered in Brazil alone since 1990 (Van Roosmalen et al. 2000). Nothing in biology prevents these various species from having a hitherto unknown genetic material or a previously unused genetic code—nothing, that is, except for the theory of common descent.

Any not also common design?

Finally, many molecules besides ATP could serve equally well as the common currency for energy in various species (CTP, TTP, UTP, ITP, or any ATP-like molecule with one of the 293 known amino acids or one of the dozens of other bases replacing the adenosine moiety immediately come to mind). Discovering any new animals or plants that contained any of the anomalous examples proffered above would be potential falsifications of common ancestry, but they have not been found.

Have they not been found because of common descent or have they not been found because none were created?

I am hesitant to continue my analysis of this article, since I doubt that what comes next will be any better thought out or reasoned or supported by the observed facts than what has come heretofore. If any evolutionist here can do any better, please do so.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeafl I brought up the topic of the falsification of evolution in the thread on Archaeopteryx. A link to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html was posed in reply. I give here a brief analysis of this link. Prediction 1.1: The fundamental unity of life According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. Since evolutionists have yet to show how living things originated through abiogenesis (they have not even fully documented what the earth’s abiotic conditions were), how do we know that every living thing now extant came from a single primordial species? What proof do we have that living things originated on just one occasion and in just one place? And just how would the Darwinian prediction that everything is descended from a single primordial species be falsified? What would Darwinists take as evidence that there were not multiple primordial species?

Darwinian Theory is no longer the current explanation. As more is learned the explanations change. It is not obvious that there was a single initial species of single celled life. However at that level there was a lot of cross exchange of genetic material. We haven't found any life on the earth that doesn't use some form of DNA as part of its basic operation.

In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. And these criteria are not subjective? Haven’t Darwinists based their definition of life on what they have observed in nature rather than creating a definition and then seeing what parts of nature meet that definition?

Life is the phenomena. ToE is part of the explanation. There is no complete explanation. But that is the case in all areas of scientific investigation. There are still millions of scientists continuing to explore and explain all aspects of reality, not just life. ToE just happens to be the best scientific explanation to date when it comes to explaining most of the natural history of life on the planet. Not all of it but most of it. That is a span of some 4 billion years. That is a pretty good theory in scientific terms.

Darwinists see a correspondence between the arms of a man and the fore-flippers of a whale or the wings of a bird. But, where is the independent, unbiased authority that can say the correspondence is merely illusory- or the product of a common design by an intelligent creator?

What would be needed to verify that it was designed would be a copy of the original plans. Do you have a copy that shows how everything was supposed to be put together? And it is very funny how changes in species track changes in environment just as ToE would predict that they would. Where is the "design" in that? If the earth was designed then why ice ages? Why asteroid hits? Why changes from arid to tropical and back again? What is the design in that? Maybe there is some but I would have to see the plans. Do you have a copy of the plans that specifies the ice ages?

And what are Darwinists? Are they the similar to Newtonists? You make a distinction that may have meant something one hundred years ago but Darwin’s theory has been changed just as Newton’s theory has been changed. As more is learned the explanations change. No one is claiming that any of the scientific explanations are perfect, only that they are the best explanations to date.

Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). This a bare minimum definition of life. You can find much more extensive definitions in many freshman biology textbooks. And shouldn’t # 3 be included within #4?

Good question. Trying to figure out what constitues life is another area of scientific research. It is required for any abiogenesis explanation. Again it is a work in progress.

If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). If every living species descended from an identical created species (or an identical genus depending on how you interpret the “kind” of Genesis), shouldn’t the living species have these four obligate functions?

Your assumption many not be the case. What is known is that whatever number of starting life forms there where and whatever way they managed to come to be from non-living matter those that survived used many of the same internal biochemical reactions as are found in living creatures today. It is not out of the realm of possibility that early evolution was more a matter of combining complete single celled creatures than the mechanisms described in ToE. The mitochondrion is thought to have originally been a different bacterium that was incorporated into another bacterium. But in any case it was still change over time and variations in combinations of simple celled creatures can certainly be selected in an environment the same as multi-celled creatures can. But who knows what will be discovered. There are new discoveries being made every day.

Again, what would a Darwinist accept as evidence that common life processes are the result of common intelligent design and creation, rather than evolution?

The same evidence that some one would need to verify the claims of anyone who claimed that something was designed. They would have to produce the designer and the design. They would have to show that the design existed before life on earth. No one takes the claims of anyone on face value that claims to have designed something without at least this. Some require witnesses of the designer creating their design, photographs, original prototypes and so forth. Any ID advocate that can produce such things will have some evidence to back up their claims. However because it is an extraordinary claim it will require extraordinary evidence.

Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't explain why the structures stay the same. It explains why they change and how they change. But it is just an explanation. It is not perfect and there are many that are looking for better explanations. Just as scientists are doing for every area in science from geology to astronomy. It so happens that The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is the best explanation to date.

Again, why does common characteristics mandate evolution, but not creation by a common intelligent designer?

Because simply saying that life was designed doesn't explain much of anything. It doesn't allow you to predict how ecologies will change. It doesn't help you predict the fossil record. It doesn't explain eyes on creatures that live in deep subterranean caves. It doesn't explain millions of fossils that in succession show species changing radically over time. Fact is, other than feeling like maybe there may be a purpose to your life; ID scientifically is a useless idea. Right up there with the ether. Unless you can show a use for the ether the concept of the ether is tossed. You see the goal of science is to explore and explain reality, not to make people feel self important. If the results come in that existence is the result of completely mindless and uncontrolled mechanical processes then that is the way it is. It is not proper to lie to yourself and pretend that it is designed when it doesn't look designed at all, or if it is designed what exists looks like it has little to nothing to do with us. That would be dishonest.

I am detecting a pattern here so I am not going to repeat myself over and over again to the same misunderstandings of science and scientific explanations. So I will stop now.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

I am so bleeding tired of debating evolution. But since you are obviously well informed, and have intellegent points, I will address this thread.

Quote by: jeafl Prediction 1.1: The fundamental unity of life According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. Since evolutionists have yet to show how living things originated through abiogenesis (they have not even fully documented what the earth’s abiotic conditions were), how do we know that every living thing now extant came from a single primordial species? What proof do we have that living things originated on just one occasion and in just one place?

Two important points here:

(1) Evolution is not supposed to explain abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life changes, not how it came to be. Evolution only addresses life, not non-life. The theories of abiogenesis, panspermia, and even ex-nihilo creation are consistant with evolution. (Providing that only the most primitive bacteria were created ex-nihilo).

(2) We don't know/have proof that all life came from the same ancestor. In fact, we have evidance to the contrary. The theory of common decent is not exact. It is more conceptual that literal. If you look at the kingdoms of eubacteria, plantea, animalia, fingi and monera, it is almost certain that they are all from a common ancestor. The theory of common decent applies to nearly all of life, but there are a few notable exceptions. The kingdom of archeobacteria contains many anomolies. This kingdom represents to earliest formation of life, and it appears likely that it *does* in fact contain several independant derevations of life.

And just how would the Darwinian prediction that everything is descended from a single primordial species be falsified? What would Darwinists take as evidence that there were not multiple primordial species?

This isn't really valid because those well educated in the topic kow what I just said above. Those who aren't so well informed don't know about the other lines. It's an easy simplification to make since only one line was really succesfull.

In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. And these criteria are not subjective? Haven’t Darwinists based their definition of life on what they have observed in nature rather than creating a definition and then seeing what parts of nature meet that definition?

The definition of life is still debated. We don't have a good definition.

When you say "darwininsts" you act like you are talking about some special, small group. This is not the case. You are talking about scientists in general, and the tomes of research and knowledge they represent.

Darwinists see a correspondence between the arms of a man and the fore-flippers of a whale or the wings of a bird. But, where is the independent, unbiased authority that can say the correspondence is merely illusory- or the product of a common design by an intelligent creator?

What you are getting at is the differance between analogous and homologous evolution. Homologous is when they similar because they are related, analagous is when things are colse because they independantly reached the same purpose. Fins in fish and flippers in whales would be analagous. A whale flipper and my hand would be homologous. How do we know it is homology? Take the number of digits. Coincidance? Or how about the clear existance of seperate carpals and metacarples in the flipper? They act as if they are fused, but they are still seperate. This seperatio is useless - it is evidance of homology.

Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). This a bare minimum definition of life. You can find much more extensive definitions in many freshman biology textbooks. And shouldn’t # 3 be included within #4? If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). If every living species descended from an identical created species (or an identical genus depending on how you interpret the “kind” of Genesis), shouldn’t the living species have these four obligate functions? Again, what would a Darwinist accept as evidence that common life processes are the result of common intelligent design and creation, rather than evolution?

If the anatomy of animals made sence. Intellegent design would make the animals effecient right? There are inneficiancies that only make sence when described through evolution. I will give 2 examples. There are many more, but I am lazy, and this post is getting really bloody long.

(1) Pelvis in the whale. The whale has a small floating bone that is a vestigal pelvis. It serves absolutely *no* purpose. It just sits there. It is not big enough to give support. Would intellegent design put that there? Nope. Evolution is really good at leaving useless crap behind.

(2) Male Genetalia. Look at a cross-section view of male anatomy. Look for the vas deferans. It is a tube from the semilas vesical and prostate that dilivers semen to the penis. If you look at the pucture you will see how the vas deferens loop around the pubic bone very innfeciently. You can invision a much shorter path behind the pubic bone. This is the cause of many prostate problems when it gets pinched on the pubic bone. Would intellegent design do this? No. Evolution sure would. If you look at a dog or a horsen (or any quadraped) you will see that the genetalia are higher up on the pubic bone, situating the penis so that the path of the vas deferens makes much more sence. Evolution.

Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes. Again, why does common characteristics mandate evolution, but not creation by a common intelligent designer?

Similar charactaristics don't mandate evolution, you are right. What really proves the case are the subtle differences. If you look at a very important gene, like the cytocromes you can see that they very close to the same in all species. We call these highly conserved genes. If you sequence these genes in may animals, you can count the differences. Now if you arrange these organisms according to the number of differences, you can construct what is known as a phylogenetic tree. This tree shows how organisms appear to be related according to thier DNA sequence. This alone does not establish relativity, but then look and see how the physiology, and paleontology independantly establish the same tree of relativity. This is *very* strong evidance.

It is the dissimilarity that is very strong evidance. Remember the genes that have slight differences? Because of codon usage, stretches of DNA with slightly different sequences can code for the exact same protien. This means that even though the DNA is different, there is no functional change. Within the same codon, the DNA can cgange randomly and it makes no difference. Wouldn't intellegent design have used the same DNA to do the exact same thing?

The structures that all known organisms use to perform these four basic processes are all quite similar, in spite of the odds. All known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions. Organic chemists have synthesized hundreds of different polymers, yet the only ones used by life, irrespective of species, are polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides. Regardless of the species, the DNA, RNA and proteins used in known living systems all have the same chirality, even though there are at least two chemically equivalent choices of chirality for each of these molecules. For example, RNA has four chiral centers in its ribose ring, which means that it has 16 possible stereoisomers—but only one of these stereoisomers is found in the RNA of known living organisms. How does this exclusivity of biochemistry indicate evolution any more than it does intelligent design?

It does not. You are right, this point has no bearing in the evolution debate. Is is significant in the abiogenesis debate though.

Ten years after the publication of The Origin of Species, nucleic acids were first isolated by Friedrich Miescher in 1869. It took another 75 years after this discovery before DNA was identified as the genetic material of life (Avery et al. 1944). It is quite conceivable that we could have found a different genetic material for each species. Why? Why would we expect an intelligent designer to create different biochemicals for each species?

I don't see what you are getting at. It seems like speculation. The fact is that we *did* find the genetic material to be the chromatin.

In fact, it is still possible that newly identified species might have unknown genetic materials. And this would prove what?

Many things are possible. If we found that it would be *very* interesting. But I don't kow that it would affect the evolution debate.
[quote]
In all known organisms, enzymatic catalysis is based on the abilities provided by protein molecules (and in relatively rare, yet important, cases by RNA molecules).

[Prometheus]

continued...



Base on what comes next in this article, the writer seems to understand the fact that DNA replication and transcription are dependent upon enzymes. But, enzymes are protein molecules. Protein molecule production is dependent upon biochemical reactions involving DNA and RNA. So where did the first enzymes come from? If you have to have DNA and RNA to make enzymes and you have to have enzymes to make DNA and RNA, how did the process get started?[/quote]

We don't know how it started. That's why tons of scientists are working on abiogenesis research. Remember, that question is technically outside the realm of evolutioniary theory.

At the current rate, which is increasing exponentially, over 20,000 new sequences are deposited at GenBank every day, amounting to over 34 million new bases sequenced every day. Each and every one is a test of the theory of common descent. As opposed to common design by an intelligent creator?

This is an allusion to phylogeny. Phylogeny does clearly point to evolution as I explained above.

Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. Intelligent design would not make the same prediction?

True, this is a null-point.

And isn’t this Darwinian prediction based on observations? I though a good scientific theory was supposed to be able to predict things before the real-word evidence is known. Aren’t the Darwinists simply adapting their theory to fit the observed data?

Look at phylogeny. You could give the sequence to the hemoglobin gene from an animal. If you didn't tell me the animal it came from I could still tell you what it was related to. Other observations would bear out my prediction. The power of the theory comes from totally independant research from differing disciplines verifying prediction of relativity.

In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 1070 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code (Yockey 1992). Again I ask why would a common genetic code indicate common descent any more than it does common design?

Again, phylogeny.

As another example, nine new lemur and two marmoset species (all primates) were discovered in the forests of Madagascar and Brazil in 2000 (Groves 2000; Rasoloarison et al. 2000; Thalmann and Geissmann 2000). Ten new monkey species have been discovered in Brazil alone since 1990 (Van Roosmalen et al. 2000). Nothing in biology prevents these various species from having a hitherto unknown genetic material or a previously unused genetic code—nothing, that is, except for the theory of common descent. Any not also common design?

I agree, this scientist is making some silly claims. But his oversight does not discredit the theory of evolution.

Finally, many molecules besides ATP could serve equally well as the common currency for energy in various species (CTP, TTP, UTP, ITP, or any ATP-like molecule with one of the 293 known amino acids or one of the dozens of other bases replacing the adenosine moiety immediately come to mind). Discovering any new animals or plants that contained any of the anomalous examples proffered above would be potential falsifications of common ancestry, but they have not been found. Have they not been found because of common descent or have they not been found because none were created?

Again, this is a null point. The scientist making this point is grasping at straws.

If any evolutionist here can do any better, please do so.

Do better at what? Explain evolution?

This artical was not very powerfull, as it made some stupid assumptions.

If you have questions about evolution, ask them, but don't ask me to explain bad science on the part of this author.

[Pooeypants]

Erm, the author was not grasping at straws, he had valid statements. If Intelligent design is a testable model then someone give me a hypothesis and how to verify it. I would love to see it happen.

[jeafl]

Quote by: Pooeypants Erm, the author was not grasping at straws, he had valid statements. If Intelligent design is a testable model then someone give me a hypothesis and how to verify it. I would love to see it happen.

Tell me how the points this author had to make could not just as well be made in support of intelligent design.

If life (in the physical universe) is possible only with a certain biochemicals, how is evolution a more viable explanation than intelligent design?

How and why do the laws of nature, in the absence of a super-natural entity, exist in a way that makes living things totally dependent upon carbon-based biochemistry and nucleic acid genomes?

[jeafl]

I am preparing a response to the other replies and should be able to post something this evening or tomorrow.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: jeafl Tell me how the points this author had to make could not just as well be made in support of intelligent design. If life (in the physical universe) is possible only with a certain biochemicals, how is evolution a more viable explanation than intelligent design? How and why do the laws of nature, in the absence of a super-natural entity, exist in a way that makes living things totally dependent upon carbon-based biochemistry and nucleic acid genomes?

Intelligent design is not a testable model. At the end of the day, it is a God did it solution and it leads to more questions. Like where did the intelligent designer come from? Who designed the intelligent designer? After all, if "flawed" lifeforms like ourselves can't form naturally, what chance does a perfect being?

If you are as well versed biology as you claim, nothing more can we add to change your mind. You will have studied evolution and its evidence, how it applies in biology etc in detail, under the guidance of more qualified academics. It is your prerogative to see God did it all, (let's not waste our time, we know the ID is just God in another name) and is all you will see.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeafl I am preparing a response to the other replies and should be able to post something this evening or tomorrow.

Please do not bother if it is more of the same. If you want to consider ID to be a reasonable scientific explanation then it must play the game of science. In science no one takes your claim seriously, at least not for very long, if you have nothing to back it up. And if your new theory doesn't open up new scientific territory then who cares. The thing that ID advocates need to realize is that what their "theory" predicts is something that not even they will claim can be verified. That there is a creator and that it had a plan.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

I fail to see the distinction betweed ID and creationism. It seems to me that ID is creationism masquerading as science. Everyone knows that creationism is crap, so the bible pounders are trying it again... and they will fail.

If anyone knows of an important differance between creationism and ID please post it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus I fail to see the distinction betweed ID and creationism. It seems to me that ID is creationism masquerading as science. Everyone knows that creationism is crap, so the bible pounders are trying it again... and they will fail.

They will fail honestly and intellectually but the jury is still out as to whether they will fail politically.

If anyone knows of an important differance between creationism and ID please post it.

The underlying claims are the same, only the details have changed. It would be interesting to see what would happen if ID did win the day politically. Would it then come under attack from the more extreme magical thinkers as being too naturalistic and not supernaturalistic enough? I would almost like to see that, the extreme magical thinkers attacking the not so extreme magical thinkers. Maybe they would kill each other off? We can only hope.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Starboy They will fail honestly and intellectually but the jury is still out as to whether they will fail politically. Starboy

Didn't we just have a discussion of it's political failure in Kansas?

Anyway, loot at Galilaio and the solar-centric theory. It was against the major religions, and many people doubted it in the face of evidance. No we laugh at those people. It will be the same with ID and the whole creationism posse.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Anyway, loot at Galilaio and the solar-centric theory. It was against the major religions, and many people doubted it in the face of evidance. No we laugh at those people. It will be the same with ID and the whole creationism posse.

It took four hundred years! That is at least ten generations. Magical thinkers don't change their minds, they just die off.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

I think you are on to something. If we kill everyone who believe in creationism, we will create a selective pressure against creationists. We will then evolve into a species that does not believe in creationism. The crowning irony is that we will demonstrate evolution while we get rid of them. Hooray! Should we use ovens or gas chambers?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus I think you are on to something. If we kill everyone who believe in creationism, we will create a selective pressure against creationists. We will then evolve into a species that does not believe in creationism. The crowning irony is that we will demonstrate evolution while we get rid of them. Hooray! Should we use ovens or gas chambers?

Do you want to murder them Prometheus?

Starboy

[Pooeypants]

Let's keep the bantering within the general discussions please.

[fedfem]

Quote by: Prometheus I think you are on to something. If we kill everyone who believe in creationism, we will create a selective pressure against creationists. We will then evolve into a species that does not believe in creationism. The crowning irony is that we will demonstrate evolution while we get rid of them. Hooray! Should we use ovens or gas chambers?

Maybe send our supernatural thinkers to kill other supernatural thinkers in other countries...Hey, could work.

I now support the crusade/war on "terrorism."

[belverron]

Quote by: jeafl Why common descent and not common design?

Because scientists tend to practice... science?

May I ask you a question now? Good. Why must evolution answer to the Bible?

[jeafl]

Quote by: Pooeypants Intelligent design is not a testable model.

It isn’t? What happens if someone were to document abiogenesis under strictly natural conditions? What happens if a complete fossil record were to be found showing the evolutionary chain from a single-celled organism to a modern species?

At the end of the day, it is a God did it solution and it leads to more questions. Like where did the intelligent designer come from? Who designed the intelligent designer? After all, if "flawed" lifeforms like ourselves can't form naturally, what chance does a perfect being?

If the intelligent designer/creator is super-natural, we would not find its (or his) origin within the bounds of the physical universe and whether or not that designer/creator originated need not be a burning question. But, in the Judeo-Christian view the intelligent designer/creator is the Lord God and He is eternal so your questions are answered.

If you are as well versed biology as you claim, nothing more can we add to change your mind.

Would you concede that Evolutionists are no better? As a Creationist I see no reason why I should not be willing to consider the views of Evolutionists. But how many Evolutionists are willing to give similar consideration to any type of Creationist- say in places like a high school biology class?