Is Texas going back to the cavemen era?

NeilBlanchard · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:43 am

We did evolve from micro organisms and virtually all creatures are related. Did you know that all non-African humans have 1-4% Neanderthal genes? Only those people who never left Africa have only Homo Sapiens genes? Did you know that we cannot exist without other lifeforms? We have millions/billions of various bacteria in our gut that do our digestion for us.

Have you heard that horseshoe crabs have copper-based oxygen carrying blue blood? And they have survived 350 Million years, and they may die out now that humans are warming the planet faster than ever before, and we use them for fishing bait?

And who cares about horseshoe crabs, anyway right? Well, you should care about them. And not just for environmental reasons; but also selfish ones: their blood is used to test the safety of drug production, and you and I and just about everyone reading this has directly benefited from horseshoe crab's blue blood. One quart of it is worth $15,000.

Did you know that ALL elements heavier than iron (which is what makes our blood red, btw) -- comes from supernovas? Think about that for a second. All the gold you have ever seen, an all the gold (and all the other heavier elements) were formed in supernovas. How many supernovas did it take to get this much gold to show up here on Earth?

So, it is a great big, very complicated, and very intertwined world out there, and right now we humans are crapping on the rest of the world, while we totally depend on it.

We are all connected.

xan_user · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:05 am

After observing Texans in their natural habitat, I became painfully aware there was no possible way intelligence is apart of our design.

When a state looks to preach creationism, rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, bring global-warming denial into science class, censor the word 'salve' and downplay the contributions of the civil rights movement in school, its time to revoke all federal education funding form that state.

andyb · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:06 am

2 question's specifically to "m0002a" although everyone is welcome to join in.

1,) Please show me some "evidence" for ID (creationism) that has not already been proven wrong.?

2,) Please give me a few names of "Scientists" that believe in ID (creationism) because I want to look them up on the internet for myself.

Before you reply I already have a couple of answers for you in mind for 1,), and I have inadvertantly found a few answers to 2,) with the help of the blatant liars from http://www.watchtower.org/

Yes there are some scientists who believe in God, and ID, but generally they are not very good Scientists, or have nothing at all to do with any science that involves genetics and/or understanding the universe.

Still I would love to hear your answers, simply because my scientific questioning mind wants to hear some of the science (ha ha) behind creationism, because all I have ever heard about it is in agreement with whats on Wiki, while you claim that it is something rather different and can live side-by-side with "Natural Selection".

Andy

m0002a · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:28 am

andyb wrote:

2 question's specifically to "m0002a" although everyone is welcome to join in.

1,) Please show me some "evidence" for ID (creationism) that has not already been proven wrong.?

2,) Please give me a few names of "Scientists" that believe in ID (creationism) because I want to look them up on the internet for myself.

Before you reply I already have a couple of answers for you in mind for 1,), and I have inadvertantly found a few answers to 2,) with the help of the blatant liars from http://www.watchtower.org/

Yes there are some scientists who believe in God, and ID, but generally they are not very good Scientists, or have nothing at all to do with any science that involves genetics and/or understanding the universe.

Still I would love to hear your answers, simply because my scientific questioning mind wants to hear some of the science (ha ha) behind creationism, because all I have ever heard about it is in agreement with whats on Wiki, while you claim that it is something rather different and can live side-by-side with "Natural Selection".

Andy

Intelligent Design is not the same as creationism, in fact it is the opposite in most respects. Creationism claims that humans did not evolve from micro-organisms (or any lower forms) and that the earth is only several thousand years old. Intelligent design believes that man evolved from micro-organisms and that such a belief is not in conflict with the belief in an a priori intelligence that existed before any life forms on earth.

In addition ID believes that, although evolution has definitely occurred, there are several unproven theories as to what caused changes (or mutations) to happen. One of the unproven theories is that all evolution is the result of random mutations, and another unproven theory is that the mutations are caused by higher intelligence or laws of the universe that existed prior to life on earth.

With regard to natural selection, there is no conflict with that idea and with ID, since natural selection has definitely occurred, although as noted by a descendant of Darwin, natural selection is becoming somewhat less important for humans since the advent of civilization (the weak don't have as much disadvantage as they used to). But even though natural selection has happened, it does not explain how the mutations cam into being in the first instance, it only describes which one survive.

The rest of your questions/comments have nothing to do with science, so I will not respond to them. But I will say that I don't believe (knowing a fair number of scientists) that their is any correlation between their spiritual beliefs and whether they are good scientists. I don't believe for one second that you have a scientific proof of that.

andyb · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:07 am

Quote:

Intelligent design believes that man evolved from micro-organisms and that such a belief is not in conflict with the belief in an a priori intelligence that existed before any life forms on earth.

I have never heard of this before, could you post a link to some documentation please.

Quote:

One of the unproven theories is that all evolution is the result of random mutations

Show me where it is "unproven", or at least there is little proof.

Quote:

and another unproven theory is that the mutations are caused by higher intelligence

Show me where there is a single grain of evidence, anything will do.

Quote:

or laws of the universe that existed prior to life on earth.

This reminds me of the old question about sound, trees, forest, and no-one there to hear it.

Simply put that is a creationist point of view, that the laws of the universe were created when the earth was created not before that point, very self-centered.

Quote:

But I will say that I don't believe (knowing a fair number of scientists) that their is any correlation between their spiritual beliefs and whether they are good scientists.

I do believe that there is, as do many studies, and this goes way beyond just scientists, to the average person in the street, and there is overwhelming evidence for that.

Quote:

I don't believe for one second that you have a scientific proof of that.

Not right here, but I read that a few paragraphs back in the book I am currently re-reading, "The God Delusion", which has already rubbished every one of the 4 mains points of ID (the intgral concepts).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen ... l_concepts

Do yourself a favour and read it, then get back to us and tell us all of the flaws in the book, and Dawkins arguments.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Rich ... t_ep_dpi_1

Andy

m0002a · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:09 pm

andyb wrote:

Quote:

Intelligent design believes that man evolved from micro-organisms and that such a belief is not in conflict with the belief in an a priori intelligence that existed before any life forms on earth.

I have never heard of this before, could you post a link to some documentation please.

Here is a link that discusses what Intelligent Design is, and that it is not the same as Creationism (and actually stands clearly against it for the reason mentioned above). This is the second time I posted this link.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephill ... ence.thtml

Attempts by opponents of Intelligent Design to link it with Creationism is scientific McCarthyism, or intellectual guilt by association, even though the association is false. Once the accusation is made, not many want to hear about the truth, even if a retraction is made. As the Nazi's quickly learned, if one repeats lies enough times, people will believe them regardless of the truth.

Regarding the other requests you made, I believe that the idea that random mutations can account for all evolutionary change, and ID, are both just theories, and there is no proof for either. Science cannot (through no fault of its own) always explain why things happen, even if it can verify that in fact it does happen (like evolution). Another theory advanced by some non-religous types is that life forms were deposited on earth by aliens from other worlds. I personally don't object to mentioning theories that I don't happen think are correct, and the State Board of Education apparently thought that offering more than one theory to students was also acceptable. I personally would be against offering any theory in a public school that suggested that humans did not evolve from lower species, because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that exists to support it.

Since I admit that ID is a theory, and cannot likely be proven by scientific evidence, it would be ridiculous the attempt to provide such proof. Likewise no one has proved that random mutations can account for all evolution. Some are trying to piggy back the idea of random mutations onto the accepted scientific fact that evolution has happened, in an attempt to gain credibility for a theory that has no proof. Likewise, these same people try to falsely associated ID with Creationism in an attempt to discredit it.

NeilBlanchard · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:01 pm

Hey, I have proof that Intelligent Design is Creationism, renamed: watch this Nova program, and during the the trial, they show the original manuscript for the book called "Of Pandas and People" where their search and replace that tried to simply replace the word "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design". This was the smoking gun, so to speak.

And when you watch the video, you also see that there are plenty of other points of evidence that ID is either bunk (it ain't science!) or it's religious belief, and the very same people who tried to get Creationism taught in science class, simply renamed it Intelligent Design, and tried to get it taught in schools.

m0002a · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:19 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:

Hey, I have proof that Intelligent Design is Creationism, renamed: watch this Nova program, and during the the trial, they show the original manuscript for the book called "Of Pandas and People" where their search and replace that tried to simply replace the word "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design". This was the smoking gun, so to speak.

And when you watch the video, you also see that there are plenty of other points of evidence that ID is either bunk (it ain't science!) or it's religious belief, and the very same people who tried to get Creationism taught in science class, simply renamed it Intelligent Design, and tried to get it taught in schools.

One would think that intelligent people could discuss these ideas without attaching pre-conceived labels. Doing so is not a productive activity, and is based on emotion rather than reason.

In the trial, one side (you can guess which one) tried to claim that Creationism was the same as ID, but I don't understand how that be can be since ID accepts that humans evolved from lower life forms, and Creationists don't accept that. How do you explain that discrepancy?

Those who think that Creationism and ID are the same are mistaken, even if some of those people are Creationists and even if one of them wrote a book about it. Blaming ID for some misguided Creationists who make that claim would be like blaming Democrats just because of the fact that Marxists, criminals, and terrorists tend to vote for Democratic candidates more often than Republicans. It would be ridiculous to say that because Marxists, criminals, or terrorists tend to vote for a Democrat, that therefore the Democratic Party is a Marxist, criminal, or terrorist organization.

Again, this method of using guilt by association, rather than discussing the ideas themselves, is inherently anti-intellectual.

NeilBlanchard · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:24 pm

What peer reviewed publication(s) explains this distinction you are making?

BTW, here's the text from the Wikipedia entry on the wholesale substitution of intelligent design for creationism:

Quote:

Pandas and "cdesign proponentsists"

The Louisiana "Balanced Treatment Act" case â€” Edwards v. Aguillard â€” was decided by the Supreme Court in 1987. The court determined that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the United States constitution, but that alternative scientific theories could be taught. While the decision ruled out any return to teaching traditional Young Earth creationism in science classes, it did offer an opening for those willing to recast creationist doctrine in the language of science.

In 1987 a further draft of the book was produced with the new title Of Pandas and People, which still had the definition "creation means that various forms of life began abruptly",[15] and used the term "creationists":

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.[16][20]

The outcome of the case prompted significant editorial changes to the book. Dean H. Kenyon had presented an affidavit to the court in which he defined "creation science" as meaning "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form", which did "not include as essential parts... catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life,... the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts",[21] but this attempt to re-define creation science did not succeed in the Edwards case. Thaxton, who was working on the Pandas book, needed a new term after the Supreme Court case, and found it in a phrase he "picked up from a NASA scientist â€“ intelligent design". He thought "Thatâ€™s just what I need, itâ€™s a good engineering termâ€¦.. it seemed to jibe... And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally."[14] In a new draft of Pandas, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design,[22] The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency":

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.[15]

The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".[17][20]

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.[16][20]

FTE founder Jon Buell claims that the word creationism was a "placeholder term" whose definition "changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word."[23] However, the proof that intelligent design was creationism re-labeled played a significant part in the Kitzmiller trial, and "cdesign proponentsists" has been described as "the missing link between creationism and intelligent design."[24]

m0002a · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:48 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:

What peer reviewed publication(s) explains this distinction you are making?

Not sure what you mean by "peer review". Clearly Melanie Phillips and others have made the distinction, and their peers have read their articles and books, so what difference does it make if some misguided Creationists don't know the difference (just like it doesn't mean anything that Marxist, criminals, and terrorists tend to vote more often for Democrats than Republicans).

If you want to discuss this subject rationally and objectively, then forget about what your heard before and evaluate these idea on their own merit. Whether or not it is true that random mutations, or Intelligent Design, happens to be the fundamental force behind evolution, one of these theories was correct even before life forms even evolved into humans on earth, so what some humans (such as Creationists, Wikipedia authors, or Nova producers) say about the subject is irrelevant.

psyopper · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:24 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:

Hey, I have proof that Intelligent Design is Creationism, renamed: watch this Nova program, and during the the trial, they show the original manuscript for the book called "Of Pandas and People" where their search and replace that tried to simply replace the word "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design".

I liked the cut and paste of creationists to cdesign proponentists.

psyopper · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:37 pm

m0002a wrote:

NeilBlanchard wrote:

What peer reviewed publication(s) explains this distinction you are making?

Not sure what you mean by "peer review".

I believe he is referring to this meaning of "peer review":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_revie ... eer_Review

It's the one where scientists write a report on their findings and then other scientists read and professionally review their findings, recreate experiments and either confirm or deny the accuracy of the original writing. In the case of ID in micro/macro-biology it would take a peer review of other micro/macro biologists using the same repeatable testing procedures and coming to the same results to substantiate claims to the accuracy of ID.

It's sad but true that ID is quickly turning into this centuries Cold Fusion, except that the Cold Fusion guys had something that looked pretty believable which unfortunately the ID camp hasn't yet figured out how to do.

All ID really seems to do is bolster the support and credibility of Evolution.

NeilBlanchard · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:33 am

Yeah, peer review; you know -- how science is done?

m0002a · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:18 am

NeilBlanchard wrote:

Yeah, peer review; you know -- how science is done?

Peer review in science is when someone reviews the experiments and research of other scientists. Even though there is lots of evidence to confirm evolution, there is no evidence on the cause of evolutionary changes (or whether all mutations are indeed random, or caused by some ID). So there isn't going to be any review of evidence that does not exist (for either theory).

It would seem to me that some statistical probabilities should be worked out if the random claim is pursued, but I have not seen any such studies. I have heard that if an infinite number of monkeys bang on a typewriter, that eventually one of them will reproduce a Shakespearean play, but of course "infinite" is a big word.

Obviously one can review the theoretical ideas being proposed without conducting experiments, as is done in the fields of mathematics and theoretical physics, and yes, that is done anytime someone like Melanie Phillips (and others) publishes an article. Quite a few people have reviewed and commented on articles by Melanie Phillips. Probably not everyone agrees with her ideas, just like not everyone agrees as to whether evolutionary mutations are random.

m0002a · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:24 am

psyopper wrote:

All ID really seems to do is bolster the support and credibility of Evolution.

ID supports evolution, just not the theory (completely unproven) that all evolutionary changes are the result of random mutations.

If you have any evidence to support the random mutation claim (other than just quoting others who claim it is true) I would like to see that research and the evidence.

andyb · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:41 am

Quote:

Not sure what you mean by "peer review". Clearly Melanie Phillips and others have made the distinction, and their peers have read their articles and books, so what difference does it make if some misguided Creationists don't know the difference (just like it doesn't mean anything that Marxist, criminals, and terrorists tend to vote more often for Democrats than Republicans).

Is this the Melanie Phillips you are talking about.?

http://www.melaniephillips.com/

She is the one who say's.

"In what we tell ourselves is an age of reason, we are behaving increasingly irrationally. More and more people are signing up to weird and wacky cults, para-psychology, seances, paganism and witch- craft. There is widespread belief in ludicrous conspiracy theories, such as the 9/11 terrorist attack being an American plot."

She seems to have missed Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all of the others. This is a very skewed perspective, and I think that she is talking out of her arse.

You seem to have picked a wonderfully creditable person to help you galvanise your distorted views that are not based on science at all, but still claim to be - there is no space in the realm of science for gap-filling morons who loudly shout "God" every time science cant find the answer to a question. This has happened several times in the past, and the God-fearers always cling onto hope that science cant unravell the latest mystery that they claim is down to "god" for a long time.

Creationists (and the ID crowd if you insist on the seperation) will always do this, and ironically have in the past tried to prove the existance of "God" by using science (that is really funny), they have all failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/414/irr ... -debunked/

This is a pretty major part of ID, and every time the ID crowd come up with something it only stands for a while before Science proves it wrong.

m0002a please tell me if you believe in Irreducible Complexity.?

Andy

m0002a · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:51 am

andyb wrote:

m0002a please tell me if you believe in Irreducible Complexity.?

No. The article you quoted starts out with this:

"The seemingly irreducible complexity of the flagella of bacteria is one of the trophy arguments carried by creationists everywhere."

Since Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same, then the link you provided is irrelevant (and nothing but demagoguery). As I mentioned before, this tactic is like blaming Democrats because criminals, Marxists, and terrorists are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican.

NeilBlanchard · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:51 am

The "Irreducible Complexity" argument was used by the proponents of Intelligent Design. And it was scientifically refuted in the trial that is in the Nova program I linked to.

Intelligent Design is not science. It is merely an hypothesis, and it has failed all the tests done by scientists.

It was invented by people who had earlier tried to foist Creationism on us. It was religious belief then, and it is religious belief now.

Supernatural causes are just that: outside nature, and as such, it takes a religious belief to accept it.

m0002a · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:58 am

NeilBlanchard wrote:

The "Irreducible Complexity" argument was used by the proponents of Intelligent Design. And it was scientifically refuted in the trial that is in the Nova program I linked to.

Intelligent Design is not science. It is merely an hypothesis, and it has failed all the tests done by scientists.

It was invented by people who had earlier tried to foist Creationism on us. It was religious belief then, and it is religious belief now.

Supernatural causes are just that: outside nature, and as such, it takes a religious belief to accept it.

I don't care what other people who claim to accept Intelligent Design think, just like you might not accept everything that criminals and terrorists believe just because they vote for Democrats more often than Republicans.

Obviously, Intelligent Design is not a scientifically verifiable theory. But neither is the theory that evolution was caused entirely by random mutations. Either of these theories has to be taken on faith (at least so far).

The idea that random mutations was derived from any scientific evidence is pure bunk (or please show it to me if the evidence exists). The theory of random mutations was invented because people could not determine the cause of of the evolutionary mutations (other than observing that they occur), so they invented the idea that they are all random (in the absence of seeing anything else). It amazes me how supposedly rational people think that the absence of knowledge about something proves that it is random, meaningless, or without existence. The absence of knowledge only proves that one doesn't know how it occurred, not that it was random.

Those who believe that science can answer all questions about anything, came up with the idea of randomness or nothingness to replace what they cannot explain and for which there is no evidence available. I believe that is faulty logic, and bad science.

psyopper · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:50 am

There are plenty of causes of random mutations, but by defining the cause of a random mutation it can then be described with "order" thus giving it Intelligent Design. Isn't this what you're after?

I'll give you several causes of random mutation.., and they all come back to Radiation by either earthly, stellar, or super stellar sources. X Ray radiation, UV Radiation, subatomic particles (neutrinos, etc) - all of which will randomly alter or remove sections of DNA which could then cause mutations in the offspring of an organism. If that mutation is successful and advantageous then it sticks around.

If a giraffe with a neck just an inch longer than the others has a greater tendency to survive because it has more leaves available to it than others, then it survives and mates and it's offspring will have longer necks. Why was it's neck longer? Because it's parents had longer necks than their peers, and their parents longer necks than their peers...

Bah, why bother. You're just going to counter with some really groovy dude not going by the name God reached down and stretched their necks so they could eat more leaves.

m0002a · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:58 am

psyopper wrote:

There are plenty of causes of random mutations, but by defining the cause of a random mutation it can then be described with "order" thus giving it Intelligent Design. Isn't this what you're after?

I'll give you several causes of random mutation.., and they all come back to Radiation by either earthly, stellar, or super stellar sources. X Ray radiation, UV Radiation, subatomic particles (neutrinos, etc) - all of which will randomly alter or remove sections of DNA which could then cause mutations in the offspring of an organism. If that mutation is successful and advantageous then it sticks around.

If a giraffe with a neck just an inch longer than the others has a greater tendency to survive because it has more leaves available to it than others, then it survives and mates and it's offspring will have longer necks. Why was it's neck longer? Because it's parents had longer necks than their peers, and their parents longer necks than their peers...

Bah, why bother. You're just going to counter with some really groovy dude not going by the name God reached down and stretched their necks so they could eat more leaves.

You are describing natural selection, which I have no problem with. The question is what causes the mutations in the first place, and are they actually random, or is there some design involved. It is possible that the "design" can be explained by science, but we haven't discovered it yet. However, at this point we don't know what causes the evolutionary mutations and the "randomness" idea is just a theory. Just because it is a theory does not make it wrong, but it is a theory. Intelligent Design is a another theory that has not been proven either.

frenchie · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:22 pm

psyopper wrote:

I'll give you several causes of random mutation.., and they all come back to Radiation by either earthly, stellar, or super stellar sources. X Ray radiation, UV Radiation, subatomic particles (neutrinos, etc) - all of which will randomly alter or remove sections of DNA which could then cause mutations in the offspring of an organism. If that mutation is successful and advantageous then it sticks around.

VERY good point ! I know what the next question is going to be !!!!!
What caused that neutrino to hit that particular part of the DNA ? :roll:

psyopper · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:26 pm

m0002a wrote:

The question is what causes the mutations in the first place, and are they actually random, or is there some design involved.

That would be the part about radiation and where it randomly damages or removes portions of the genetic structure. If you like we can go into Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and discuss why those particular sections were damaged and others were not.

m0002a · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:58 pm

psyopper wrote:

m0002a wrote:

The question is what causes the mutations in the first place, and are they actually random, or is there some design involved.

That would be the part about radiation and where it randomly damages or removes portions of the genetic structure. If you like we can go into Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and discuss why those particular sections were damaged and others were not.

That is a good point. It is a proven fact that radiation does cause mutations. But as you noted above, radiation usually damages cells or genetic structure, not advances them. This does not appear to be a random occurance. For example, when radiation is used to destroy cancer cells, it is done with a fairly high expectations that cells are going to be damaged, and not just that it will trigger some random events. So there appears to be some "design" in nature whereby radiation damages cells or genetic structure, that is not totally random.

Also, even though radiation definitely does cause mutations, there is no proof that radiation is the cause of all mutations that have resulted in the evolutionary change in life forms. It is possible that there are other mutations that are not random and/or not caused by radiation.

The concept of natural selection (which we know happens) and random mutations is also troublesome because many of the most robust life forms are the least sophisticated ones. There was no need for life forms to evolve into more complex ones (and usually more fragile) just in order to survive. That is another reason I am skeptical about the idea that the evolution of life forms is completely random, or that natural selection explains the cause of evolutionary change (even though it does account for which changes survive).

All of this is interesting theory (randomness or design), but it is all still theory.

psyopper · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:59 pm

m0002a wrote:

All of this is interesting theory (randomness or design), but it is all still theory.

Do you understand what a "Scientific Theory" is? From wikipedia:

In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

"The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

In other words, a Scientific Theory takes numerous quantifiable scientific facts and organizes them into a larger "behavioral" structure which is testable and predictable. It is a combination of known truths. Einstein had a Theory of Relativity, Newton a Theory of Gravity.

The Theory of Intelligent Design is neither predictable, nor testable. It is not a scientific theory.

Your next arguement will be the same one you keep throwing out there - "but *how* are these mutations happening?" And people will keep answering at you over and over - genetic changes happen because of radiation, chemical poisoning/exposure (Bhopal is a great example), natural selection, etc. The destruction of a chomosome is not necessarily a detriment - it has been proven that Humans have 23 chromosomes, but the great apes 24. If you look closely at the 2nd Human Chromosome it's actually a combination of Chromosomes 2 and 3 of the great apes. Clearly a destructive force yet with a positive benifit.

And no, it didn't happen because somebody said it should. THere were plenty of good chromosomes to go around, it happened because of some sort of an accident. What was it? Radiation or chemical exposure is likely. That we don't know WHY it happened has nothing to do with the fact that it DID happen, and gives more resliency to the greater theory.

m0002a · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:17 pm

psyopper wrote:

The Theory of Intelligent Design is neither predictable, nor testable. It is not a scientific theory.

I never said it was. What difference does not it make whether it is a scientific theory or a metaphysical theory? What matters is that whether it is true and correct, not what kind of theory it is.

The other point is that there is no evidence to support the "so-called" scientific theory of random mutations being the cause of evolution from micro-organisms to humans. The claim that the mutations are random is only a theory.

You provided several theories about how the mutations might happen, but there is no proof those are the sole cause of evolution, and even if they were, they are certainly not random. For example, if if it can be shown that radiation destroys cells or chromosomes on a consistent basis, then that cannot be described as a random event.

In fact, no theory based on randomness is a scientific theory, because it is not repeatable and is not guaranteed to follow scientific principles. A scientist may get one set of experimental results, and another scientist may get other results if the behavior is truly random. Randomness is absurdity, either scientifically or metaphysically.

I have no idea what you mean by "it didn't happen because somebody said it should." Is gravity and the other forces in the universe random events? Does it offend you that there appears to be some "design" in the universe? If there wasn't any design, why would scientists spend so much time trying to find out what the design is? If everything that happened was random, trying to discover the scientific laws of nature would be a wasted endeavor.

psyopper · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:07 pm

Wow. You should move to Texas!

m0002a · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:43 pm

psyopper wrote:

Wow. You should move to Texas!

I don't know about that, but I will on to another thread now.

NeilBlanchard · **Posted:** Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:38 am

Randomness is life itself.

xan_user · **Posted:** Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:34 am

ID supporters wont relent until they actually see radiation make a positive mutation inside a dna strand in real time, and then only if they can see it with there own naked eyes.

Until then they will continue to believe that the easterbunny lays chocolate eggs, and deny the truth that catholic priests are just a cult of wealthy pedophiles with fantastic lawyers.

Is Texas going back to the cavemen era?

Who is online