[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Andr�s]

Intelligent Design - Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
The one problem "Natural selection" has as an evolution theory is how to explain how different species came to be.
Take birds for example: Evolution seems to be a slow and linear process. Most probably (but not necessarily) there wasn't a 4-legged-animal and the next breed had wings. So we need to have some steps in between the 4-legged-animal and a flying creature with wings. But now we have the problem why a creature, no more 4-legged but no bird either, is more fit to survive then the extreme ones (legged/flying). As far as I know we still have to find a fossil that shows us such a creature. Note, this does not say that "Natural Selection" isn't working or in effect. It just points out that it has a hard time to explain why, when you optimise your sun watch, you get a digital watch and not an optimised sun watch.

That isn't to hard to explain.
Take animals living in trees who are good to jump from tree to tree. For them the step to better gliding and eventually wings would be beneficial.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
The one problem "Natural selection" has as an evolution theory is how to explain how different species came to be.

Here are some example of reptile-bird transtions:
Talk Origins

[Phoenix-D]

"But now we have the problem why a creature, no more 4-legged but no bird either, is more fit to survive then the extreme ones (legged/flying)."

Two words. Flying squirel. That's the sort of intermediate form you'd likely see..glide from tree to tree, climb, repeat. Could be a major advantage depending on what kind of predators were below.

Phoenix-D

[Baron Munchausen]

Well, this is going nowhere but I'll toss out my position one more time before giving up.

The Shattering the Myths of Darwinism page is a summary, not the book. Maybe you should try reading the book before claiming it's full of inaccuracies? You can probably get it at a library like many other books and not have to pay for it. I don't claim that everything the author included in the book is correct. The author does not claim that everything he included in the book is correct. After discovering that evolutionary science was not anywhere near as complete and certain as we are taught in school he sought out the various alternative views offered over the years, many being suppressed by 'orthodox' science, and catalogued them. He is merely reporting what he found. And it's entirely possible that he did not explain some of these things as well as he should have. He is a journalist, not a scientist. He does give a lot of sources you could track down. Again, if you bothered to read the book instead of dismiss the summary.

And so what if those arguments have been used by creationists? The motive of the arguer has no bearing on the validity of the argument. This is the most blatant sort of logical mistake. You see why I don't think the community of believers in 'science' are really rational or scientific?

There are many more books pointing out the flaws of Darwinian theory, btw. It's not just this one. Here are just a couple of the more respectable ones written by 'real' scientists. Admittedly, they aren't easy to find. That's why I pointed to Milton's book first. It's easy to find.

The Transformist Illusion by Douglas Dewar (DeHoff Publications, 1957)

Flaws in the Theory of Evolution by Evan Shute (Craig Press, 1961)

Fyron:

I give up. You flat out deny what I say in the face of proof and deny you are denying. Then you distort what I say and claim I am distorting you. Look at what you quoted. I typed how life came to be how it is, not 'how life came to be'. There it is quoted right over your own distortion, and you went right ahead and chopped off half of the phrase to make it into a different claim. Evolution is not about 'how life came to be how it is'? Then what is it? Isn't Darwin's famous book titled 'The Origin of Species'?

Anyway, I see now why you shouldn't confuse idealogues with facts. I have better things to do.

[ March 16, 2003, 18:23: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[QuarianRex]

BM:
It's unfair to use an archaic theory of evolution (purely gradual) as an example to 'disprove' evolution in its entirety. Modern views include both gradual and dynamic theories and are much more inclusive of the available evidence.

As far as evolution being impossible to actually observe, well that's not quite true. Scientists have been studying bacteria and viruses for many decades (longer actually but they didn't really have the tools). So long as you study something with a high enough rate of reproduction (and short enough lifespan) aspects of evolution can be seen in a reasonable amount of time. This accounts for the prevalance of super-flu's and such and is one more piece of evidence one the side of evolution.

[Krsqk]

This accounts for the prevalance of super-flu's and such and is one more piece of evidence one the side of evolution.

So you have a better bacterium. 1)It's still a bacterium; 2)It's still the same disease; 3)It could just as easily be evidence to support intelligent design--highly adaptive designs would make more sense.

Reptiles -> birds: There are more fundamental differences than just legs/wings. Most reptiles have 3-chambered hearts; most birds have 4-chambered hearts. Did it progress through a 3 1/2-chambered heart, or did the fourth one just happen all at once? Scales and feathers have no structural similarity, and even come from different genes. In fact, many of the "similarities" between any given pair of orders or families are found in completely different genes. There's nothing to suggest a mechanism for this "gene-hopping."

Explanations for legs to wings: Sure, it all sounds nice, but we don't see any examples of transitions between them. Unless, of course, it just made big jumps.

Fewer genetic similarities: So evolution will adapt its theory to meet this new obstacle. Does that mean they'll redraw the "evolution tree" we see so much of? Will it now be based on genetic similarities, instead of physical ones?

And again, the theory of evolution is not a representative sample of science in general. Using it as such is wholely wrong.

Yet this is exactly what happens from kindergarten through graduation in nearly every school across the country. Evolution is science; anything else is religion; let's not examine the evidence to see if parhaps there could be two interpretations. Why don't we start by teaching kids objective science and let them evaluate the evidence later? You know, the old "Teach them how to think, not just what to think" sort of thing?

Creationist bias/non-objectivity: Every evolutionist has just as much at stake in the debate as any creationist--his worldview, his life's work, his vocation.... There is just as much vitriol, hatred, and lack of objectivity coming from the evolutionist side as has been attributed to the creationist side. Whatever they want to say, it still comes down to "We have science, and you don't." The implication is that their science is objective and pure as the wind-driven snow, while their opponents are blinded by their religion and irrational thinking. In reality, few evolutionists are able to accept that there is another interpretation of the evidence we see and that they don't hold absolute truth. Some merely remain silent; some prefer to "beat 'em with the science stick" until they back off or shut up.

Any theory is better than no theory: 1)No, it's not; a false theory would not be better than a true one; 2)I don't see "no theory" being advocated. All that's been asked is for the evidence to be held up to both theories, not just evolution. The only basis for calling it "no theory" is if one has already rejected creation/intelligent design as a theory. There seems to be a widespread fondness for tossing creation based on the half of the evidence with which it has difficulty, while conveniently ignoring the half with which evolution has difficulty. Maybe a better way of stating that would be this: Evolutionists love to pass off creationist arguments by saying, "No, the evidence really means this," while not admitting the possibility of alternative interpretations of evidence which has been interpreted to support them.

Fyron: Not everything in this post is directed toward you, so let's not inflate your post count by quoting everything that doesn't apply to you and saying "I never said this," okay?

[ March 16, 2003, 20:43: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[spoon]

Originally posted by Krsqk:

quote:

---

This accounts for the prevalance of super-flu's and such and is one more piece of evidence one the side of evolution.

So you have a better bacterium. 1)It's still a bacterium; 2)It's still the same disease; 3)It could just as easily be evidence to support intelligent design--highly adaptive designs would make more sense.

---

Observed instances of origin of new species can be found here:

talk origins

Also suggest reading this page, which describes five major misconceptions about evolution:

talk origins

I encourage you read the entire talk origins faq, and post to talk origins if you really think you have Evolution beat. Then get back to us with your results.
-spoon

[Andr�s]

I didn't find anyone defending a "no-theory", or an alternative third theory.

All I links I could find were supporting some variation of creationism. That name is discredited so now they avoid using it, but they present the same case, perhaps not a literally biblic creationism, "intelligent design" and "guided evolution" are just other names and variants of creationism.
Most times they use another wrong theory, the young-earth theory to support them (if you read the links posted here you'll find the correct explanation for every one of the supposed flaws uncovered in evolution, do we need to copy and paste every one here?)
And ALLWAYS involve an "intelligent designer" or some other name to replace God.

The objective of presenting them as alternative scientifically valid theories, is to disguise religion as science and be able to teach in public schools that are supposed to be lay in the US (and BTW also here in Argentina) that this "intelligent designer" exists.
I other words, to teach students that the God existence is scientifically proved.
+

[Fyron]

BM:

Look at what you quoted. I typed how life came to be how it is, not 'how life came to be'.

I was not quoting anything there. Quoting you would have involved placing it in quote UBB tags. I did not distort anything there. In fact, you never said anything about "how life came to be how it is". I do not see it in any of your Posts.

you went right ahead and chopped off half of the phrase to make it into a different claim.

No, because _you never said that phrase_. It was made-up "quote" (though not really a quote of anything, as it is not a quote), not a quote of you.

There are many more books pointing out the flaws of Darwinian theory, btw. It's not just this one. Here are just a couple of the more respectable ones written by 'real' scientists. Admittedly, they aren't easy to find. That's why I pointed to Milton's book first. It's easy to find.

You do realize that I said that the theory of evolution is currently undergoing major re-evaluation, right? I never once said that the theory of evolution is set in stone, and that is how it is. You seem to think I have argued that, when I haven't. In fact, everything I have said leads to "if it is proven wrong, it will be changed to accomodate new evidence/experimentation".

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
BM:
It's unfair to use an archaic theory of evolution (purely gradual) as an example to 'disprove' evolution in its entirety. Modern views include both gradual and dynamic theories and are much more inclusive of the available evidence.

Exactly what I have been saying all along.

Krsqk:

Did it progress through a 3 1/2-chambered heart

Krsqk, please do not get into that half-organ garbage again. It did not help your case in that old thread, and it will not help here. Bringing it up will only hurt your argument.

Explanations for legs to wings: Sure, it all sounds nice, but we don't see any examples of transitions between them. Unless, of course, it just made big jumps.

Yes we do. There are dinorsaur fossils with legs and half-wings instead of arms. Actually, legs to wings is wrong. It is arms to wings that is the correct path.

Fewer genetic similarities: So evolution will adapt its theory to meet this new obstacle. Does that mean they'll redraw the "evolution tree" we see so much of? Will it now be based on genetic similarities, instead of physical ones?

That is a distinct possibility.

Any theory is better than no theory: 1)No, it's not; a false theory would not be better than a true one; 2)I don't see "no theory" being advocated. All that's been asked is for the evidence to be held up to both theories, not just evolution.

And this is done constantly. Pure creation with no evolution always falls short because there is no valid evidence supporting it. The only "evidence" is false theories and incorrect analysis of the evidence. This is not to say that the current theory of evolution and all of the currently held paths of evolution are absolutely correct (as they probably are not), just to say that pure creationism is not supported by any valid evidence that we have.

Fyron: Not everything in this post is directed toward you, so let's not inflate your post count by quoting everything that doesn't apply to you and saying "I never said this," okay?

I haven't done anything of the sort so far, so what makes you think I would start doing it now?