Intelligent Design questions

[Ancalagon the Black]

To say that evolution has proof is wrong. They are theories until science can prove them without a doubt.

The scientific method cannot, by its nature, prove anything beyond a doubt. It uses inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. That's why all scientific theories are subject to reassessment--there are none that are absolute.

[MisterPinstripe]

The scientific method cannot, by its nature, prove anything beyond a doubt. It uses inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. That's why all scientific theories are subject to reassessment--there are none that are absolute.

:doh: Forgot about that... Changing that part of the post, but the rest still applies.

[PokerPacker]

Exactly skins-n-vages.

I love how people will ignore a post or part of a post that they can not refute. The basic fact is there is no proof for creationism, and there is also no proof for evolution. You have to believe in either one. All of the data can be interpretted by your bias to how you believe. To say that evolution has proof is wrong. They are theories until science can prove them without a doubt. What is also interesting is how do you know what happen, say, 2 billion years ago. You cant. You BELIEVE that you do, but you can not know for sure that you do. There is a fact that is a huge blow to evolution. There can be "explanations" for it but it can never be explained away. The basis of evolution is mutation, but mutation has never been shown to do ANYTHING but take AWAY from the genetic code, not add to it. I would like to know how you explain this since the highest evolution scientists cant explain it. I am also looking forward to see what parts of this post you ignore, or if it will be the entire post. Or if you will take to name calling. If you do none of the above: :applause:

yes, there is proof of evolution. observational proof, not "testable proof". such as homologous bones (i think that's the word,) mutation, and natural selection. not to mention archeological finds that can date bones of previous creatures with the same homologous bones. for some reason, humans only go back x amount of years, while reptiles have been around for y years. must just be that god decided to create humans last .

[MisterPinstripe]

yes, there is proof of evolution. observational proof, not "testable proof". such as homologous bones (i think that's the word,) mutation, and natural selection. not to mention archeological finds that can date bones of previous creatures with the same homologous bones. for some reason, humans only go back x amount of years, while reptiles have been around for y years. must just be that god decided to create humans last .

*sigh* And here come the people that ignore most of the post... As I stated in my post but you either did not read or just ignored was: The basis of evolution is mutation, but mutation has never been shown to do ANYTHING but take AWAY from the genetic code, not add to it. I would like to know how you explain this since the highest evolution scientists cant explain it. And has been proven that a couple of the tecniques they used to test aging has been proven way wrong. Which can only mean that there is a good chance the rest are wrong as well. When you do not want to have to answer to someone, you will tell yourself what you need to.

Also, that is not proof of evolution. By your logic I could say there is proof of evolution. The "proof" is there depending on your "bias."

[PokerPacker]

*sigh* And here come the people that ignore most of the post... As I stated in my post but you either did not read or just ignored was: The basis of evolution is mutation, but mutation has never been shown to do ANYTHING but take AWAY from the genetic code, not add to it. I would like to know how you explain this since the highest evolution scientists cant explain it. And has been proven that a couple of the tecniques they used to test aging has been proven way wrong. Which can only mean that there is a good chance the rest are wrong as well. When you do not want to have to answer to someone, you will tell yourself what you need to.

Also, that is not proof of evolution. By your logic I could say there is proof of evolution. The "proof" is there depending on your "bias."

hey, if you're such a genius, why don't you back up these bold statements of yours? first, show me where mutation ONLY "takes away", and secondly, you are attempting to prove that all dating techniques are wrong because past dating techniques have been wrong, yet you provide NO instances. who's being ignorant now? you need facts if you are going to tell me i am wrong.

[MisterPinstripe]

hey, if you're such a genius, why don't you back up these bold statements of yours? first, show me where mutation ONLY "takes away", and secondly, you are attempting to prove that all dating techniques are wrong because past dating techniques have been wrong, yet you provide NO instances. who's being ignorant now? you need facts if you are going to tell me i am wrong.

You have yet to give me any facts, just theories, and you are getting on me? I have only given facts. I have said everything else can not be proven and the data is all taken depending on your bias towards evolution or creation. I have put forth my facts. Just because you have not explored both sides, but only anything for evolution, does not make something not true. I have an idea! Do some research.

Also, I did not say all dating techniques were wrong. That would just be a stupid statement by me. I said past ones have been wrong when people were so sure they were right. I said that because of this we can not be sure that these new ones are correct either.

[HOF44]

Actually this isn't quite accurate (from the scientific viewpoint). What we are really talking about here is selection (one, but not the only factor, in evolution). Selection does not select for an organisms individual survival, only its reproductive fitness. Survival is only important as it relates to reproductive fitness. One of the things that studies on aging has found is that a number of the genes that contribute to aging are directly responsible for reproductive success.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Selection is not forward looking. Each generation is a product of selection by the environmental conditions that prevailed in the previous generation. One way to see this is to look at the evolution of HIV. In a particular patient HIV is usually susceptible to AZT. However HIV evolves _very_ rapidly (because it is a retrovirus). Many patients develop drug-resistant strains of the virus. One way doctors can deal with the drug-resistant strains of the virus is to stop treatment. In an environment without AZT the non-resistant strain is favored (occuring from either a back-mutation or from viral DNA which has been incorporated into the host DNA). After a few generations (of the virus) the AZT-resistant strain disapears and AZT is again effective.

Thanks for your input. :applause:

[SnyderShrugged]

yes, there is proof of evolution. observational proof, not "testable proof". such as homologous bones (i think that's the word,) mutation, and natural selection. not to mention archeological finds that can date bones of previous creatures with the same homologous bones. for some reason, humans only go back x amount of years, while reptiles have been around for y years. must just be that god decided to create humans last .

What "observational" proof of evolution do you know about that the rest of us don't?

Observational proof of a hypothesis would mandate something akin to a design of experiment. This would test various factor settings within the experiment. Since we can not, do not, and will not, ever know the factors in existence at the time of creation/big bang/ham sandwich, etc, no such "observable" test can be possible.

You are trying to use a tool like regression analysis to make correlations from totally unknown factors to a given response (life). It doesnt work that way.

[PokerPacker]

You have yet to give me any facts, just theories, and you are getting on me? I have only given facts. I have said everything else can not be proven and the data is all taken depending on your bias towards evolution or creation. I have put forth my facts. Just because you have not explored both sides, but only anything for evolution, does not make something not true. I have an idea! Do some research.

i gave you the facts of mutation, homologous bones, and archealogical dating. all you did was say that i'm wrong, and left it at that. nice facts!

[MisterPinstripe]

What "observational" proof of evolution do you know about that the rest of us don't?

Observational proof of a hypothesis would mandate something akin to a design of experiment. This would test various factor settings within the experiment. Since we can not, do not, and will not, ever know the factors in existence at the time of creation/big bang/ham sandwich, etc, no such "observable" test can be possible.

You are trying to use a tool like regression analysis to make correlations from totally unknown factors to a given response (life). It doesnt work that way.

Well put. I still do not have as much of a complete grasp of science that I would like to have, but I have done enough research into both areas.

[PokerPacker]

What "observational" proof of evolution do you know about that the rest of us don't?

Observational proof of a hypothesis would mandate something akin to a design of experiment. This would test various factor settings within the experiment. Since we can not, do not, and will not, ever know the factors in existence at the time of creation/big bang/ham sandwich, etc, no such "observable" test can be possible.

You are trying to use a tool like regression analysis to make correlations from totally unknown factors to a given response (life). It doesnt work that way.

sorry, maybe "proof" is too strong of a word, maybe evidence will work in its place. also, i did not state this as evidence of the beginning of life, only the contnuation/change of life.

[SnyderShrugged]

i gave you the facts of mutation, homologous bones, and archealogical dating. all you did was say that i'm wrong, and left it at that. nice facts!

If those so called "facts" were enough evidence. then all he has to throw back at you would be to explain the "divine proportion", the missing link, and the bible, and he would have as much (or more) "proof than you do.

[MisterPinstripe]

i gave you the facts of mutation, homologous bones, and archealogical dating. all you did was say that i'm wrong, and left it at that. nice facts!

Ahhhh... I see. You are the kind of person who ignores the post that they realize they can not refute. You KEEP ignoring parts of mine. You say you presented facts of mutation? It is very obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You take whatever you have been told in the school system, which presents only one side, and taken that for law. Now respond to this mutation fact: As I stated in my post but you either did not read or just ignored was: The basis of evolution is mutation, but mutation has never been shown to do ANYTHING but take AWAY from the genetic code, not add to it.

Lets see if you keep ignoring it. If you do, I might as well stop this conversation right now, as you will not listen to anything.

[SnyderShrugged]

sorry, maybe "proof" is too strong of a word, maybe evidence will work in its place. also, i did not state this as evidence of the beginning of life, only the contnuation/change of life.

You do understand that Intelligent design does not interfere with "continuation/change of life" dont you?

Intelligent design accepts that evolution happens, only that it did not create new life. Theistic evolutional theory is actually a between the two theories, but it still can never be scientifically tested(just the the other theories).

[MisterPinstripe]

You do understand that Intelligent design does not interfere with "continuation/change of life" dont you?

Intelligent design accepts that evolution happens, only that it did not create new life. Theistic evolutional theory is actually a between the two theories, but it still can never be scientifically tested(just the the other theories).

I think that really depends on your view of it. Do you believe in evolution and creation together? I am heading out now, but will be back shortly to respond to any reponses.

[PokerPacker]

Ahhhh... I see. You are the kind of person who ignores the post that they realize they can not refute. You KEEP ignoring parts of mine. You say you presented facts of mutation? It is very obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You take whatever you have been told in the school system, which presents only one side, and taken that for law. Now respond to this mutation fact: As I stated in my post but you either did not read or just ignored was: The basis of evolution is mutation, but mutation has never been shown to do ANYTHING but take AWAY from the genetic code, not add to it.

Lets see if you keep ignoring it. If you do, I might as well stop this conversation right now, as you will not listen to anything.

if you noticed, i asked for where you got the notion that mutation only takes away, give me the link to some tests, and i will read them. further, to think that school is the reason i believe in evolution is... well, incorrect. the only things school introduced to me about evolution that i didn't already know, were the experiments of mendeleev, the theory of punctuated equalibrium, and the evidence of evolution through homologous bones. its not like i would never have been exposed to evolution if it weren't for school, but i did learn a few things about it that made it more solid to me that before. and just so you know, i don't take anything for law without scrutinizing it myself. heck, i used to be a christian before i realized it just didn't make any sense. i resent the notion that i can't think for myself.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Niether the Theory of evolution nor the theory of ID can be valid hypotheses.

Fact: Any hypothesis test needs to have a consideration of statistical power and it's associated risk factors (alpha and beta risk). The variables (known and unknown) are too vast and unclear that the given power of any test is rendered moot.

Basically, a big waste of time.

Liberty, when you decide that you know at least half of the variables in your experiment, can control them as well as test the interactions of those variables, then you can move into legitimate testing. Until then it's simple guess work on both sides of the fence.

Observational proof of a hypothesis would mandate something akin to a design of experiment. This would test various factor settings within the experiment. Since we can not, do not, and will not, ever know the factors in existence at the time of creation/big bang/ham sandwich, etc, no such "observable" test can be possible.

You are trying to use a tool like regression analysis to make correlations from totally unknown factors to a given response (life). It doesnt work that way.

Skin-n-vegas, a good rule of debate is to phrase your arguments as articulately, as concisely, and as clearly as possible. Throwing in jargon in order to confuse your debate opponents may impress some people, but it only hampers the debate.

Let’s state clearly and in plain English what you’ve written above. In the first post, you are saying that a test of the predictions made by evolutionary theory are impossible because we cannot control for the vast array of variables in play. It is essentially a statement about repeatability. In the second post, you are making a similar claim, but you are strengthening it by saying that we cannot know, and will never know, the state of the Universe during its inception.

Both statements are false, and the second one is irrelevant. In order to test a given hypothesis, we clearly set out the predictions made by that hypothesis, and then we examine the available evidence. Evolutionary makes a number of predictions that are supported by the fossil record. The evidence is by no means rock-solid (which is why I think we should eschew the term “proof”), but it fits evolutionary theory better than anything else that we currently have.

The testing of these predictions is independent of statistical analysis because we are not conducting a controlled experiment; we are testing predictions by observation. It’s the same way that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity garnered evidence – not by any experiment, but by observing how light bends around a massive object in space. We did not control for any variables in the behavior of those astronomical bodies, and yet the testing was valid.

The same argument applies to your latter statement, but I’d like to add two more points. First, we are getting closer every day to understanding the conditions of the Universe directly after inception – specifically, through observing of distant bodies whose age-old light we are receiving only now. Second, we don’t need to understand what the Universe was like seconds after inception in order to understand what conditions were on Earth just a few million years ago – we have geological evidence for that.

[CaliforniaSkin]

*sigh* And here come the people that ignore most of the post... As I stated in my post but you either did not read or just ignored was: The basis of evolution is mutation, but mutation has never been shown to do ANYTHING but take AWAY from the genetic code, not add to it. I would like to know how you explain this since the highest evolution scientists cant explain it.

OK, either I am misundertanding what you mean by stating that mutation has never been shown to do anything but take away from the genetic code, or you are absolutely incorrect. I assume you are claiming that mutation has not been found to add genes to a genome? If not, I apologize and if you care to restate I'll address your restatement.

First, in procaryotes (and virii for that matter). Bacteria and archea both have a single circular genome. Often pieces of this genome will break off and form plasmids. Plasmids are genetic elements that reproduce independently of the host chromosomes. It has been shown many, many times that plasmids can cross species, essentially 'adding' genes from one species to another. This actually serves a similar function to sex in eukaryotes in that it allows the transmission of genetic information between species within a population.

In Eukaryotes the situation is a little more complicated. New genes tend to come about in one of three ways.

The first is through gene duplication. During meiosis (the process which generate gametes, i.e. eggs and sperm) there is a fair amount of chromosome recombination. Essentially your eggs or sperm have chromosomes that are a mixture of your parents chromosomes. Part of the process which causes this recombination is called crossing over (the sister chromatids actually cross one another and are clipped and reattached by a number of enzymes). Crossing over is regulated but mistakes are fairly common. When an unequal cross-over occurs you end up with two gametes with normal chromosomes, 1 that is longer and one that is shorter. The longer one may have a duplication of one or more genes. The shorter one, if it is missing an important gene is generally non-viable. Now, with the longer one, you now have an extra copy of the sequences located in the duplicated segment. Because one copy produces a normal product, the redundant sequences are free to accumulate mutations without change to the phenotype. The duplicated sequence might even change function over time, thereby becoming an entirely new gene rather than a redundant copy.

The second way new genes are created has to do with what are called chromosome inversions. Essentially a portion of the chromosome is inverted and reattached during crossing-over. So if a piece of the DNA had genes in the order of ABCDE the DNA created might have the order ADCBE. Inverted sequences cannot align properly with their normal homolog during synopsis and often lead to the duplication or loss of chromosome regions. When inversions are heterozygous, therefore, successful crossing over becomes extremely rare. The result is that alleles inside the inverstion are often inherited together and form a "supergene." (Incidently inversions have been shown to have adaptive properties In Drosophilia subobscura (a European fruitfly that was brought over the the New World and subsequently escaped) inversions at certain polymorphic locii (meaning chromosomes with and without the inversion exist) were found to vary (in the same way) according to lattitude in both North and South America despite all of the species having the same ancestry - something about the inversions helps adaptation to the climate).

The third major way genes are introduced occurs primarily in plants. It has to do with something called polyploidy. While we have 2 copies of our chromosomes many plants have 4, 8, or even 16. Because they have 'extra' copies of their genome, much mutation can occur in a similar manner to the gene duplication I mentioned above.

All of these types of gene addition have been shown repeatedly in both lab and field settings.

[PokerPacker]

You do understand that Intelligent design does not interfere with "continuation/change of life" dont you?

Intelligent design accepts that evolution happens, only that it did not create new life. Theistic evolutional theory is actually a between the two theories, but it still can never be scientifically tested(just the the other theories).

the only reason that i mentioned that i didn't state the beginning of life is because you implied that i did. that is a completly different subject. my view on the beginning of life is through abiogenesis. (i know it hasn't been proven yet, but it is a growing science.)

[portisizzle]

This is, in essence, one of Aquinas' arguments for the existance of God. It is generally refered to as the argument from first cause. (It is quite distinct from Aristotle's argument of the Prime Mover which was based upon Aristotelian physics and is thus fatally flawed.) To state this argument in a logical sense you have to define your assumptions.

1) The first assumption is that everything that exists must have a creator. (Something cannot come from nothing).

2) The universe exists.

3)Therefore the universe must have been created. God is the creator.

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that it leads to an infinite regress. If everything that exists must have a creator then God must have a creator (as stated in assumption 1). At some point something, either God or the Universe, must exist without a creator. There is no logical necessity for that to have been God. Faith may lead you to this conclusion, but logic does not.

Well said. I think you will find my basic premise for holding this point of view is that the concept of "infinity" is flawed. That is to say nothing is truly infinite. Man made this concept in order to bridge the gap of mathematical, philosophical, and theological understanding.

The infinity regress you refer to is logically impossible in my opinion. We must open the box and recognize that their must have been a beginning. Faith does not lead me here, logic does.

And logic does not care if creation was begun by a creator or by dumb luck. The logical fact is the "this" was created.

[Prosperity]

Niether the Theory of evolution nor the theory of ID can be valid hypotheses.

Fact: Any hypothesis test needs to have a consideration of statistical power and it's associated risk factors (alpha and beta risk). The variables (known and unknown) are too vast and unclear that the given power of any test is rendered moot.

Basically, a big waste of time.

Liberty, when you decide that you know at least half of the variables in your experiment, can control them as well as test the interactions of those variables, then you can move into legitimate testing. Until then it's simple guess work on both sides of the fence.

They are both obviously not "guess" work since evolution is made up of a series of hypothesis that can be tested much like most other theories. And the variables can be known in those experiments. The components of evolution are clearly testable. If each piece is testable then it is clearly a testable theory.

Now as for the risk power, I was greatly confused when I first read your post, because it just didn't make sense to me. But someone else told me you are "conflating testability of substantive hypotheses and Fisherian statistical null hypothesis testing." Now to my limited understanding of statistics, substantive testing does not need a null hypothesis. Fisherian statistical null hypothesis testing does but it doesn't deal with the experiments we are talking about. (as in: if mitochondrion were originally prokaryotes then they would have their own DNA. They either do or they don't there is no need for any of what you mentioned).

Anyone on this board that has an background in statistics should try and clear this up.

[Prosperity]

Skin-n-vegas, a good rule of debate is to phrase your arguments as articulately, as concisely, and as clearly as possible. Throwing in jargon in order to confuse your debate opponents may impress some people, but it only hampers the debate.

Thanks AtB, I was pretty confused...

[ashburnskinsfan]

Ahhhh... I see. You are the kind of person who ignores the post that they realize they can not refute. You KEEP ignoring parts of mine. You say you presented facts of mutation? It is very obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You take whatever you have been told in the school system, which presents only one side, and taken that for law. Now respond to this mutation fact: As I stated in my post but you either did not read or just ignored was: The basis of evolution is mutation, but mutation has never been shown to do ANYTHING but take AWAY from the genetic code, not add to it.

Lets see if you keep ignoring it. If you do, I might as well stop this conversation right now, as you will not listen to anything.

If you really want to read about examples of beneficial mutation I can help.

Go to the following US Government National Institutes of Health website http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed. Type "beneficial mutations" in the query and read some of the more than a thousand scientific (peer-reviewed) results you get. Not all are directly about beneficial mutation, but many are. If you want a specific example, try:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15611159

[PokerPacker]

portis, are you really gonna bring up infinity again? :sigh:

[Prosperity]

The infinity regress you refer to is logically impossible in my opinion. We must open the box and recognize that their must have been a beginning. Faith does not lead me here, logic does.

Why is it logically impossible?

Either there is an infinite regression or there was a causeless beginning, there is no logical way around that.