ID: What’s it all about, Darwin?

My mother says she is a Darwinist. I’m not sure of all the things that could or should imply. I take it to mean the she does not believe that the Cosmos and all that it contains is the result of the will of a Supreme Being. Nature just exists and that is all there is to it. Asking what is the purpose of human existence is a nonsense question. It has no meaning. As we have no conscious origin, we have no conscious destination. Hence no purpose.

This idea is quite troubling to many humans as we are quite reluctant to attach no meaning to the thoughts and desires coursing through the synapses of our brains. And so, for most of human existence, the idea that there was no God was a heresy to be condemned, punished, reviled, tortured and even burned at the stake.

When our social institutions evolved to the point where asking such a question wasn’t as quite as painful or harmful to one’s health, science, in the sense that we use today, began to blossom. And it bloomed because of its explanatory power, its predictive power. If you combine A, B, and C – bingo! – you get D. And no one had ever seen, heard or thought of D before!

One of the best and most widely known examples of this is Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc^2. Exactly what this means is not, for the purposes of this discussion, important. What is important is that this conclusion results from a very simple postulate. Namely, that the speed of light is constant relative to an observer – hence the term “relativity” theory. The other postulate is that we are only dealing with non-accelerated frames of reference. That means constant velocities and no gravitational fields. Hence the term “special” relativity. General relativity, dealing with accelerated frames of reference, is, both conceptually and mathematically, a great deal more abstract and difficult. And, unfortunately, I’m not one of those privy to its secrets.

We still believe, given compliance with the postulates, that the mass-energy equivalence equation is an accurate description of physical reality. For someone with an undergraduate’s knowledge of physics and fair skill with the calculus, it isn’t even very difficult to derive. But that is not the reason for its endurance. Our “faith” in this equation is borne out by innumerable observations, experiments and even a couple of unfortunate events in Japan that took place just about sixty years ago. Though the details of specific processes may, to some extent, still elude us, we have an explanation for the enormous energy levels and extreme duration of the power generated by stars. It was this question that stumped some of the greatest scientific minds of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Einstein’s answer still has no competing theory and it does not leave unanswered questions as to its validity lying about unaddressed.

The same cannot be said of evolutionary theory. There are unanswered questions. Evidence that does not fit. “Facts” that have proven illusive or false. Fabricated evidence. Explanations that are logically incomplete. Jerry-rigged computer models – oops! – sorry, that’s global warming. Result? A competing theory, Intelligent Design or ID, has been proposed as an alternative to Darwin’s rumination. Is this “unscientific” as many wail and gnash in their haste to keep “God” out of science? No. It’s an alternative hypothesis. A competing theory. Not religion. Not superstition. Not a conspiracy by those pesky right-wing, Christian fundamentalist – fundamentalist Christians, if you prefer. A proposed theory. This is how science advances. If one never questions, there are no answers to be had.

If you would like to bone-up on the fundamentals of ID, I suggest that you read Dan Peterson’s piece in the American Spectator, “The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism.” He gives a rundown of the main players in the ID debate along with their academic backgrounds and achievements as well as the main arguments supporting their positions. For an opposing view by a man of science in the field of evolutionary theory, read Jerry Coyne’s offering in the New Republic Online, “The Case Against Intelligent Design.” This was at one time linkable without a subscription as I have a copy saved. But alas, one now seems mandatory.

Based on my brief acquaintance with the subject, there seems to be two fundamental lines of argument used by ID theorists. The first is that which asserts the probability of the complex molecules that form our DNA occurring by chance is infinitesimally small and therefore unlikely to have ever happened by chance. This is the argument put forth by the mathematician and physicist William Dembski.

Michael Behe, who popularized the flagellar motor found in e. coli and other bacterium as an example of intelligent design, is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. His arguments are based on the concept of irreducibly complex processes or structures as opposed to those that are cumulatively complex. Those that are irreducibly complex do not lend themselves without great difficulty to explanation by a theory of evolution. For Darwin himself stated that if one could show that a blind, incremental process could not explain a natural phenomenon, his theory would fall apart.

Darwin’s theories are being questioned, but here we are not talking about religious zealots making the inquiry. We’re talking about real, live, grown-up scientists, who, because of our advancing knowledge of the molecular basis of life, and not just bible stories, are asking legitimate and profound questions that are undermining the basis of Darwinism. And they’re not doing so with the desire nor intention of substituting scripture for textbooks. God, as the Jews or Christians or even Muslims perceive Him, is not being offered in place of Darwin.

The fact one species can give rise to another similar species does not mean there are no limits to the process, that a bacterium can give rise to a human.

This is a big change in your position. A brief read of your post history sees you have often implied, or directly stated, that one species cannot turn into another.

Now you are saying a species can give rise to another similar species, and earlier in another post you defined macroevolution as species changing into another species. So you have implicitly said macroevolution is possible, you just disagree with the level of change that is possible.

I'll ignore all the mindless repitition fingers-in-the-ears-going-"La-la-la!" stuff and skip to where you at least did something different, the fallacy of bad analogy.

However, this line of argument is not logically correct. Just because I can jump an inch does not mean I can jump to the moon. Just because I can walk an inch does not mean I can walk around the world.

When you jump, you are using muscle energy to raise your body against gravity. Furthermore, the energy is stored as increased gravitational potential, which is why you come down when you jump. When you walk, you use muscle energy which is thereby depleted. Evolution isn't much like either thing, unless the walker is 1) allowed to rest and feed, and 2) not limited by oceans. Then walking can be like evolution.

Evolutionary drift has no energy cost and no stored return force. Once two populations drift a little bit apart, they can just as easily drift a little bit more apart as go back the other way. At any given point, they can do anything in response to the pressures they're under.

Here's an honest analogy. Your position is like claiming a hydrogen balloon released at spot A must forever bob and float about spot A, never getting far away. That's one behavior it almost certainly won't do.

The dishonesty of your analogy is instantly obvious and pathetic. That's your science and it's pitiful.

Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high).

Anyway, only creationists think DNA or a man jumped together all at once one day, which is what your model is modeling. You've just debunked the Genesis account. Way to go!

Nobody but you thinks you get a man from dirt in one day, OK? Nobody but you. You're the one. Got it?

The model is everything. Strawman model: garbage out.

Relentless, loony-tunes strawmanning. BTW, when you cut and paste relentless, loony-tunes creationist strawmanning on stupid models of DNA jumping together all at once, you have to go into the HTML and superscript the numbers like 10 100 to say 10 100. That makes a base with an exponent and gives the text some meaning even if the logic is spurious. Anyway, only creationists think DNA or a man jumped together all at once one day, which is what your model is modeling. You've just debunked the Genesis account. Way to go! Nobody but you thinks you get a man from dirt in one day, OK? Nobody but you. You're the one. Got it? The model is everything. Strawman model: garbage out.

At least my model makes sense.

The only question is which is the impossible model, God creating everything, or it just happening.

Come to the wrong conclusion and you will have 'billions and billions' of years to regret it.

I'll ignore all the mindless repitition fingers-in-the-ears-going-"La-la-la!" stuff and skip to where you at least did something different, the fallacy of bad analogy. However, this line of argument is not logically correct. Just because I can jump an inch does not mean I can jump to the moon. Just because I can walk an inch does not mean I can walk around the world. When you jump, you are using muscle energy to raise your body against gravity. Furthermore, the energy is stored as increased gravitational potential, which is why you come down when you jump. When you walk, you use muscle energy which is thereby depleted. Evolution isn't much like either thing, unless the walker is 1) allowed to rest and feed, and 2) not limited by oceans. Then walking can be like evolution.

So it means you can jump as high as you want?

Clearly there are limits to high one can jump based on the physical anatomy, not just gravity.

They cannot 'jump' genetically to another species.

Your fantasy thinking is showing.

The reality is that there are limits on everything, including hydrogen balloons.

Stop trying to talk away the facts, they are what they are.

The dishonesty of your analogy is instantly obvious and pathetic. That's your science and it's pitiful.

Actually, the only thing that is pitiful is your lack of science, which cannot come up with an answer to the facts that Macro evolution is impossible.

Every example you gave was that of Micro not Macro evolution.

Alchemy is more likely then Macro evolution.

But when the 2nd Law of Thermodynmics kicks in on your body and you find yourself looking into the face of your Creator, you can give your analogies to Him.

I am sure He is going to find them very amusing.

So it means you can jump as high as you want?

So the real science is being dumb as dirt? Anyone reading the paragraph you quote and the question to phrase in "response" can see you've sunk to complete brazen dishonesty.

They cannot 'jump' genetically to another species.

No creationist has ever identified a plausible mechanism why not. It has nothing to do with how high white men can jump.

The reality is that there are limits on everything, including hydrogen balloons.

You have not identified a limiting factor on "microevolution." We have the evidence for common descent. The mechanism is understandable. We see it happening. There are no more limits to evolution than there are to continental drift.

Actually, the only thing that is pitiful is your lack of science, which cannot come up with an answer to the facts that Macro evolution is impossible.

More unsupported shouting. This is your science? Lying about what you just pasted, sticking your fingers in your ears, and screaming your mantra over and over?

You're not exactly the best advertisement faith in things unseen has ever had.

The fact one species can give rise to another similar species does not mean there are no limits to the process, that a bacterium can give rise to a human. This is a big change in your position. A brief read of your post history sees you have often implied, or directly stated, that one species cannot turn into another. Now you are saying a species can give rise to another similar species, and earlier in another post you defined macroevolution as species changing into another species. So you have implicitly said macroevolution is possible, you just disagree with the level of change that is possible.

No, no change in my position (which you understand), only in the definition of the words.

What we are discussing is showing the change of species to another species in a Macro way.

In the examples that you gave the birds were still considered birds and the reptiles considered reptiles.

When the bird becomes a reptile, then you have proof of Macro evolution.

Very funny. The Salamanders are still fish aren't they? So you now saying you accept one species of fish turning into another species of fish? I wish you anti-evos would determine what you believe before you ask questions.

Oh, you understand very well what we are saying.

When the fish becomes a reptile, or a reptile a mammal, then you have Macro-evolution which is the fantasy evolution is attempting to sell.

Ofcourse, to sell it they have to appeal to what happens within the limits of species and then say, 'well if that happened, then it is possible for the fish to change to a reptile also'

In your post #285 your wrote:

Macro-evolution (species changing into another species)

Now if you accept that species can change into another species (ie one species of salamander changing into another species of salamander), then you accept macroevolution.

You asked: You have any species in the process of becoming another species while we speak?

I replied with the salamander example. You answered "salamanders are still amphibeans". Yes that is true, but beside the point. You specifically asked for change from one species to another, not change across higher categories like amphibeans to something else.

When the bird becomes a reptile, then you have proof of Macro evolution.

But you could just shift the goalposts again and claim "but they're still vertebrates"

Oh, you understand very well what we are saying.

Each anti-evolutionist seems to have their own definitions for things, and a different set of things they accept and deny. The anti-evolutionist position shifts from person to person, and even from thread to thread.

In your post #285 your wrote: Macro-evolution (species changing into another species) Now if you accept that species can change into another species (ie one species of salamander changing into another species of salamander), then you accept macroevolution. You asked: You have any species in the process of becoming another species while we speak? I replied with the salamander example. You answered "salamanders are still amphibeans". Yes that is true, but beside the point. You specifically asked for change from one species to another, not change across higher categories like amphibeans to something else. When the bird becomes a reptile, then you have proof of Macro evolution. But you could just shift the goalposts again and claim "but they're still vertebrates" Oh, you understand very well what we are saying. Each anti-evolutionist seems to have their own definitions for things, and a different set of things they accept and deny. The anti-evolutionist position shifts from person to person, and even from thread to thread.

No, the evolutionist wants to pretend that micro-evolution is Macro-evolution.

When a fish turns into a Reptile, or a Reptile into a Mammal, then you have Macro-evolution.

Is the Salamander still a reptile?

If so, then evolution that attempts to explain life moving from a single cell to man has not been shown.

And that is the evolution we are talking about. (as you well know)

The “Observed Instances FAQ”
As for the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ (the reading of which is encouraged by this writer), after one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the “speciation” examples given fall into one of two categories:

“new” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
“new” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.
In neither of the above examples cited by Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally “new” trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms. In other words, these are not examples of macro-evolutionary speciation—they are examples of human discovery and/or genetic manipulation and/or natural genetic recombination. They serve to confirm the observable nature of genetic variation, while saying absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian “macro-evolution,” which postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.

Definitions of “species” and (therefore) “speciation” remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as “speciation events”—yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen.

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

No, the evolutionist wants to pretend that micro-evolution is Macro-evolution.

Nope. Micro-evolution is change below the species level, macro-evolution is change above. It is clearly defined.

When a fish turns into a Reptile, or a Reptile into a Mammal, then you have Macro-evolution.

And also when one species of reptile turns into another species of reptile you also have macro-evolution.

Is the Salamander still a reptile?

There are about 500 species of salamander. In fact there are 10 different families of salamander.

So do you believe one species of salamander turning into another species of salamander is possible? Is this an example of micro or macroevolution?

Is one family of salamander turning into another family of salamander possible in your opinion? Is this an example of micro or macroevolution?

Do you accept that all salamanders could share a common ancestor and can be derived by darwinian evolution?

Nope: Near jerk reactions are the norm, test their zealous defense of evolution for yourself. O, By the Way: I am still waiting for a person to explain morality in light of an evolutionary meaningless existence. Civilization is only what the majority dictates to construct its survival. Therefore, condemning Gingis Kahn's, Hitler's, Stalin's, Pol Pot's society has no basis.

We are acting in a non evolutionary manor by interrupting their progression because we do not know if that would have been better for our survival or not. A ruthless dictatorship has existed in many forms around the globe for thousands of years; with all manor of oppression. What right or reason do we have to end these valid governments when we balance ultimate survival of the species?

It is not an alternative hypothesis, or a competing theory. There is no hypothesis. There is no theory. It asks no questions. It makes no predictions. There are no tests. It just says "that's too complicated to happen on it's own, God did it, move along, move along". This is NOT how science advances: this is how science is stagnated.

That is a very ignorant statement. No one on the creation or ID side is saying don't look any further God did it. The greatest scientist of the previous 1000 years before the 20th century believed in creationism. They went and searched out God's method and laws because they were creationists. Science owes its very existence to the idea of a creator who logically set down the laws and structure of the universe. That is why people used their belief in God to go forward and discover the wonders of the natural world. Because it was consistent.

Non of those believing scientist said 'God created it that way' and stopped their pursuit of knowledge.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.