Judge Says No to ID

The bias you have is blocking your ablity to see both sides. But it's ok, everyone who has taken your position is biased by their faith life "just happened". You are in good company with those who follow your belief system.

Predictions concerning fossil evidence and gene-mapping can be made that would lend macro-evolution credence, and those predictions can (and maybe have... I'm far from an expert in the field) be borne out. Can ID, religion, or FSM say the same?

And I'm not twisting ID's teachings. ID is nonverifiable. ID is, at best, philosophy. And it's being promoted as science.

My belief system is 'skeptic'. I keep an open mind, sir, and if compelling evidence comes to light concerning Intelligent Design, then I will be among the first to acknowledge that it has some validity. Until that happens, ID is not science.

It was you who said my points were shot down. I'm assuming you mean the points I made in this thread. If you look, you'll see I only made a few points here. If you make such a statement it's up to you to create the list of points and show how they were shot down. If you can't, that's ok. I understand. Merry Christmas. May God open your eyes to both sides of the debate. Hugs...

As a sceptic you sure quick to accept macro-evolution open-armed. It's an untested faith. It's no more scientific than creationism. I am a sceptic, but I am sceptical of everything, not just religious ideas. I don't accept things as truth just because some scientist says is true. Test test test, then show me the results of the experiments.

Which predictions concerning fossil evidence and gene-mapping can be made that would lend macro-evolution credence?

I pointed out that it is possible to test macro-evolution. Also, macro-evolution is a logical extension of micro-evolution. It seems a bit silly to think that small changes over the course of many millenia cannot lead to very, very large changes. Religion consists of presupposition that is inherently untestable, as does ID. Neither religion nor ID are science, as they do not fit the scientific model. Therefore they should not be taught as science. ID's proponents want it to be taught as science, and it is pretty clear that they have a religious agenda for doing so... ID is creationism in sheep's clothing. For someone who is skeptical of everything, you sure are quick to lend your support to the less-likely 'belief system'.

Again, not an expert, but fossil evidence already shows some transitory models (which would seem to support macro-evolution)... said transitory fossils being predicted by evolution on a grand (macro) scale. Gene-mapping can show how extant animals are related to one another, including trans-species relationships.

If you don't want to have a debate, that's fine. I'll dig them up.

Now you are dead wrong. It's your side that wants to stifle information. Read my ever post on the topic, I never suggested evolution be removed from schools. I want both THEORIES to be taught as THEORY and let the students use all available data known to man. It's the Evolutionists who want to deny students the right to know what information is available. What do you fear? Do you think the students will be too stupid to understand the debate?

Firstly, relation doesn't prove evolution any more than it proves ID. ID says a creator made them all, it would stand to reason the creator used similar materials.

There are no fossils that show macro-evolution.

Macro evolution is testable, it just takes a whopping long time to test it. "Not testable in our lifetime" is actually more the case.

Then again it depends upon your definition of macro evolution.

The strictest definition - speciation - IS testable in short order, and all you need are bacteria or something similar.



With regard to the mechanism for radical changes in overall body plan, this mystery has also been cracked: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

What information is that, Kevn? Intelligent design is a one trick pony. There's no evidence and no research to suppress. It seeks only to undermine evolution because it doesn't jive with creationism. Simply casting doubt on an accepted theory does not an opposing theory make. It's also not telling anyone anything they didn't already know. We won't have irrefutable "proof" of macro evolution until we've spent a few million years paying attention and keeping detailed records of our observations. Until then we go with the most complete theory that best fits the evidence.

What does ID have to offer exept the untestable claim that life is too complex not to have been designed? Okay, we got that. Interesting thought. That now concludes your class in ID because it has nothing else to say. Consequently, it has no value whatsoever except to prop up religion and creationism. I'm sorry that so many religious people are so insecure in their beliefs and are so desperate to have them validated by science, but just making untestable assertions isn't science. It's not philosophy. It's not anything, really, except demagoguery and contempt for secularism.

Nothing is... Evolution is Fact.

Case Closed end of story and Nuff Said.

I vote for no mention of evolution in any SL schools. Because everything was created here by intelligent design.
The same intelligents that created prim genitals I believe?

Because someone told you so or did you see it happen.

I already posted in this very thread about how you go about testing (macro) evolution:

Quite apart from that, when we have two theories, one of which explains the evidence and the other doesn't, then you tend to support the one that does (unless, of course you have ulterior motives for supporting one over the other...).

To that end, I'll requote for Kevn's benefit these unanswered questions:

"Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and .........."

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

This should clear up the misunderstanding of the terms. Macro-evolution is faith, micro-evolution is adaptation, and is accepted by us all.

1. Traits alter because of mutation *Edit-(or sexual reproduction that brings recessive genes to the forefront)*; beneficial traits propagate while traits that are detrimental to the species in a particular environment are wiped out. If they altered because of stimulus, then we'd all lose our pinky fingers from disuse. I think your misunderstanding comes from a fundamental lack of comprehension of evolution at a basic level.

2. "Normative" is relative to perceived commonalities in a given environment. Norms change as the environment changes, so they only return if-
A: the environment changes to suit those norms
and
B: if the mutation allowing that trait pops up again, or still exists within the population so that it can be bred back to normative levels.

3. Define "new information."

New information would include information in the DNA that wasn't there before, and later was added, that made a new trait.

Your open mind is impressive.

An alteration through mutation or a recombination of pre-existing information from the parents in an offspring makes it new information, does it not?

Nice avoidance of the other two points as well. Kudos.

Since retardation seems to be relevant to this thread, how about the traits in Down's Syndrome-

"Down syndrome is a syndrome that causes slowed growth, abnormal facial features, and mental retardation. It is caused by an extra chromosome 21." -wikipedia

Me: An extra chromosome... you don't say?
KK: But it's not information because they are retarded.
Me: You got me on that one.

So, you point to a deformity? Where is the positive trait? It's not new information showing an increase in function. It's a deformity of the already existing information. An extra existing chromosome identical to the correct chromosome or extra material that doesn't increase the information shouldn't be used by evolutionists to support their beliefs.

Shouldn't you be able to show many examples of DNA being developed over many generations of species in the fossil record that actually make traits that enhance the species?

"Children with Down Syndrome (DS) account for one of every 800 births. The risk of chromosome DISORDERS like DS, trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 increases with maternal age. The incidence of DS at birth is lower at age 20 (1/1600) than at age 35 ( 1/370), but many more younger women have children than older women. So most (75-80%) DS children are born to younger women. If a couple has a child with DS, there is usually an increased risk for a second affected child.

Genetic Forms of DS
All individuals with DS have extra chromosome 21 material. There are 3 genetic mechanisms for trisomy 21. The first and most common, is called non-disjunction, where there is an entire extra chromosome 21 in all cells. A chromosome study (karyotype) of trisomy 21 is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1




The second is mosaic DS, where trisomy 21 cells are mixed with a second cell line, usually "normal" (46,XX or 46,XY). Individuals with this form of DS are frequently a bit milder in their presentation, depending on the proportion of normal cells.

The third is a translocation DS, about 3-5% of the total, where part or all of chromosome 21 is translocated to another chromosome, usually 14. Translocation DS does not vary with age. Children with translocation DS are indistinguishable from individuals with the usual form of DS.

....."

http://www.nas.com/downsyn/benke.html

Recombining current information found in both parents doesn't add new information. An alteration through mutation has never added new information that is useful. As an example, lets say I have the letters A, C and M. And my mate has letters E, G and K. When we combine our letters we make new words neither of us could form alone. However, no new material has been added, the same letters exist as always, just in different order.


Mutations are harmful.