Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[2shelbys]

Orogeny:

You keep making the assumption that I think I am superior to others. I will ask you again since you seem to have overlooked the request - please post a link to one of my replies on any thread where I claimed to be smarter than anyone else. Or superior to anyone else.

Peace

Tim

As I said, this is childish and I really did not want to persue it since it adds nothing to the discussion but since you insist…

“Do you come by this erroneous conclusion based on study of the fossils or because you read it somewhere?”

“…you are demonstrating that you don’t really understand the concept of peer review in science.”

“Hey, buffalo. Any idea why the paleontologists were looking for fossils in that area? I’ll give you a hint…”

“Name me one single scientific theory that has been proven. One. I’ll wait.”

“Not even a good try.”

No, nothing arrogant or condescending about any of that. And those are just from a brief review of this thread, leaving out the numerous similar (and worse) things you have said on other evolution threads. Now, lets be done with this childish nonsense and get back to the futile attempts to convince either side they are wrong.

 

[2shelbys]

Orogeny:

Your’e right. No insults, just arrogant and condescending (on multiple posts, I might add!).

Peace

Tim

Right. You have been. As I have shown.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

2shelbys:

Right. You have been. As I have shown.

NUH UUUHHHHH!! :nope: :crying:

Take it up on the playground please. Class is now in session.

:banghead:

Sorry, this tit for tat stuff just detracts from the thread, demeans everyone involved, and gets really annoying for people who are trying to learn something.

Peace

John

 

[Orogeny]

2shelbys:

As I said, this is childish and I really did not want to persue it since it adds nothing to the discussion but since you insist…

If this is so beneath you, don’t reply. That simple.

“Do you come by this erroneous conclusion based on study of the fossils or because you read it somewhere?”

“…you are demonstrating that you don’t really understand the concept of peer review in science.”

“Hey, buffalo. Any idea why the paleontologists were looking for fossils in that area? I’ll give you a hint…”

“Name me one single scientific theory that has been proven. One. I’ll wait.”

“Not even a good try.”

No, nothing arrogant or condescending about any of that.

Correct.

And those are just from a brief review of this thread, leaving out the numerous similar (and worse) things you have said on other evolution threads. Now, lets be done with this childish nonsense and get back to the futile attempts to convince either side they are wrong.

You need to read my post again. I asked for links (or if you prefer, direct quotes) where I claimed to be smarter or better than anyone. That was a direct claim you have made.

2shelbys:

I am not the one who has ever claimed or acted as though I am any “smarter” than anyone else, that would be you.

Either produce those or retract that claim.

Peace

Tim

 

[Digger71]

Common Design

*Originally Posted by ScottH (post #35)
The core question,
Does the similarity in traits characteristics show “transition”…

…or does it show the trademarks of one common designer?*

You are Dave Scott and I claim my £5!!

Firstly, what is ‘common design’? The answer is that it is the capitulation of the intelligent design movement to the empirical evidence of evolution at a morphological, paleontological, geophysical, molecular-biological and cladistical level (excuse my hashed english).

Simply if evolutionary theory is true then there is only one way it can look. You cannot have bats with keratin beaks, you cannot have birds with nippes. Those features appeared after diversification from the last common ancestor. Never, ever, ever, in all the animal and plant species described has this been found to be false. So far 1.7 million species have been described and all hold to this rule.

Design theory is somewhat different, Any feature can be designed in without any intermediate form being needed. You can design a computer with an oil cooling system, a fan cooling system, or a liquid nitrogen cooling system. The cooling systems are lifted directly from completly unrelated technological systems. The new iMac has just got dual core intel processors as opposed to G5 systems. The leap is not possible in the evolutionary paradigm. The mix is only possible through the design paradigm.

So what does common design show us? It shows us that the intelligent design proponents have accepted that the tree of life is exactly described by the evolutionary pradigm, and does not demonstrate the mx and match of features that 1.7 individually designed ‘types’ or ‘kind’ would be expected to show.

Common design also flies in the face of everything we know about design. Whan a design flaw is discovered it is rectified if resources are available. The common design paradigm has theological implications (commonly explained away with arguments about not knowing anything about the mind of the designer) regarding the resources of the creator, his concern for poor design, his intelligence (some of the designs are just dumb), and the existance of sub-optimal design.

Designers fix the problems with their designs. We dont see that.

Oh, and given the tension between prey and predetor, parasite and host, disease and carrier we can go towards multiple designer theory.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Common Design

*Originally Posted by ScottH (post #35)
The core question,
Does the similarity in traits characteristics show “transition”…

…or does it show the trademarks of one common designer?*

You are Dave Scott and I claim my £5!!

Firstly, what is ‘common design’? The answer is that it is the capitulation of the intelligent design movement to the empirical evidence of evolution at a morphological, paleontological, geophysical, molecular-biological and cladistical level (excuse my hashed english).

Simply if evolutionary theory is true then there is only one way it can look. You cannot have bats with keratin beaks, you cannot have birds with nippes. Those features appeared after diversification from the last common ancestor. Never, ever, ever, in all the animal and plant species described has this been found to be false. So far 1.7 million species have been described and all hold to this rule.

Design theory is somewhat different, Any feature can be designed in without any intermediate form being needed. You can design a computer with an oil cooling system, a fan cooling system, or a liquid nitrogen cooling system. The cooling systems are lifted directly from completly unrelated technological systems. The new iMac has just got dual core intel processors as opposed to G5 systems. The leap is not possible in the evolutionary paradigm. The mix is only possible through the design paradigm.

So what does common design show us? It shows us that the intelligent design proponents have accepted that the tree of life is exactly described by the evolutionary pradigm, and does not demonstrate the mx and match of features that 1.7 individually designed ‘types’ or ‘kind’ would be expected to show.

Common design also flies in the face of everything we know about design. Whan a design flaw is discovered it is rectified if resources are available. The common design paradigm has theological implications (commonly explained away with arguments about not knowing anything about the mind of the designer) regarding the resources of the creator, his concern for poor design, his intelligence (some of the designs are just dumb), and the existance of sub-optimal design.

Designers fix the problems with their designs. We dont see that.

Oh, and given the tension between prey and predetor, parasite and host, disease and carrier we can go towards multiple designer theory.

I still submit my post #120, and along with it propose that the belief for and in the ‘designer’ is all about Faith…not evidence, and as such - evidence, which is what appears to be sought here, would defeat the condition and purpose of Faith. Also - BTW - the condition of ‘Faith’ existed long before anything was known in the sciences, therefore it is not a recent ‘invention’ for purposes of disputing scientific postulancy.

Peace

John

 

[AquinaSavio]

“Don, you are just trying to find a problem with everything.” Translation: “Don, don’t cloud the issue with facts.”

Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that “evolutionists” are rude. The fact remains that this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsity of their scientific statements. The fact that Richard Dawkins is sometimes combative and insulting has absolutely no bearing on the status of his scientific conclusions. One simply needs to ignore his atheism while acknowledging his scientific work. The complaint that “evolutionists are mean” is often simply a red herring designed to avoid or ignore the manifest empirical evidence for organic evolution.

Truly,
Don

Again, finding something wrong with someone who doesn’t agree with you. We are simply asking that this discussion does not become clouded with arrogance and degrading comments. That’s it.

 

[Digger71]

PraRFLEsEkHm:

I still submit my post #120, and along with it propose that the belief for and in the ‘designer’ is all about Faith…not evidence, and as such - evidence, which is what appears to be sought here, would defeat the condition and purpose of Faith. Also - BTW - the condition of ‘Faith’ existed long before anything was known in the sciences, therefore it is not a recent ‘invention’ for purposes of disputing scientific postulancy.

John , I have no objections to your view, per se. The issues I have with Intelligent Design is it seeks to prove that some parts of creation are more designed than others. It seeks to locate gods fingerprints in a pseudo-scientific paradigm. It seeks to lie to the faithful by misrepresenting science. The ID movement is a conservative, theistic dishonest movement that when exposed will do nothing but damage religion.

 

[mike182d]

Digger71:

John , I have no objections to your view, per se. The issues I have with Intelligent Design is it seeks to prove that some parts of creation are more designed than others. It seeks to locate gods fingerprints in a pseudo-scientific paradigm. It seeks to lie to the faithful by misrepresenting science. The ID movement is a conservative, theistic dishonest movement that when exposed will do nothing but damage religion.

With humility in accepting my own fallibility as a mortal man - unable to know everything about everything - I would much rather adopt a conservative, theistic theory that acknowledges the presence of a Creator than an unfalsifiable theory fallaciously heralded as “pure” science without an agenda.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Digger71:

John , I have no objections to your view, per se. The issues I have with Intelligent Design is it seeks to prove that some parts of creation are more designed than others. It seeks to locate gods fingerprints in a pseudo-scientific paradigm. It seeks to lie to the faithful by misrepresenting science. The ID movement is a conservative, theistic dishonest movement that when exposed will do nothing but damage religion.

Ummmm…ok. So…their position is NOT stated according to what I posted?

I was under the impression that is what ID was all about? Although, as I’ve said, I am not a scientist - I barely play one on TV.

I will have to look into it a little more - can you provide me with some decent links? I’m sure you are aware of the morass out there regarding these issues - everything credible I have come across, concerning evolution, came from this forum

Thank-you in advance for your help

Peace

John

 

[Digger71]

mike182d:

With humility in accepting my own fallibility as a mortal man - unable to know everything about everything - I would much rather adopt a conservative, theistic theory that acknowledges the presence of a Creator than an unfalsifiable theory fallaciously heralded as “pure” science without an agenda.

I am not sure what you refer to with this? Are you calling evolution unflasifiable? If so you are mistaken.

Feathers on mammals, nipples on birds, indeed any out of order attribute, would pose grave problems for evolution.

The appearance of mammals, birds, or lizards in the cambrian fossils woud pose grave problms for evolution.

On an experimental level we can design a fitness landscape and then judge an organisms fitness to it. As natural selection is based on breeding differentials in a given fitness landscape, we can inject multipe organisms (judged as previously described) and have an expectation of what would succeed in terms of number of offspring. An ‘unfit’ success over the ‘fit’ would disprove natural selection.

I could go on.

Those who claim evolution is not falsifiable do not understand evolution or do not understand falsifiability, or both.

Finally, evolution does not contradict theistic worldviews. It contradicts certain literal interpretations of scripture, but not theism.

 

[Digger71]

PraRFLEsEkHm:

I will have to look into it a little more - can you provide me with some decent links? I’m sure you are aware of the morass out there regarding these issues - everything credible I have come across, concerning evolution, came from this forum

When I am less tired… But you have already summed it up nicely:

I do not see these things as an impediment to Creation/design because The ‘designer’ (Who I refer to as God) could have (It seems did) simply create the ingredients for what is observable in the universe today, as well as what is left to us for observation from the past - and define the outcome of said ingredients, leaving how that happened up to natural processes with an (apparently) given set of laws within the framework of the balance of creation.

The Intelligent Design movment is based on the premis some things could not have evolved (such as bacteria flagellum) and so need direct intervention. I suggest you see Behe’s “Darwins Black Box” or the idiocy of Wlliam Demskis interminable bad math. Simply note how they claim ‘some’ structurs need go, and others do not.

 

[2shelbys]

Orogeny:

I asked for links (or if you prefer, direct quotes) where I claimed to be smarter or better than anyone. That was a direct claim you have made. Either produce those or retract that claim.

Peace

Tim

Tim, I gave you direct quotes (only a few of many) where you are insinuating that someone does not know what they are talking about or does not know as much as you do, just because they do not agree with you. This is ample illustration of my point and the claim stands. With that I am done with this childish waste of time.

 

[2shelbys]

PraRFLEsEkHm:

NUH UUUHHHHH!! :nope: :crying:

Take it up on the playground please. Class is now in session.

:banghead:

Sorry, this tit for tat stuff just detracts from the thread, demeans everyone involved, and gets really annoying for people who are trying to learn something.

Peace

John

As I said,exactly.

 

[Donald45]

AquinaSavio:

Again, finding something wrong with someone who doesn’t agree with you. We are simply asking that this discussion does not become clouded with arrogance and degrading comments. That’s it.

You, in referring to comments which challenge your chosen position as “arrogant” and “degrading,” seem to be the one who insists on “finding something wrong with someone who doesn’t agree with you.” If you’ll go back and read my posts, I deal with the scientific and philosophical issues relating to the so-called “evolution vs. creationsim debate.” When you begin to tire of the suggestion that you’re wrong at certain points, you decide that I am “arrogant,” and my comments “degrading.” I offer an objective critique of your views, and you respond with a personal attack on my character. Whose comments, I ask, should be considered arrogant and degrading?

If you have a scientific argument to make against my position, I’d be interested in considering it. If not, please resist the impulse to read sinister motives into my comments. Enough said.

Don

 

[rossum]

Digger71:

Design theory is somewhat different, Any feature can be designed in without any intermediate form being needed. You can design a computer with an oil cooling system, a fan cooling system, or a liquid nitrogen cooling system. The cooling systems are lifted directly from completly unrelated technological systems.

Another example would be designed animal like a pegasus. When a human designer wanted to make a horse fly he just gave the horse wings like a bird. The designer picked a ready-made subsystem from a different animal and incorporated it whole. Similar points can be made with other human designed legendary animals, they tend to be a patchwork of subsystems from different evolutionary lineages. Also with modern genetic engineering techniques there is usually a transfer of subsystems between different lineages. Your point about the relative absence of developmental stages in designed items is correct.

rossum

 

[rossum]

PraRFLEsEkHm:

I do not see these things as an impediment to Creation/design because The ‘designer’ (Who I refer to as God) could have (It seems did) simply create the ingredients for what is observable in the universe today, as well as what is left to us for observation from the past - and define the outcome of said ingredients, leaving how that happened up to natural processes with an (apparently) given set of laws within the framework of the balance of creation.

Thoughts?

One of the issues with discussions about “intelligent design” is that there are two different definitions of ID in use:ID1 - The entire universe and everything in it was created by God.
ID2 - Certain molecular mechanisms cannot have evolved and are evidence of the direct intervention of an intelligent designer.
The first of these is compatible with evolution, basically a theistic evolution position where evolution is God’s way of making living things - God designed the universe so that life would self-assemble. The second of these is much more controversial as it implies a change in the currently defined boundaries of science.

Many scientists hold position ID1 to be true, though the ultimate truth of that position cannot be decided within science. A few scientists hold ID2 to be true.

There is an interesting piece by Loren Haarsma on the place of ID in science at Is Intelligent Design “Scientific”? which covers this far better than I can.

Your position above seems to me to be pretty much ID1. To me the orign of life and the universe are not religious questions so I accept the scientific answers. The Buddha refused to answer questions about the origin of the universe because they were not relevant to his goal of the cessation of suffering (Cula-Malunkyovada sutta). ID1 may be true, but has no practical effect for me. ID2 has far to little scientific evidence to warrant my supporting it at present.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

2shelbys:

Tim, I gave you direct quotes (only a few of many) where you are insinuating that someone does not know what they are talking about or does not know as much as you do, just because they do not agree with you. This is ample illustration of my point and the claim stands. With that I am done with this childish waste of time.

To all involved with this thread:

As I was praying this morning, I couldn’t get this discussion out of my head. I need to apologize to anyone who may have read my posts as uncharitable by any definition. Please know that that is not my intention. If you feel that I have disparaged you in any way, I am sorry.

I don’t want this to be a problem between us on these forums, especially on this Palm Sunday when we remember our Lord’s passion.

Please forgive me.

Peace

Tim

 

[AquinaSavio]

Donald45:

You, in referring to comments which challenge your chosen position as “arrogant” and “degrading,” seem to be the one who insists on “finding something wrong with someone who doesn’t agree with you.” If you’ll go back and read my posts, I deal with the scientific and philosophical issues relating to the so-called “evolution vs. creationsim debate.” When you begin to tire of the suggestion that you’re wrong at certain points, you decide that I am “arrogant,” and my comments “degrading.” I offer an objective critique of your views, and you respond with a personal attack on my character. Whose comments, I ask, should be considered arrogant and degrading?

If you have a scientific argument to make against my position, I’d be interested in considering it. If not, please resist the impulse to read sinister motives into my comments. Enough said.

I’m sorry, but you misunderstood everything I said, Don. You have not been arrogant or degrading in this thread. I was referring to Tim, whom you seemed to be defending. I said that MANY evolutionists are arrogant. I never accused you of it. I repeat, you have been quite civil in your posts. Let’s just put it behind us now.

 

[2shelbys]

Orogeny:

To all involved with this thread:

As I was praying this morning, I couldn’t get this discussion out of my head. I need to apologize to anyone who may have read my posts as uncharitable by any definition. Please know that that is not my intention. If you feel that I have disparaged you in any way, I am sorry.

I don’t want this to be a problem between us on these forums, especially on this Palm Sunday when we remember our Lord’s passion.

Please forgive me.

Peace

Tim

Tim, It is amazing. I returned from mass today feeling the same way. I should have allowed for the possibility that what I was getting from your posts was not your intention and for that I am sorry. I know I can probably come across the same way when discussing the issues I am passionate about.