Intelligent Design in Science Class

[M0nkey]

Start with The Origin of Species. I don’t understand the difference between what you call Darwinism and evolution theory. Darwin was a great scientist in the same way that Newton was a great scientist and to call his work unscientific is just ignorant.

Okay, do you consider Darwin a Darwinist? In the origin of species he raised more questions than answers. For example, if natural selection holds as a guiding principle why would a single celled organism evolve into more complex ones? It is evident that more complexity leads to more vulnerability in that there is more that can go wrong. They also require more energy to survive and have a higher maintenance than lower beings. Even today, it is not clear how this jump was ever made. There are other discrepancies to carefully consider if all creatures evolved from the same slime. These are questions that he hoped someday will be answered, but the empirical data is really pulling the other way. Evolutionary theory on the other hand deals with small changes that may be guided by natural selection which is where Darwin would get credit for his work. So far research data shows that is caused by mutations mostly internal and sometimes external, but we are not quite clear on the source. But the fact that the media and other scientific outlets tend to mix both to prove Darwinisn really muddles the issue.

 

[wasmit]

I would encourage people to watch the movie “Expelled”. That it is a good way to show that the scientific community (especially USA) does not operate in a scientific manner but in a politically correct manner when it comes to dealing with diversity in scientific dogmas.

Intelligent design is not Biblical creationism. It can be consistent with creationism but does not imply it. A lot of “scientific” theories are just philosophical speculations and not provable theories. Just because they use the scientific lingo and they are aesthetically pleasing (elegant) does not mean that they are science.

LOL

 

[Orogeny]

You are going to have to be a little more clear on that. Do you mean how to debunk Darwinism? Or given it’s historical context what did Darwin himself believe? Or how did it get to be widely accepted by the scientific community?

How about explaining what puts you in a position to decide what science is and what it isn’t. Why do most scientists who are also devout Christians accept evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[M0nkey]

How about explaining what puts you in a position to decide what science is and what it isn’t. Why do most scientists who are also devout Christians accept evolution?

Yes, but I was merely speaking about Darwinism not evolution as in adaptation. Hopefully I already made that clear. But if you are willing to defend the position that organism evolved tell me how you came to these conclusions? Evolutionary theory certainly does not say definitely that this is so, you could extrapolate or *assume *that, but there is a lack of substantial evidence.

 

[Orogeny]

Yes, but I was merely speaking about Darwinism not evolution as in adaptation. Hopefully I already made that clear.

Actually, no it is not clear at all to me what you mean. Can you clarify what you see as the difference between adaptation and “Darwinism”? In fact, can you tell me what you mean when you use the term “Darwinism”?

Peace

Tim

 

[M0nkey]

In fact, can you tell me what you mean when you use the term “Darwinism”?

Darwinism is the notion that we share a common ancestor with bacteria. Evolutionary theory involves micro changes that are seen in DNA. Both of these are mutually exclusive since it does not follow that small changes can transform anything into anything. You can *assume *that but that does not follow the scientific method. In fact, empirical data shows that there are more differences between species than previously thought.

 

[Orogeny]

Darwinism is the notion that we share a common ancestor with bacteria. Evolutionary theory involves micro changes that are seen in DNA.

Interesting. I have never heard that distinction. Are there any scientist that define it that way?

Both of these are mutually exclusive since it does not follow that small changes can transform anything into anything.

Do you have any actual evidence for this or is it just an assumption that you are making?

You can *assume *that but that does not follow the scientific method. In fact, empirical data shows that there are more differences between species than previously thought.

Do you have any empirical data that supports your conclusion that micro changes cannot transform anything into anything?

Peace

Tim

 

[CWBetts]

Interesting. I have never heard that distinction. Are there any scientist that define it that way?Do you have any actual evidence for this or is it just an assumption that you are making?Do you have any empirical data that supports your conclusion that micro changes cannot transform anything into anything?

Peace

Tim

Do you have any empircal data to explain how the number of chromosome pairs in a cell nucleus can change without being fatal to the organism?

 

[Orogeny]

Do you have any empircal data to explain how the number of chromosome pairs in a cell nucleus can change without being fatal to the organism?

Are you suggesting that evolution calls for a chromosomal change in an existing organism?

Peace

Tim

 

[M0nkey]

Do you have any empirical data that supports your conclusion that micro changes cannot transform anything into anything?

Yes, in fact, there are plenty. Scientists that are now looking at this stuff are basically saying there are organs and organism which are “irreducibly complex” for example an eye: if you where to change any part of the eye or any part gone missing it would cease to function. This shows that while there are genetic differences in offspring any genetic disorder that is *big *enough would cause key organs to malfunction.

 

[Orogeny]

Yes, in fact, there are plenty. Scientists that are now looking at this stuff are basically saying there are organs and organism which are “irreducibly complex” for example an eye: if you where to change any part of the eye or any part gone missing it would cease to function. This shows that while there are genetic differences in offspring any genetic disorder that is *big *enough would cause key organs to malfunction.

Is it your understanding that our eyes must have evolved from nothing to become what they currently are?

Peace

Tim

 

[CWBetts]

Are you suggesting that evolution calls for a chromosomal change in an existing organism?

Peace

Tim

Absolutely. One of the many distinguishing charactaristics of differant species is that they all have differnt numbers of chromosonal pairs of varying lengths. It is also known that defects in numbers of chromosomes are at the very least debilitating and often fatal. Wolves (Canis lupis), coyotes (C. latrans), and domestic dogs (C. domesticus) are three distinct, yet closely related species. One could also argue that they have a common ancestor. They also can interbreed, since all three species have 39 chromosonal pairs. This is itself evidence supporting evolution, which I do not dispute. The closest living relatives to humans are the great apes. They each have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have 23. We also know that humans born with extra genetic material in the form of extra chromasomes usually die. And extra chromasome associated with pairs 1 through 20 are always fatal. The third chromosome associated with pair 21 results in Trisomy-21, also called Down Syndrome. This condition also has a high instance of miscarriage. I would like to know, if humans and the great apes did indeed have a common ancestor, science must be able to provide a mechanism to allow for the discrepancy in chromsasome pairs between apes and humans.

 

[Michaelo]

Yes, in fact, there are plenty. Scientists that are now looking at this stuff are basically saying there are organs and organism which are “irreducibly complex” for example an eye: if you where to change any part of the eye or any part gone missing it would cease to function. This shows that while there are genetic differences in offspring any genetic disorder that is *big *enough would cause key organs to malfunction.

IC is a flawed concept

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems “absurd in the highest degree”. However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

* photosensitive cell
* aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
* an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
* pigment cells forming a small depression
* pigment cells forming a deeper depression
* the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
* muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona’s single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

source

 

[Michaelo]

I would like to know, if humans and the great apes did indeed have a common ancestor, science must be able to provide a mechanism to allow for the discrepancy in chromsasome pairs between apes and humans.

This should address you question:

Chromosome counts are poor indications of similarity; they can vary widely within a single genus or even a single species. The plant genus Clarkia, for example, has species with chromosome counts of n = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 26 (Lewis 1993). Chromosome counts in the house mouse species (Mus domesticus) range from 2n = 22 to 40 (Nachman et al. 1994).

Chromosomes can split or join with little effect on the genes themselves. One human chromosome, for example, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes (Yunis and Prakash 1982). Because the genes can still align, a change in chromosome number does not prevent reproduction. Chromosome counts can also change through polyploidy, where the entire genome is duplicated. Polyploidy, in fact, is a common mechanism of speciation in plants.

source

 

[Orogeny]

Absolutely.

I guess I learn something every day! Can you provide a link to a scientific source that shows that there are documented changes in the numbers of chromosomes in an organism? Not it’s offspring, but in an existing organism.

The closest living relatives to humans are the great apes. They each have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have 23. We also know that humans born with extra genetic material in the form of extra chromasomes usually die. And extra chromasome associated with pairs 1 through 20 are always fatal. The third chromosome associated with pair 21 results in Trisomy-21, also called Down Syndrome. This condition also has a high instance of miscarriage. I would like to know, if humans and the great apes did indeed have a common ancestor, science must be able to provide a mechanism to allow for the discrepancy in chromsasome pairs between apes and humans.

From our own hecd:

evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

This is actually one of the evidences that Kenneth Miller provided in the Katzmiller v Dover trial. Kind of a slam dunk in support of evolution. The fusion was accurately predicted.

youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Peace

Tim

 

[M0nkey]

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

This basically says nothing about nothing. The probability of putting an eye together in 1,829 steps is indeed low, it’s akin to saying that a jig-saw puzzle can be assembled by shaking the box this many times. The evolution of the eye like this article claims has not been shown through the scientific method.

 

[Orogeny]

This basically says nothing about nothing. The probability of putting an eye together in 1,829 steps is indeed low, it’s much like saying that a jig-saw puzzle can be assembled by shaking the box this many times. The evolution of the eye like this article claims has not been shown through the scientific method.

Does the theory of evolution suggest that the current eye (assuming that we are speaking of one specific kind of eye) was the ultimate goal of evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[Michaelo]

This basically says nothing about nothing. The probability of putting an eye together in 1,829 steps is indeed low, it’s akin to saying that a jig-saw puzzle can be assembled by shaking the box this many times.

Consider this:

There is a science called population genetics, and it has mathematical formulae for how quickly favorable genetic changes can spread throughout a population of sexually reproducing creatures. From these formulae, Nilsson and Pelger concluded that the 1829 steps could happen in about 350,000 generations.

In real life, an eye could evolve a little more quickly than that, or more slowly. It would depend on how much the specific creatures were being pressured to change, and on whether vision was relevant to their lifestyle.

If one year equals one generation, then a fairly good eye could evolve in maybe a third of a million years. It is thought that animal life has been on earth for at least 600 million years. That is certainly enough time for eyes to have evolved many times over.

source

The evolution of the eye like this article claims has not been shown through the scientific method.

I encourage you to check out the references for that article and discover how the scientific method was used to reach these conclusions.

 

[CWBetts]

I guess I learn something every day! Can you provide a link to a scientific source that shows that there are documented changes in the numbers of chromosomes in an organism? Not it’s offspring, but in an existing organism.From our own hecd:

evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

This is actually one of the evidences that Kenneth Miller provided in the Katzmiller v Dover trial. Kind of a slam dunk in support of evolution. The fusion was accurately predicted.

youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Peace

Tim

That is the problem. The fact that secular humanist evolution cannot explain how the number of chromosome pairs change from parent to offspring. However since there atre may different arrangements of chromosomes, it must have happened at one point. Until this can be explained, evoultion is little more than conjecture.

 

[Orogeny]

That is the problem. The fact that secular humanist evolution cannot explain how the number of chromosome pairs change from parent to offspring. However since there atre may different arrangements of chromosomes, it must have happened at one point. Until this can be explained, evoultion is little more than conjecture.

So you are not saying that the number of chromosomes change in individuals but in their offspring. Is that correct? Because you seem to have been saying that the changes you have been describing take place in individuals.

How does this happen? Here you go.

madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-05/989331026.Ev.r.html
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php

It isn’t as unknown to science as it is to you. Now that it has been explained, I guess that you now accept evolution as much more than conjecture.

Peace

Tim