Intelligent Design

[valentino]

Balt-Oriole54: Hope this doesn’t sound ignorant but what about the universe?Is it made up of DNA?Where did God first put this DNA?

 

[rossum]

A mousetrap does not need intelligence to operate either.

Behe careful not to teach ovisuction to a maternal grandparent.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The analogy works better then you think.

So who is operating the sieve?

Not who, what. Gravity. It also operates many cases of moving water, my alternative metaphor.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’m not. Are you trying to argue to extremes?

I am using a Rediction ad Absurdum.

I simply want to know if anyone anywhere at anytime has witnessed one species becoming another.

Yes.

The paper you hold sacred provides us with identiies of scientists that are studying the matter, but they too have never witnessed this transformation.

I do not hold any scientific text sacred. My sacred texts are in the Tripitaka.

You have no eye witness account of the birth of Jesus. Why do you require more evidence from me than you do for yourself? I have never seen an eye witness account of your birth. Am I reasonable to doubt that you were born? If you are not going to allow reasonable inference then we cannot have a discussion. Unreasonable doubt can never be conquered as there are always unknown details.

Can you tell me the name of Seth’s wife? Can you tell me what Jesus ate three days before his nineteenth birthday? There are always unknown details that can be demanded.

One would think that this process would be caught somewhere in front of witnesses.
But it has not.

Again your creationist sources are lying to you. Try Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971), Thoday and Gibson (1962), Crossley (1974), Knight, et al. (1956), Kilias, et al. (1980), Rice (1985), Rice and Salt (1988), Rice and Salt (1990), del Solar (1966), Dodd (1989), Schluter and Nagel (1995), Koopman (1950), Dodd and Powell (1985) and others. All of those refer to observations of speciation of Drosophila in the lab.

Science has the evidence, mountains of evidence. Your creationist sources are doing their best to hide that evidence. Read this as an example. It covers a summary of the work done on speciation in Drosophila in labs from the 1950s to 1993. That is what you do not get shown by your creationist sources.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I am using a Rediction ad Absurdum.

Yes.

I do not hold any scientific text sacred. My sacred texts are in the Tripitaka.

You have no eye witness account of the birth of Jesus. Why do you require more evidence from me than you do for yourself? I have never seen an eye witness account of your birth. Am I reasonable to doubt that you were born? If you are not going to allow reasonable inference then we cannot have a discussion. Unreasonable doubt can never be conquered as there are always unknown details.

Can you tell me the name of Seth’s wife? Can you tell me what Jesus ate three days before his nineteenth birthday? There are always unknown details that can be demanded.

Again your creationist sources are lying to you. Try Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971), Thoday and Gibson (1962), Crossley (1974), Knight, et al. (1956), Kilias, et al. (1980), Rice (1985), Rice and Salt (1988), Rice and Salt (1990), del Solar (1966), Dodd (1989), Schluter and Nagel (1995), Koopman (1950), Dodd and Powell (1985) and others. All of those refer to observations of speciation of Drosophila in the lab.

Science has the evidence, mountains of evidence. Your creationist sources are doing their best to hide that evidence. Read this as an example. It covers a summary of the work done on speciation in Drosophila in labs from the 1950s to 1993. That is what you do not get shown by your creationist sources.

rossum

After 600 generations little or no change, they are still fruitflies, deformed or dead.

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila

 

[ricmat]

Read this as an example. It covers a summary of the work done on speciation in Drosophila in labs from the 1950s to 1993. That is what you do not get shown by your creationist sources.

rossum

After 600 generations little or no change, they are still fruitflies, deformed or dead.

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila

Buffalo, what you see here is natural selection in action . Those biological studies (or parts of studies, or portions of studies, or preliminary unverified studies) which are done whose results are successful (in terms of pushing the agenda) are kept and passed along to the faithful. Those which do not support the agenda are filtered out by natural selection, and don’t get passed on. We are continually told that “natural selection” is not random. This example certainly points out that it is designed

 

[rossum]

After 600 generations little or no change, they are still fruitflies, deformed or dead.

“Fruitfly” is not a species. Fruitfly, or Drosophila, is a genus than contains many species. Over 1,500 species at the last count.

You need to bear in mind the level of classification you are talking about. Macroevolution is about the emergence of new species. A new species of Drosophila is a new species. Drosophila is a genus, not a species. Your reference is about one particular species within the Drosophila genus, D. melanogaster. This is a very commonly used laboratory species.

Always be aware of the level of classification you are talking about:
Evolutionist: “Man evolved from earlier apes.”

Creationist: “That’s just adaptation, they’re still mammals. Show me some real evolution.”


rossum

 

[rossum]

Buffalo, what you see here is natural selection in action . Those biological studies (or parts of studies, or portions of studies, or preliminary unverified studies) which are done whose results are successful (in terms of pushing the agenda) are kept and passed along to the faithful. Those which do not support the agenda are filtered out by natural selection, and don’t get passed on. We are continually told that “natural selection” is not random. This example certainly points out that it is designed

On the contrary, since intelligence is involved in the selection, it is an example of artificial selection, rather than natural selection. Hence it is an example of Intelligent Design, not of evolution.

rossum

 

[vz71]

I do not hold any scientific text sacred. My sacred texts are in the Tripitaka.
rossum

Apologies.
I assumed you held the text sacred when you decided to hold it in the same regard as my sacred scripture.

Given this apparently is not the case, I suggest we leave the sacred texts out of the fray.

In short, no one here has insulted your religious belief…leave ours alone.

 

[vz71]

On the contrary, since intelligence is involved in the selection, it is an example of artificial selection, rather than natural selection. Hence it is an example of Intelligent Design, not of evolution.

rossum

Any test of evolution in a lab necessitates removing natural selection.
And replaces it with a designer.

 

[ricmat]

On the contrary, since intelligence is involved in the selection, it is an example of artificial selection, rather than natural selection. Hence it is an example of Intelligent Design, not of evolution.

rossum

Thank you. That was exactly my point. The data is being artificially selected to promote the agenda, your agenda. You agree.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, what you see here is natural selection in action . Those biological studies (or parts of studies, or portions of studies, or preliminary unverified studies) which are done whose results are successful (in terms of pushing the agenda) are kept and passed along to the faithful. Those which do not support the agenda are filtered out by natural selection, and don’t get passed on. We are continually told that “natural selection” is not random. This example certainly points out that it is designed

They were not fixed in the population.

 

[rossum]

Thank you. That was exactly my point. The data is being artificially selected to promote the agenda, your agenda. You agree.

I agree that you have taken my joking response (you did notice the smiley?) and tried to make it appear that I want to insult a number of very good scientists.

Evolution has evidence of speciation happening in labs in real time.

ID so far has no evidence of intelligent design by non-human entities happening in labs in real time.

In science the evidence wins. At the moment evolution is winning and ID is losing. If ID wants to improve its position then it needs to show evidence of design happening in the lab the same way the biologists can show evolution happening in the lab.

rossum

 

[vz71]

In science the evidence wins. At the moment evolution is winning and ID is losing. If ID wants to improve its position then it needs to show evidence of design happening in the lab the same way the biologists can show evolution happening in the lab.

rossum

What new species has a lab produced?
Was it the result of natural selection or a scientist imposing his will?
How does this correlate to natural occurances?

 

[rossum]

What new species has a lab produced?

Drosophila paulistorum.

Was it the result of natural selection or a scientist imposing his will?

Natural selection. It was an unexpected result. The scientists were doing other work when they discovered in passing that their lab flies could no longer interbreed with new files of the same original species taken from the wild. Only sterile males were produced. The original flies were captured in 1958. The new flies were captured in 1963.

How does this correlate to natural occurances?

It was a natural occurrence so it correlates very well.

Where is your equivalent evidence for Intelligent Design? Where are the laboratory results for ID showing the proposed non-human designer designing new species? If ID wants to be science then it has to show some scientific results.

rossum

 

[vz71]

Drosophila paulistorum.
Natural selection. It was an unexpected result. The scientists were doing other work when they discovered in passing that their lab flies could no longer interbreed with new files of the same original species taken from the wild. Only sterile males were produced. The original flies were captured in 1958. The new flies were captured in 1963.
rossum

Hold on a second.
Accident or not, is it not the scientist manipulating the flies?

That is hardly natural selection.

If anything, this would seem to indicate unpredictability.

EDIT:
I researched further on your species.
Here is what I have found:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC244116/

Characteristics of the Drosophila paulistorum Male Sterility Agent in a Secondary Host, Ephestia kuehniella
F. J. Gottlieb,1 G. M. Simmons,1† L. Ehrman,2 B. Inocencio,3 J. Kocka,3 and N. Somerson3
1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260
2Division of Natural Sciences, State University College at Purchase, Purchase, New York 10577
3Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, College of Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
† Present address: Department of Genetics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
Abstract
Crosses among the six semispecies of Drosophila paulistorum produce sterile male hybrids. This sterility is caused by an agent which has characteristics of a microorganism. It is pathogenic in a secondary host, the larvae of the Mediterranean meal moth, Ephestia kuehniella, and can be serially passaged in Ephestia, where it is lethal. The agent was passaged back into D. paulistorum, where it induced sterility in males of a semispecies different from that of origin of the agent. Infectious particles were obtained from an extract of infected Ephestia by ultracentrifugation in a sucrose-Ficoll-metrizamide gradient. Both crude and purified extracts were lyophilized and stored indefinitely without loss of killing power. The agent was destroyed by low pH, lipid solvents, ultraviolet light, and exposure to a temperature of 56°C for 30 min. It appeared to be sensitive to tetracycline and insensitive to penicillin, suggesting that the agent is not a virus, but more likely a cell wall-deficient bacterium or mycoplasma-like organism.

So is this speciation or simply a lab borne infection?

 

[shoe]

Natural selection. It was an unexpected result. The scientists were doing other work when they discovered in passing that their lab flies could no longer interbreed with new files of the same original species taken from the wild. Only sterile males were produced. The original flies were captured in 1958. The new flies were captured in 1963.

The result that lab flies and new flies from the wild could produce only sterile males is indeed strong evidence against evolution.

 

[rossum]

I researched further on your species.
Here is what I have found:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC244116/

So is this speciation or simply a lab borne infection?

Thank you for that. I have learned something new today. It does indeed appear that the sterile males were caused by an infection and not by speciation.

In that case I will propose a different example: Drosophilia melanogaster, from Kilias, et al. (1980).

I note your continued failure to produce any experimental evidence at all from the ID side. You continue to demand evidence for evolution, but refuse to show anything equivalent from the ID side. The contrast is striking. I have shown evidence, how about you showing us something in response?

Here is something you might want to consider:A metaphor I like to use: creationism is a mirage. From a distance, where you can’t see details, a mirage of, say, a hill looks perfectly solid and real. But as you get closer, instead of being able to see more and more detail as you would with a real hill, it just melts away. Actual biology (“evolutionism”) is a real hill in the same environment. From a distance, it may look no more solid than the mirage of creationism. But as you get closer, you can see individual rocks and shrubs and animal burrows and so forth – detail, in short. If you ask someone “describe this hill as it looks from 10 feet away” you’re going to get that detail in any honest answer. It’s not Lilith’s fault that your own hill melts away into a vague heat shimmer at the same distance.

• Source: The Mirage.
  At the moment your ID hill is looking very much like a mirage. Where are your experiments showing the designer at work?

rossum

 

[vz71]

Thank you for that. I have learned something new today. It does indeed appear that the sterile males were caused by an infection and not by speciation.

We are all here to learn. I humbly accept the thanks.

I note your continued failure to produce any experimental evidence at all from the ID side. You continue to demand evidence for evolution, but refuse to show anything equivalent from the ID side. The contrast is striking. I have shown evidence, how about you showing us something in response?

Here is something you might want to consider:
A metaphor I like to use: creationism is a mirage. From a distance, where you can’t see details, a mirage of, say, a hill looks perfectly solid and real. But as you get closer, instead of being able to see more and more detail as you would with a real hill, it just melts away. Actual biology (“evolutionism”) is a real hill in the same environment. From a distance, it may look no more solid than the mirage of creationism. But as you get closer, you can see individual rocks and shrubs and animal burrows and so forth – detail, in short. If you ask someone “describe this hill as it looks from 10 feet away” you’re going to get that detail in any honest answer. It’s not Lilith’s fault that your own hill melts away into a vague heat shimmer at the same distance.

• Source: The Mirage.
  At the moment your ID hill is looking very much like a mirage. Where are your experiments showing the designer at work?

rossum

Well, I see ample evidence of ID.
What of all the species that have simply appeared?
What of those pesky irreducibly complex engines?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” Sir Isaac Newton