My credibility is irrelevant. I am not the author of any of the papers I referenced. It is the contents of those papers that is important.
Look at the title of this thread.
So, next time you get ill, ask your doctor for an antibiotic that used to work 40 years ago. See how well you do. Evolution is observed in the real world every time a bug evolves immunity to an antibiotic.
You need to understand that in science the default position is “We don’t know”. If evolution were shown to be wrong tomorrow then science would revert to the default. It would not immediately switch to ID. Instead the position would be “We don’t know. Now, what positive evidence is there for ID?” Do you recognise that last question? The one I have been asking in my last few posts. Where is the evidence for ID that will move science away from its default position?
Because you will never be satisfied, whatever I produce. You weren’t even satisfied by a paper from Professor Behe, one of the poster boys of ID. There is overwhelming scientific support for evolution. That you can’t see it does not negate the fact that it exists.
And there is one of your errors. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of acceptance. I accept evolution because it is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. If you want to change that acceptance then you are going to have to show more evidence on the ID side. If you don’t have any evidence then you lose.
Evolution stands. What is the ID explanation for the arrangement of ERVs in the human genome? Evolution has an explanation. What is the ID explanation for the presence of a GULOP pseudogene in primates? Evolution has an explanation. What is the ID explanation for the presence of genes for teeth in toothless modern birds? Evolution has an explanation.
Even my extremely conservative Catholic college, Franciscan University of Steubenville, offers an upper level biology class called “evolution”, which is evidence that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that even the biology department here treats evolution as an extremely well proven fact.
Again (and again, and again) I suggest you read Signature in the Cell. You have dissed it in the past because you knew it was wrong to begin with, because the authors had no credibility in your mind. Above, you now state that it is the contents of the papers that is important, not the author. You can get it here….
I would like to clarify something. You insist on seeing “the designer at work.” Actually, what ID is looking for is evidence of design (much or most of which could be in the past).
Rossum points to a few Catholic evolutionists. Indeed, there are some. But the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are atheists. They will either tell you that there is no God, or avoid a confrontation by stating that such discussions are not a matter for science. I guess truth is only to be sought where it will not impact your “religious” beliefs (or in this case, anti-religious beliefs).
Complete and utter rubbish. There are a great many things in the universe that are intelligently designed. Here is one of them:
No. Science knows that common sense can be deceived. Science knows that if you use a word like “probability” then you have to do some maths and come up with an actual number. Is it 0.01% probable or is it 95% probable? There is a great deal of difference.
No I am not going to argue that. Different parts of the initial lifeform probably arose independently. You might wish to investigate the properties of lipid bilayers for one.
This is evidence that your creationist sources are lying to you. Have a look at autocatalytic reactions and autocatalytic RNA cycles. The Spiegelman Monster is also interesting. Abiogenesis is not a theory of “pure chance”. There is a lot of chemistry in abiogenesis and chemistry is not “pure chance”. Is is “pure chance” that exactly two hydrogen atoms combine with exactly one oxygen atom to make a molecule of water? Your creationist sources are lying to you when they call abiogenesis “pure chance”. Chemistry is a long way from “pure chance”. You are being lied to. why do you believe lying websites?
Have a look at the top right of my posts, where it says “Religion: Buddhist”. I am not an atheist, I am Buddhist. Have you ever read the Lotus sutra? Here is an excerpt from chapter one:Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.
Books are not science, they are about science and are written for a different audience. You would do better to refer to Meyer (2004). Here is a review of that paper: Meyer’s Hopeless Monster. I cannot actually link to the paper as it has been withdrawn. You probably have the gist of it in ‘Signature in the Cell’.
I can see evolution altering DNA in the lab. You cannot show me the designer altering DNA in the lab. Which option do you think I am going to accept?
So, post some here and we can discuss them.
Because in one case we have evidence of a (separate) designer, in the other case we do not.
Yes. Given a lot of time, things that seem impossible will happen. Is it LIKELY at any point in time? Not at all.
One can argue for 100%. While I BELIEVE God was the creator, from a scientific standpoint I argue that the odds of it happening are 100% SINCE IT HAPPENED.No. Science knows that common sense can be deceived. Science knows that if you use a word like “probability” then you have to do some maths and come up with an actual number. Is it 0.01% probable or is it 95% probable? There is a great deal of difference.
O.K. now you do the math and tell me the exact mathematical probability that the first living organism came into existence without being designed.
Without more than one example of life, its hard to know the “exact” math. 100 years ago, we had every reason to expect that life was rare and unique. Today we know that complex carbon molecules form, we know that the Earth’s early conditions were ripe for their formation, we don’t really have a great reason anymore to expect it to be a rare event. In fact, there is some evidence that it happened MORE THAN ONCE on Earth alone.Don’t give me somebody else’s math. Give me your own. You seem cocksure the math is correct, so you must have done it yourself and checked it, right?
This is going to be interesting!
We can reason it through, but the references are good for the background information.
For the tomb we have independent evidence of the designers. We have independent evidence of the methods the designers used (if you look carefully you can see the marks left by the scaffolding the rock-carvers used.) We know that such a design, and the implementation of that design is within the capabilities of the designers in that place at the time that tomb was carved.
No, but I don’t need to. I have independent evidence of its designers and constructors.
You are the one who is asserting design as a solution. You do the maths for design. The maths for abiogenesis will have to wait until more detail is known. We already have evidence of chemistry and we know that chemistry can do some of the work. You have no evidence of the designer and you have no evidence that your designer can shift even a single molecule. I know how chemistry can make pyrimidines. Tell me how your designer made pyrimidines.
???
So you want the details without having any grasp of the big picture? That doesn’t make sense. The book is probably available from your local library. If you borrow it then you’d get the big picture, plus you could investigate those references which you personally find interesting (or suspicious).
I do not think that the Discovery Institute wants schools to teach that Craig Venter designed the first lifeforms on Earth.
It is something that should be pursued. The problem is that the Discovery Institute is trying to pursue science by political means. That is not science, it is politics. At the moment DI-ID is not science. It may become so in future, but at the moment it isn’t. It needs to do a lot more work first.
Science lives on the details. Have a look at the details of Lenski’s proof that IC systems can evolve: Line of Descent. That is the level of detail that science is working at. If you want to be science then the detail is essential.
So I guess you agree that DNA can be tinkered with by intelligent agents.
Read Signature in the Cell.
The details are in Signature in the Cell.
I gave you the link for Signature in the Cell.Have a look at the details of Lenski’s proof that IC systems can evolve: Line of Descent. That is the level of detail that science is working at. If you want to be science then the detail is essential.
It is fascinating observing ID people thinking up reasons why they do not need to post references to the evidence supporting ID. A real class in creative writing: “The dog died and grandmother ate my homework.”
rossum
Is there something special about that? Other things that can be tinkered with include cement, bananas, and even dog poop. Any creature has some amount of intelligence, so any act of feeding is devouring information and therefore showing that something can be “tinkered with by intelligent agents.”
Stating why something moves one to belief is vastly different than science. That’s how this should be treated.