Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FredBloggs said:
To be fair, there isn’t really, “ID, the science.” 😉
Click to expand...

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?​

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
 
mVitus said:
40.png
Aloysium:
So we have hairy monkeys arising spontaneously and as a reaction to stresses in the environment which shuffle about genomic material.
Click to expand...
So, getting to the science only, you would say animals change when they have to? ie the reason a species of monkeys is hairier is because the weather was cold so they “chose*” to become hairier in response. (As opposed to a hairier monkey happened to survive better, hence why they became hairier.)

*Chose is obviously not the best word, but I think it conveys enough of what I’m getting across.
Click to expand...
That would be a generalization of what happens in isolated cases, ignoring the multiple other reasons why things change. By the way, what you are suggesting is no more science than the more complete picture of what goes on. Remember that natural selection, where it may be a factor, is of a different order than chemistry. It involves the relationship between the phenotype and the environment it participates in, the mutual impact they have on each other at the level of the kind of thing it is.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Click to expand...
Their inability to reduce complexity does not constitute proof that it cannot be done. It just means they don’t know how to do it. Testing a structure to see that it requires all its parts to perform its current function is not proof that some subset of those parts could not perform some other biological function, thus justifying how natural selection could have favored the development of the components of the “irreducible” complexity.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Adaptation and HGT.
Click to expand...
Adaptation is a synonym for evolution. HGT is a known mechanism within the random mutation part of evolution.

So, your post effectively says: “evolution and evolution”.

At last something I agree with you on. 🙂

rossum
 
buffalo said:
When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Click to expand...
If they conclude that, then they are incorrect. IC systems cannot evolve by the direct route; Professor Behe was correct about that. However, IC systems can evolve through indirect routes, and have been shown to do so. Professor Behe, a good scientist, realised that he had made an error and corrected his hypothesis to match the new data. Indeed he published a paper: Behe and Snoke (2004), modelling how long it would take for a simple IC system to evolve by indirect routes.

You apparently have not yet made the same step. IC systems can evolve by indirect routes, so IC is not proof of design. It is only proof that the system did not evolve by the direct route.

rossum
 
Aloysium said:
That would be a generalization of what happens in isolated cases,
Click to expand...
Okay, so what do you say the majority of cases are?
Aloysium said:
By the way, what you are suggesting is no more science than the more complete picture of what goes on.
Click to expand...
To be clear. Are you referring to what I’ve been saying in the last few posts of mine? Or to my overall support of evolution?
Aloysium said:
Remember that natural selection, where it may be a factor, is of a different order than chemistry. It involves the relationship between the phenotype and the environment it participates in
Click to expand...
I think I’m with you there. The randomness of adaptations means we can’t make an exact formula of Monkey + Deforestation + 200,000 years = 5 ft. creature with hooded feet, monkey face, flexible tail, eating grass. (A horse monkey if you will.) But we can say, Monkey + Deforestation = It’s most likely that either it will adaptations from random mutations to survive its decreased habitat and the pressures causing iy via natural election, experienve random mutations that end up allowing it to survive in a less forested region amd natural election will cause those features to be more common, or it will die out.
 
buffalo said:
Adaptation and HGT.
Click to expand...
Okay. So we have our first monkey kind.
It would’ve been adapted to trees.
We look at the madril, which is adapted quite well for long distances on the ground.
If we imagine that the environment changes to have less trees, could the mandril adapt to be more upright so that it could travel long distances on the ground better than before?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
FredBloggs:
To be fair, there isn’t really, “ID, the science.” 😉
Click to expand...

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?​

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Click to expand...
Please - not the “irreducible complexity” trope. Are you going to start talking about flagella now?
 
rossum said:
You apparently have not yet made the same step. IC systems can evolve by indirect routes, so IC is not proof of design. It is only proof that the system did not evolve by the direct route.
Click to expand...
Yet, an indirect route increases the odds it does not happen. You once made the argument that scaffolding was used, and I rebutted it.
 
mVitus said:
Okay. So we have our first monkey kind.
It would’ve been adapted to trees.
We look at the madril, which is adapted quite well for long distances on the ground.
If we imagine that the environment changes to have less trees, could the mandril adapt to be more upright so that it could travel long distances on the ground better than before?
Click to expand...
Variation within through adaptation is well known.
 
Aloysium said:
approaching a vision of beauty
Click to expand...
Something that could have occured gradually over time via natural selection.

@Aloysium,
Aloysium said:
So, getting to the science only, you would say animals change when they have to
Click to expand...
(Actually my words, but quote is weird.)

That was meant to try making sure I accurately understood your position to the relevant parts when it comes to how a scientist would explain things. (I’ve mentioned before that I think your out too much philosphy into science. I was attemtping to cut through the philosophy portion.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top