Attention all anti-IDists
This is to let all the anti-IDists that your ignorance-filled posts and your ignorance-driven questions do nothing to Intelligent Design. All they do is to further expose your ignorance and intellectual cowardice.
If you want ID to go away all you have to do is to start substantiating the claims made by YOUR position!!! That's it!
However it is obvious that you cannot and therefor you are left to wallow in your ignorance.
So how about it- One testable hypothesis for non-telic processes (pertaining to abiogenesis, universal common descent or the formation of the universe).
Don't bother posting here if you are not willing to support your position.
If you want ID to go away all you have to do is to start substantiating the claims made by YOUR position!!! That's it!
However it is obvious that you cannot and therefor you are left to wallow in your ignorance.
So how about it- One testable hypothesis for non-telic processes (pertaining to abiogenesis, universal common descent or the formation of the universe).
Don't bother posting here if you are not willing to support your position.
posted by Joe G @ 8:03 AM
21 Comments:
At 2:34 PM,
Kierra said…
On common descent: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There's a lot of material there, including many testable hypotheses that can be made from the common descent theory, the data that is available supporting those hypotheses (including references), and discussion of how each hypothesis could be falsified.
At 10:37 AM,
Doublee said…
I have found the following exchange in the cross examination of Dr. Kenneth Miller in the Dover trial to be quite interesting. (Sept. 26, 2005, p. 47, line 12)
"Q. Is it true that scientists do not know enough about all structures in the cell to describe how they all work or how describe how evolution could have produced each of them by step-by-step Darwinian processes?
"A. Well, you ask a very interesting question. And I, first of all, am going to enthusiastically agree with the first part, which is that scientists certainly do not understand enough about all of the structures in the living cell to understand how they work. That really is the business, my business and the business of Dr. Behe. Because the answers to that questions are going to come out of genetics -- sorry. They're going to come out of biochemistry. They're going to come out of cell biology and maybe molecular biology and genetics as well. I'll answer the second part of your question this way. Until we understand the first part, which is how everything works, we can't even begin to understand how things evolved. So we will have to have an absolute and complete and total understanding of how everything in the cell works before we can even begin to put together an understanding of how it evolved."
I think you will be waiting quite awhile before your other posters will be able to meet your challenge to come up with a testable hypothesis for the "theory" of evolution.
And this leads to another question I have. If the theory of evolution hasn't explained what it purports to explain, that is, that all of life's diversity and complexity is the result of random variations and natural selection, why has it earned the label of "theory"? Shouldn't it still be called a hypothesis?
At 7:50 AM,
Joe G said…
Kierra- Common descent doesn't say anything about a mechanism.
Dr Behe makes that clear in "The Edge of Evolution"- he states several times that evidence for universal common descent is not evidence for a mechanism.
Also I have yet to see any evidence for common descent that cannot also be used to support alternative hypotheses.
Genetic code universal- common design and convergence can explain it.
Nested hierarchy- common design and convergence can explain that too- however one wouldn't expect a nested hierarchy in a universal common descent scheme- that is because traits can be gained and lost- NH is based on characteristic traits.
ERVs- common mechanism and convergence can explain their appearance.
What common descent requires is a way to test how the physiological and anatomical DIFFERENCES arose. And if you want to test it in the context of the theory of evolution you have to show that an accumulation of genetic accidents can bring about those changes.
Anything short of that and you don't have squat.
At 8:00 AM,
blipey said…
For the love of God! RM+NS is the mechanism. Plain and simple; how stupid are you. Genetic drift is a mechanism. Plain and simple. Lateral gene transfer is a mechanism. There are plenty of mechanisms out there.
Where are ID mechanisms again?
doublee: you're just a moron.
At 8:01 AM,
blipey said…
Hey, Joe:
Is a paternal family tree an example of a nested hierarchy? Yes or no.
At 8:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Talk origins com desc refuted
There's a lot of material there showing how Dr Theobald is wrong.
At 8:12 AM,
Joe G said…
For the love of God! RM+NS is the mechanism.
Read the link you ignorant twit. The article states flat out that the evidence does NOT rely on a mechanism.
ID mechanisms would be non-random mutations as in built-in responses to environmental cues. Also design is a mechanism.
At 8:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Is a paternal family tree an example of a nested hierarchy?
No. Read the link for clarification:
Male Descendants- the Violation
At 8:23 AM,
Joe G said…
From the talk origina article:
"Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless."
IOW once again clowny proves its ignorance.
At 8:30 AM,
Joe G said…
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human). This is part of a peer-reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.
"Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned."- page10
At 9:12 AM,
Joe G said…
So how about it- One testable hypothesis for non-telic processes (pertaining to abiogenesis, universal common descent or the formation of the universe).
At 9:44 AM,
blipey said…
Joe, you linked to yourself as proof of paternal family trees not being an example of NH. Pretty sure that that's not allowed in any area of debate. If a person claims something, he should cite a SECOND (and wholly different person--split personalities are not allowed) person as corroboration.
At 9:47 AM,
blipey said…
ID mechanisms would be non-random mutations as in built-in responses to environmental cues. Also design is a mechanism.
Design could be a mechanism, sure. Now, what proof do you have that design is involved?
Also, if you're citing mutations as a mechanism for ID, why can't mutations be a mechanism for ToE? Either mutation is a mechanism or it isn't; which would you like it to be?
At 10:55 PM,
Doublee said…
blipey:
What part of my post earned me the title of moron?
Is it the quote from the Dover trial transcript? (Do you disagree with Dr. Miller?)
Or is it my question of why evolution should have the status of a theory instead of a hypothesis?
Or is it my conclusion from Dr. Miller’s testimony that ID critics will have trouble coming up with a testable hypothesis if even scientists don't know how evolution works?
An ad hominem without an explanation doesn't advance the debate one bit.
At 7:38 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe, you linked to yourself as proof of paternal family trees not being an example of NH.
The argument is valid regardless of the source.
And I know that is allowed in a debate.
Also I cited a peer-reviewed high schoool supplemental text. And unless you are going to argue that scientists lie to high school students it is obvious you don't have a case.
At 7:42 AM,
Joe G said…
ID mechanisms would be non-random mutations as in built-in responses to environmental cues. Also design is a mechanism.
Design could be a mechanism, sure. Now, what proof do you have that design is involved?
Diesign is a mechanism and science doen't require proof.
However there is plenty of evidence for design in nature.
And all you have to do to refute ID is to demonstrate that non-telic processes can account for it.
Also, if you're citing mutations as a mechanism for ID, why can't mutations be a mechanism for ToE?
Mutations are a mechanism for evolution.
However there isn't any data, evidence nor observations that demonstrate that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and novel body plans.
At 3:19 PM,
Kierra said…
However there isn't any data, evidence nor observations that demonstrate that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery
New protein machinary through evolution, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase:
"Scientists were able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients. The P. aeruginosa strain did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain...Genetic analysis of the plasmid led some scientists to the conclusion that the genes to produce one of the enzymes had most likely resulted from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation."
At 4:29 PM,
Kierra said…
However there isn't any data, evidence nor observations that demonstrate that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery
Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:
*adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
*the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
*evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
*modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
*evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:
*Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).
At 4:53 PM,
Joe G said…
However there isn't any data, evidence nor observations that demonstrate that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery...
New protein machinary through evolution, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase:
Umm that is one enzyme (protein).
If I had meant single proteins I would not have specified machinery.
Machinery* would be multiple proteins coming together, involving new protein-to-protein binding sites, and producing something functional as to be selected for.
* 1 a device with several moving parts which uses power to do a particular type of work:
At 4:56 PM,
Joe G said…
There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:
*Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).
Apparently and only if you reject any other, equally valid explanation- as with convergence and common design.
At 8:04 AM,
Joe G said…
Kierra,
I found your list on talk origins:
talk origins nonsense-
You shouldn't rely on that site for anything as it is about as dishonest as a site can get.
Post a Comment
<< Home