Intelligent Design and the Fossil Record (unofficial)
lkeithlu/KL wants ID to explain the fossil record- specifically the hominids:
If you can apply the ID paradigm to the hominid fossils, then do so. But, please realize: Anthropologists have to write volumes to explain the sequence of fossils as they see it, and draw on the physical parameters, ages and geographical distributions to do so. Your simplistic one -sentence answers do not take care of the details. So, pick a section of hominid sequence and apply the ID paradigm. Why is that so hard? Your cohorts at UD made it sound like it was no big deal, but I can't get them to mention a single fossil, bone length ratio, joint angle, strata, radiometric method, comparison with modern humans or apes, nada. All I get is religion and philosophy and that all anthropologists are wasting their life, not to mention being left out of the conversation for days at a time by a biased and draconian moderation policy.
So defend your friends' claim, since they won't.
Once AGAIN- Intelligent Design is neither anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry- here are my references:
From the Intelligent Design authorities it is clear that ID is neither anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry:
Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism
Response to "NOT (JUST) IN KANSAS ANYMORE" BY EUGENIE C. SCOTT, SCIENCE (MAY 2000)
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."
Then we have:
What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design.
ID precludes neither neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations tha material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. page 109 of "The Design of Life"
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142
Also, as I have said, fossils can't say anything about a mechanism. All fossils tell us is such an organism once existed.
I don't have any complaints about any measurements of any fossil length, width, articulations. I have no doubt paleos do an excellent job. That said any pattern of fossils can be due to patternicity- nice of KL/lkeithlu to keep ignoring that part of my responses to her.
With that in mind, Intelligent Design, that is the design inference, is not based on fossils.
I would say it is more important to figure out the genetics, the biological part. Figure that out-> figure out what makes an organism what it is first. Then figure out if genomic changes are sufficient/ capable of creating the changes required.
We have 35 million years of fruit fly evolution that has produced many new essential genes. Yet the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.
Chimps and humans diverged some 4-7 million years ago. IOW you need some evidence for a mechanism that can produce the changes required and in that amount of time, ie generations.
And that is most likely what my friends were trying to tell you.