Intelligent design

[TheBrutalTruth]

So linking to an encyclopedic definition to explain something that a simple dictionary definition can't do is not something I should do because I'm an expert in my field? Can you explain the logic in that?

I wouldn't call Wikipedia an encyclopedia. It's clearly subject to bias, misinformation, obfuscation, and omission. How many stories are there out there about corporations editing the entries that are in Wikipedia about them to hide unfavorable information?

What about articles getting altered towards one view or another.

It's not a very reliable source of information when it comes to unbiased, unmodified knowledge.

Besides, I'm still waiting for a link to a peer-reviewed journal.

Call it proof of credentials.

 

[misshestermoffitt]

and why did the christians through the ages try to destroy any religion that didn't agree with them. Their own god said thou shalt not kill, so they went around burning women as witches during the crusades.

Why are christians so desperate to convert everyone to their way of thinking.

I'll tell you why, because their mythical bible says jesus will return to earth when the whole world follows the same religion. If they couldn't convert them they just killed them.

 

[mindphuk]

I wouldn't call Wikipedia an encyclopedia. It's clearly subject to bias, misinformation, obfuscation, and omission. How many stories are there out there about corporations editing the entries that are in Wikipedia about them to hide unfavorable information?

What about articles getting altered towards one view or another.

It's not a very reliable source of information when it comes to unbiased, unmodified knowledge.

Besides, I'm still waiting for a link to a peer-reviewed journal.

Call it proof of credentials.

Why don't you look at one of the 43 references on the wikipedia page? It's not my job to hold your hand and spoon feed you information. You want peer review journals? Here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=speciation&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

and why did the christians through the ages try to destroy any religion that didn't agree with them. Their own god said thou shalt not kill, so they went around burning women as witches during the crusades.

Why are christians so desperate to convert everyone to their way of thinking.

I'll tell you why, because their mythical bible says jesus will return to earth when the whole world follows the same religion. If they couldn't convert them they just killed them.

Yeah, so people are assholes. Is that proof of evolution. The fact that as humanity has progressed we've become more asinine, self-centered, selfish, greedy, and incapable of letting people have their own views with out forcing ours upon them?

Personally, I think the best solution is to let the people that want evolution to be taught to establish their own schools, and let people that want Intelligent Design taught to establish their own schools, and stop the state manipulation of the curricula.

(Oh and Mindphuk, you still don't have proof, fossil records, discussions regarding the difficulty that sicentists face because the insist on separating out species by increasingly finer and finer individual details, do not constitute proof. Just like the say so of the ID crowd does not constitute proof, nor their pointing out the fact that all species share similar DNA.)

 

[mindphuk]

(Oh and Mindphuk, you still don't have proof, fossil records, discussions regarding the difficulty that sicentists face because the insist on separating out species by increasingly finer and finer individual details, do not constitute proof. Just like the say so of the ID crowd does not constitute proof, nor their pointing out the fact that all species share similar DNA.)

No, they are trying to decide how fine to go before it is the same species or not. The big transitional changes are in the genus, class and order levels. Tetrapods are a great example of having a lot of fish like features but still not quite fully amphibian features either, interestingly, the ones that show up later in the strata, show more evolved limbs and less aquatic features as opposed to the ones found in lower layers, just as evolution would predict. The evolution of the whale from a land based mammal to what we have now is well documented among a many different fossils.

It seems to me you are reluctant to actually pick up a book and read about some of this. I can tell you I have read books by Behe and Dembski, too heavyweights in the ID side, so at least I can say I am familiar with your side of the debate. You clearly are not as familiar with the scientific side of this debate which begs the question, how are you able to competently argue against science using someone else's argument? You are relying on the accuracy made by websites like AiG and Discovery Institute. I'm not quite sure if you are challenging my scientific credentials or just making personal attacks, but if you need evidence of my knowledge on the subject, I will try to come up with a way to prove it while keeping my anonymity.

 

[misshestermoffitt]

So TBT, you still haven't answered, who designed us and dropped us off here?

When we were dropped off, were we already different races or did that come later?

Did we already know how to survive?

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

So TBT, you still haven't answered, who designed us and dropped us off here?

When we were dropped off, were we already different races or did that come later?

Did we already know how to survive?

I don't know. I don't have any solid evidence to come up with a conclusion. Nor have I seen sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

If you're talking about melanin attributes, that's genetic expression due to climates varying. But I don't know if there were originally black and white humans or not.

Well, obviously the fact that we are still here answers the last. We obviously had some kind of survival instinct, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Of course, that's really neither stating that I believe in Intelligent Design or Evolution. I'm still not sure which side to believe. Both sides point to the same evidence (DNA) and one side points to other evidence (Fossils) which the other side refutes, and both sides have people with reasonable rhetorical skill and ability to create a logical chain to make their argument.

I'm still trying to decide for myself, (as opposed to letting some one tell me what to think.)

Of course, I don't have time to read all the texts regarding it right now, so :: shrugs :: the jury is still out.

 

[mindphuk]

Of course, that's really neither stating that I believe in Intelligent Design or Evolution. I'm still not sure which side to believe. Both sides point to the same evidence (DNA) and one side points to other evidence (Fossils) which the other side refutes, and both sides have people with reasonable rhetorical skill and ability to create a logical chain to make their argument.

Please accept my apology. I was under the impression you were religious creationist poising as an ID advocate (believe me, there are plenty of them out there) and already had your mind made up. I will stop treating you like your mind is made up. My mistake, I should not have assumed it but you seemed to be arguing so vehemently against science.

Rhetorical skills and logic alone do not make science. I admit, the ID movement can make some very compelling arguments. I'm not surprised that people are taken in by them, but I implore you, read some good books about evolution (I will suggest some if you are truly interested). Also, take a look at why the Dover trial went the way it did and again ID loses in the courts as being considered as real science. Watch this and respond please: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs
Listen closely at 2:00.

You might also want to check out some of my friend Thunderf00t's videos too. Not only are they educational, but quite entertaining. You might even get caught up in the YouTube drama of Thunderf00t v. VenomFangX.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ

 

[mindphuk]

If you're talking about melanin attributes, that's genetic expression due to climates varying. But I don't know if there were originally black and white humans or not.

How does climate affect your genome? Why are the skulls (nothing to do with skin pigment) of various races different?

 

[TeaTreeOil]

This is probably one of the worst threads ever.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

How does climate affect your genome? Why are the skulls (nothing to do with skin pigment) of various races different?

Wouldn't have argued so vehemently if you weren't trying to push me into a square hole.

Believe or die isn't the argument of science, it's the argument of tyrants. Science has also relied upon providing people with the evidence to make up their own mind.

Which of course is why I'm familiar with the ID Arguments. I don't really care one way or the other what other people think. I want to see the evidence for myself (even if it is texts) and make up my own mind.

Something about not being a sheeple.

Though, yeah, if you have a good text that is current I'm interested.

 

[mindphuk]

Though, yeah, if you have a good text that is current I'm interested.

Not textbooks but since you aren't convinced about the fossil record, I would consider Prothero's book http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235103944&sr=1-1

but that only will tackle one aspect of ET. I haven't read it but there has been some good buzz about Jerry Coyne's new book Why Evolution is True. It was written covering the many aspects of ET, to specifically address the types of misunderstandings we are currently discussing here. I hear it is a great introduction too since it shows how many scientific disciplines from geology, paleontology, chemistry, physics, biology, plate tectonics, genetics, etc. all dovetail so neatly into what we now call the Theory of Evolution by common ancestory.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Not textbooks but since you aren't convinced about the fossil record, I would consider Prothero's book http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235103944&sr=1-1

but that only will tackle one aspect of ET. I haven't read it but there has been some good buzz about Jerry Coyne's new book Why Evolution is True. It was written covering the many aspects of ET, to specifically address the types of misunderstandings we are currently discussing here. I hear it is a great introduction too since it shows how many scientific disciplines from geology, paleontology, chemistry, physics, biology, plate tectonics, genetics, etc. all dovetail so neatly into what we now call the Theory of Evolution by common ancestory.

Some one should tell the writer to lay off the propaganda. If Darwin's theory was "beautiful" there'd be no debate. It's a very messy theory. Now, theories stating that the Earth has to revolve around the Sun, and thus explains the apparent retrograde motion of Mars, that's a beautiful theory.

Simplifies the complexity of achieving visible results. Anyway, I'll still have to check them out. I just don't hope I end up wanting to hunt down the author of the second to strangle the shit of him/her/it for not adopting a professional writing style that doesn't reflect their personal feelings.

Though have anything more, suited for like 200 - 300 level courses at a college?

Cause just looking at the TOC, it feels like it's going to repeat what was in the HS Texts on the first, and I feel like I'm going to puke on the second, especially if that word, "Beautiful" is used repeatedly to describe a scientific theory that is anything but.

 

[hom36rown]

well there is no debate among scientists. only people who desparately cling to religion, and ignore the mountain of evidence from so many different fields of science. Did you watch the vido mindphuk posted, about humans having had a chromosome fuse together. How do you explain that TBT, god put that there to trick us or...what?

 

[TeaTreeOil]

Oh, there's definitely debate among scientists!

 

[mindphuk]

Though have anything more, suited for like 200 - 300 level courses at a college?

There are no textbooks that teach basic evolutionary concepts at that level. After you get beyond the basic genetic primers like http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Genomics-Proteomics-Andrew-Pomiankowski/dp/0878936548/ref=pd_sim_b_3
http://www.amazon.com/Bringing-Fossils-Life-Introduction-Paleobiology/dp/0073661708/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235107827&sr=1-4
and
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Nicholas-H-Barton/dp/0879696842/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235107634&sr=1-1
you will have to specialize.

Keep in mind, in the scientific community, there is no debate. Evolution is the only working theory on the diversity of species. Any advance texts will just be more detail on whatever particular subject you choose. Better than trying to read course material, which is just trying to teach specifics, you should read journals like Nature and Science to see some of the new breakthroughs that are occurring across multiple disciplines, like how they are combining models of plate tectonics with gene sequencing to see how migration of certain species occurred and when, as well as show how isolation affects these species evolution.

Did you watch the youtube vid talking about the Dover trial? What did you think?

 

[mindphuk]

Oh, there's definitely debate among scientists!

Of course there but not about whether or not ID should be accepted as an alternate theory to Evolution.

 

[TeaTreeOil]

You've never met Christian scientists...?

However oxymoronic that seems.

You know.... Those guys that disclaim basically all other science and claim there's factual basis for man just 'instantly appearing' out of nowhere. It's some mind-numbing shit.

 

[misshestermoffitt]

So if we all started out the same color and then some of us changed to suite our environment, that would be evolution.

If we didn't know how to survive and then somehow managed to take our powers of abstract thought and put them to good use, that is also evolution.

We all came out of Africa, yet we look so different, because people evolved to suite their environment. Those who didn't evolve, aren't here anymore. You either change to suite your environment, or you perish.

That is why so many species are going extinct now. Humans are polluting at a rate higher than species can change. We're facing a mass extinction, it's right around the corner. Throwing off the balance of the food chain like we are may be what ends us all.

I don't know. I don't have any solid evidence to come up with a conclusion. Nor have I seen sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

If you're talking about melanin attributes, that's genetic expression due to climates varying. But I don't know if there were originally black and white humans or not.

Well, obviously the fact that we are still here answers the last. We obviously had some kind of survival instinct, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Of course, that's really neither stating that I believe in Intelligent Design or Evolution. I'm still not sure which side to believe. Both sides point to the same evidence (DNA) and one side points to other evidence (Fossils) which the other side refutes, and both sides have people with reasonable rhetorical skill and ability to create a logical chain to make their argument.

I'm still trying to decide for myself, (as opposed to letting some one tell me what to think.)

Of course, I don't have time to read all the texts regarding it right now, so :: shrugs :: the jury is still out.

 

[CrackerJax]

Mindphuk is correct in the fact that among credible scientists, evolution is not a topic of debate. It has stood every scrutiny thrown at it and held up. That is no small thing.....


out.