Posted on 11/03/2003 12:05:39 PM PST by Heartlander
You could say it's an increase of specialization. Which in economics at least is a hallmark of an economic entity (company, industry, country) that is growing & getting more sophisticated.
No. It starts with evidence, some of which was in existence prior to Darwin.
Are you one of those folks who thinks fossils, geological formations, and radiological data have been placed by the devil to ensnare evildoers?
Unlesss they're theologians, why should the "who" make any difference? It would appear beyond the scope of science to ask that question.
I agree with you completely. That's why my opinion is that ID is not science and not appropriate for science class. If we want Bible class in school, let's vote it in. Christians make up 73% of Americans. We should be able to do anything if we would just vote.
Yes, you could. But that illustrates the problem with the whole evolutionary construct. It doesn't much matter what the pattern is. Virtually any pattern can be explained so as to fit the theory.
Whereas I do not doubt that a great many of the rejections are for cause, it is still distressing to know that the first paper on string theory was rejected, that Einstein never had to endure peer review, nor did Heisenberg or Bohr who were published on the strength of their credentials.
Among the Nobel prize winners whose papers were initially rejected: Yalow and Blobel. Feigenbaum's chaos theory was repeatedly rejected. Hawking’s paper on black holes was rejected by Nature.
The common complaint is that theories which run against the accepted view are often rejected.
IMHO, that is not a good thing. A scientists' credentials ought to be enough to allow him a public hearing.
I don't think ID is trying to answer the "who." It's demonstrating the inadequacy of probability to fully account for what's here.
It's impossible to calculate the probability for an unknown process. Especially since we only have one data point, mainly, we are here.
I've been trying to catch up with the Galileo data because it looks like Callisto may be covered with amino acid precursors. But maybe not.
For some theories. There are many patterns that would falsify evolutionary theory. For example, evolutionary theory would be falsified (or at least greatly modified) if plants and animals (and others) were not classifiable into tree structures. These tree structures apply to accidental graffiti type genetic structures; that is, exogenous viral DNA incorporated into the genome.
There seems to be no way to falsify Creationism. Any structure can be "explained" by postulating a sufficiently powerful designer. The problem is to create a theory with sufficent discrimination to make predictions.
The actual pattern is that people, chimps, gorillas, et al all share the *exact same* mutation that prevents ascorbic acid synthesis. It explains this pattern as inheritence from a common ancestor that lost the ability.
In fact, standard biology goes further and says that this sort of pattern should be repeated for all sorts of DNA. It is, which is one of the reasons evo is held in high esteem.
How would ID deal with this? If you don't allow common ancestors for people and great apes, you have to make an assumption about a hypothetical designer, namely that it did something analogous to code reuse.
But used different code to make guinea pigs need vitamin c.
It doesn't much matter what the pattern is. Virtually any pattern can be explained so as to fit the theory.
Leave out the 'virtually' and you have one of the serious problems that ID faces in its struggle to become a theory.
What in ID precludes pegasi? What precludes a critter something like a bird and something like a mammal?
On what basis would an ID-er predict that any pseudogene found in cows and whales is also in hippos? Why not rhinos? Evolution says that these had a common ancestor, that's why this pattern is found. What creationist/ID-er concedes that cows and whales are more closely related than cows and horses? What could he possibly mean, except common ancestry?
Distracted by this game (what's the probability of that?
You can put anything into tree structures, including oldsmobiles and football franchises.
Vitamin C is used to convert the amino acid proline to hydroxyproline in collagen, which is the main component of cartilage. It also has some other roles. Without it, you get very sick and die. I don't believe any carnivore could get enough in its diet to survive. And I don't believe bats are incapable of making it.
No you can't. If you took a 100 amino acid protein, and put ten sets of ten different random mutations in it, the sets would be uncorrelated. You won't get a meaningful tree from that.
Nothing (in ID itself) precludes it. Nothing demands it. "On what basis would an ID-er predict that any pseudogene found in cows and whales is also in hippos? Why not rhinos? Evolution says that these had a common ancestor, that's why this pattern is found. What creationist/ID-er concedes that cows and whales are more closely related than cows and horses? What could he possibly mean, except common ancestry?"
I don't think the IDers have a particular view on that. ID doesn't argue against evolution as a mechanism, they argue that there are some important and basic things that evolution hasn't the ability to coherently explain. The creationists would probably argue either 1) from a common designer, or 2) loss of, or scrambling of, genetic material. No creationists I ever heard of argue that nature is in it's "original" state, indeed they usually argue that life is undergoing rapid disintegration.
It sounds like you're arguing for a "Darwin of the gaps." If it's an unknown process, then how do we know it's a process?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.