Posted on 11/05/2005 11:47:03 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian
Most likley what is known as a "sleeper account" -- an extra account set up long ago for contingency purposes -- so that when the poster gets his regular FReeper account banned for bad behavior, he has an old established account, with a few old posts to make it look real, which he can then start using again, thus not drawing the same scrutiny a new account would immediately following a banning.
The only people who would know to do this would be someone who has been banned multiple times over the years, or a professional troll.
I happen to come down on the Miller side of this debate; I think ID is bad science that does not belong in high school classrooms. But nor do I think ID can be dismissed out-of-hand; it and its proponents deserve to be debated in a respectful manner. My more vociferous (and less informed) pro-evolutionist friends and colleagues seem to think ID is just young-Earth creationism in drag, and their polemics reflect that supposition. I have, well, bothered them by carefully arguing that ID is nothing of the kind.I agree. I also believe that ID is bad science but that it is sincerely put forward and raises questions that are worthy of debate.
It isn't possible to rebut a theory that, BY DEFINITION, can have no evidence to support it.
Then again, it isn't necessary either.
Horses and donkeys have a much higher degree of genetic compatibility than do humans, yet their offspring (mules) cannot reproduce. You reinforce my point.
The claim that I have "attempt(ed) to insinuate that evolution = atheism" is absolutely fraudulent. Quite to the contrary, what I expressed was amazement that NOT ALL Darwinists ARE religious fanatics. In other words, I am saying that for many Evolutionists, Darwinism is akin to a faith itself. Your penchant for using the straw man argument is duly noted.
FALSE. The debate is not about religion versus science, but rather about another branch of science with a well-developed theoretical basis (ID) versus Darwinism. It is THEORY versus theory, though the fanaticism of the Darwinists would lead to believe that Darwinism is fact rather than theory.
You state, "Behe, under oath, said he accepts the fact that it has happened. I suspect you simply aren't aware of what ID is all about."
The issue is not whether macroevolution can ever happen. The issue is whether it is a viable description of the processes that led to the origin of the many species on this planet. It's like the old yarn about a thousand monkeys with typewriters eventually, given an eternity of effort, reproducing the exact text of Webster's Dictionary.
And yes, I fully understand ID and appear to be the only person to cite specific challenges raised by ID (irreducible complexity, parallel development of identical novel features down separate "evolutionary" lines, extra- and sub-chromosomal variations and remapping of gene-chromosome arrangement).
Your petty tactic of pretending to know what you're talking about and insinuating that others who disagree with you is as childish as it is ineffective.
"kstone seems to be asserting that if existing chromosomes mutate by fusing, breaking apart, and by other such means changing their number, then they CAN'T possibly assort and pair. This is false (as a universal assertion) but a different issue from polyploidy.
False. What I am asserting is that you have to have identical (or at least near-enough) fusion in both a male and female of the original species and that they have to form a mating pair in order for the novelty to be propagated and create a new species. You don't seem to be thinking this through. There are all sorts of ways to get a genetic variant. It is the small matter of PROPAGATING that novelty that is problematic.
Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, has written a new book, "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design. In it he says this:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:
I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
ID is not a "branch of science" since there is no science to it. Give one iota of evidence that supports it.
And it isn't a "well-developed theory", it is an Assertion Without Proof, which is, BY DEFINITION, incapable of proof.
If the "sleeper troll" comment has been directed at me, I can assure everyone here that it is false. However, I suspect that the author of the claim is well aware of the methods for circumventing banishment, as he has used these tactics repeatedly on my own site and many others.
My account name is the same one that I have used on many sites. I have never employed mor needed to employ a sock puppet.
It appears that this site is as bad as many of the Liberal sites when it comes to ad hominem attack replacing intelligent rebuttal. For shame.
"It isn't possible to rebut a theory that, BY DEFINITION, can have no evidence to support it."
Irreducible complexity is a perfectly viable theory which could be rebutted is there was any contrary evidence to its central premise that there are collections of novel features that are meaningless relative to survival of the species (which is what Darwinism claims is necessary for such a collection of novelties to be propagated with any certainty) for which neither natural selection nor any other feature of Darwinism can explain.
There also appears to be a misunderstanding of the use of the term "intelligent" in "Intelligent Design." The ID theorists do not make the same necessary association with deity that the anti-ID forces seek to ascribe to them. The term "intelligent" refers to the presence of some factor beyond random happenstace in the origin of the species. As a matter of fact, the manner in which Darwinism is explained in many quarters has moved beyond randomness (which was Darwin's premise) and into "intelligence." In true Darwinism, variations naturally occur all the time as a matter of random processes. When those random variations improve the viability of the species OR when they are, by happenstance, expressed in a population which has survived over competitors for unrelated reasons (such as competitors being decimated by disease or natural disaster), the variant flourishes. However, I have personally been witness to the use of terms such as "need" and "require" by Evolutionists, including professors and lecturers, in expressing the impetus behind Darwin's random variations. In effect, the failure of Darwinism to survive modern genetics has forced Darwinists into their own claims of "intelligence" in the process.
Why do you think I am contesting Denton's notion? You appear to be attempting to paint me as a Creationist, just as others frequently attempt to attack me for allegedly suggesting that "God" greated everything.
I am not espousing a mode of "creation" or even "creation" as such. I am instead challenging the fundamental flaws of Darwinism as a matter of science.
It's hilarious, but the evolutionists have taken the position of the Church of Rome when its geocentric view of the universe was challenged by the likes of Galileo. Rather than answer the very real challenges to their pet theory, they attack and shout down those who persist in exposing the flaws.
Just look at some of the absurd claims and accusations made about me above. This is not an intelligent scientific debate. It has taken on the character of a religious doctrinal dispute, complete with the heightened emotions and frequent irrationality.
Again, for shame.
Irreducible complexity is an opinion, not a fact. It is also a Negative Assertion, "a previous useful structure that didn't contain as many parts could not have mutated into a more complex one." Which is what was recently discovered about the infamous flagellum. It could have evolved from a stinger, which had many of the same parts but not all.
On "parallel development" see: convergent evolution. Which is why several different species have eyes, yet evolved in entirely different conditions and along entirely separate tracks. Reality demands it.
You should really get out more, you are way behind the times.
That theory of evolution and the principle of natural selection cannot explain a given feature is a Negative Assertion. It is an opinion. It is an inference, to refer to the narrative that you started in this thread, that can lead to no conclusion. All of ID is based upon such faulty inference.
The ID theorists do not make the same necessary association with deity that the anti-ID forces seek to ascribe to them.
This statement is utterly false. As noted in another post, that is why ID advocates want to change the "definition" of science to include "non-natural" sources.
"As William Dembski stated in 'What Every Theologian Should Know About Creationism, Evolution and Design,' unless the ground rules of science are changed to allow the supernatural, Intelligent Design has 'no chance in Hades.'" ID is Creationism in shabby disguise.
The term "intelligent" refers to the presence of some factor beyond random happenstace in the origin of the species.
If we don't know this "factor" exists, or what it is, or how it operates, then how do we conclude that it is "beyond random happenstace in the origin of the species."
In other words, an inductive conclusion based upon no known evidence at all. As you yourself pointed out in your first post on this thread, this is an INVALID conclusion.
So are dogs, coyotes, wolves and dingos separate species or a single species?
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a perfectly viable theory which could be rebutted if there was any contrary evidence to its central premise...
Yes, precisely. Did you notice all the damage that was done in Indiana this weekend by Unicorn flatulence? Tragic. Simply tragic.
And yet, in the example I cited, the common house mouse has managed to do it literally dozens of times. It has spawned more than 40 chromosomal races. (I believe it's close to 60 world wide, and there are likely more that have not been discovered.) In the paper I linked the chromosome numbers vary from 25 to 40.
How did Mus musculus manage this? Maybe you need to find a mouse and explain to it that this is impossible? Or maybe you are proposing that God not only creates separate species but separate races as well? This was a common view in the not too distant past, and applied to humans as well.
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.