Garbage, you deny it fine you demand evidence it may well get presented to you but so far most folks I see vehemently against ID are themselves calling it juck science in a very dismissive fashion. Not really in a fair and objective sense. You would be less than honest to not agree that Evolution theory has a lot of questions unanswered, it raises a lot of questions in its own findings and some of it is hypothesis...is it not? Or are you willing to tell me evolution theory has every answer? If not then you are no different here. You demand that Evolution Theory (ET) is the ONLY answer and it has to fit a lot of what you already know yet you do not see any of it as possibly wrong when all the time the corporate knoweldge on the subject is being revised and in some cases dashing previous rock-solid theory and present whole new ones. Age of the earth was nearly doubled by a mistake in measurement...was it not? And I am sure you can tell me of others. Evolution does not have all the answers, and even with the limitations on our scientific capability ID does not have it all either...which is why it is a theory in work JUST like evolution theory.
This presupposes that this particular planet is the only planet Humans could possibly exist on. Note that I said planet, not conditions. This is not easy to explain, at least for me, but I'll give it a try. To do so I'll have to use a bit of an analogy.
Where does it limit the earth as the only one? In this system it is a fact...I do not see that ID says only earth in the whole universe though I do not doubt some say that. I very much agree that life could exist elsewhere but that the human existance right now can only be proven to exist here and the earth MUST be where it is for this to happen.
Evolution is not really 'chance'. What 'variation' occurs in the genome at any given time may be pseudo-random, but the various types of selection are not random in any sense of the word. IDists use apparent complexity as an indication of design. They make an unwarranted assumption that only intelligences can produce what appears to be design. Before they can use complexity as a measure of a designer, they have to show, unequivocally, that complexity is exclusive to intelligence. As it stands, we've seen nature produce complexity that 'looks' designed.
Where can evolution prove that chance or selection made the simple complex? It cannot...it relies on chances being good that the right things happened at the right time and place. How did organisms evolve to the point where they needed an eye if there was none before it required? While only one question it does beg an answer. We can not find a lot of such questions answered with certainty at all. Thsi alone amazes me and yet I think you have as much faith in chance as I do a designer on the subject.
The transition in fossils in a number of lines, including those of the cetartiodactyls, show much more than just 'possible' connections. If those fossils just showed one or two transitional features, there would be room for doubt. In the case of whales, we have a continuous line of fossils that show 1) an elongation of the head, 2) movement of the head/neck joint from the lower rear to rear position, 3) movement of the nostrils from the front of the snout to the top of the head, 4) change in the ear from above water use to below water use, 5) change in leg length from long to short in the front, and gone in the back, 6) change in back leg/pelvis connection from connected to unconnected, 7) change in spine from rigid to flexible. There are a few more shared features that I won't bother to list, I think this is enough for a start.
It is not evidence of evolution it is evidence of variation. Let me ask you this....are all dogs related? If yes, you will find variations like what you say, if no then you arguing that evolution exists in a fabulous form right in front of our eyes...but I dont hear ET folks saying that.
Indeed, there are many holes in the fossil record and it would be nice to have more, but the sparseness of the fossil record is expected. As far as I know there are no areas where there is conflicting data. There are a number of fossil groups that there is disagreement as to where they should be placed in the phylogenic tree, but they do not conflict with other fossil groups.
Are there not incidences of fossils found in the same layers that have been determined to not be of the same period? I have heard the dinosaur footprint / man footprint but thats not what I am refering to, I am talking about the existance of fosile record where a man and a dinosaur have been found in the same layer. Has this not happened? Does it not conflict at points?
I just do not understand how extinctions which were caused by unforeseeable catastrophes are arguments for ID. A supernatural creator could indeed cause them, but ID claims to be a supernatural free zone, so it doesn't mesh.
A Supernatural free zone?? How could this be? A designer by definition has to have powers greater than the created. I am sure on this point we will simply disagree on faith issues but I find it hard to see how a designer of what we know in our universe to be bound by the rules we are goverened by, Physics and such.
Forgive me if I missed anything, our post-repost is getting quite long, but I do appreciate your replies.
dinosaur footprint / man footprint ????
Has not happened. Not even close. Sorry. You really should study some science and stay away from the creationist websites until you get this sorted out.
You are, of course, aware that ID does not dispute evolution? Or the common ancestor? It just ads a supernatural element to the mix.
So the bulk of your post trying to poke holes in the ToE in favor of ID is moot. Evolution happened - even ID's most fervent proponents admit that.
"Garbage, you deny it fine you demand evidence it may well get presented to you but so far most folks I see vehemently against ID are themselves calling it juck science in a very dismissive fashion. Not really in a fair and objective sense.
I too consider ID as put forward by Behe, Dembski, et al to be junk science. It is being advertised much as pseudoscience such as Homeopathy is being advertised and justified. ID proponents claim it will explain everything, is the best at what it does and is being suppressed by a vast pro-scientist academic, political and media conspiracy. If only people would give it a chance, they would see that it is truly remarkable.
Yet when I investigate ID's claims, I find it to be illogical, based on false assumptions and barren of any scientific validity. I find Behe's arguments for IC specious and unfounded, and Dembski's construction of definitions contrived. Nothing from the ID camp enables scientists to consistently and reliably differentiate between intelligent causation and natural causation.
"You would be less than honest to not agree that Evolution theory has a lot of questions unanswered, it raises a lot of questions in its own findings and some of it is hypothesis...is it not? Or are you willing to tell me evolution theory has every answer?
I don't believe I've ever stated that the Theory of Evolution has all the answers. I do believe it is far and away the best at answering questions about how species develop. What I have witnessed from the ID and creationist camps are questions that are 'rigged' and meaningless, generally through taking liberties with the presentation of those questions in the form of strawmen.
"If not then you are no different here. You demand that Evolution Theory (ET) is the ONLY answer and it has to fit a lot of what you already know yet you do not see any of it as possibly wrong when all the time the corporate knoweldge on the subject is being revised and in some cases dashing previous rock-solid theory and present whole new ones. Age of the earth was nearly doubled by a mistake in measurement...was it not?
The measurements science uses are based on the best technology of the time. As technology becomes more precise, those measurements will be revised, coming ever closer to, but never reaching an absolute correctness. This does not mean that science is wishy washy or can't make up its mind. Nor does it mean that science is wrong. What it means is that science is self correcting.
"And I am sure you can tell me of others. Evolution does not have all the answers, and even with the limitations on our scientific capability ID does not have it all either...which is why it is a theory in work JUST like evolution theory.
The problem is with the definition of theory. Theories are subtractive in nature, starting as a number of unverified, speculative hypotheses which are little more than educated guesses based on prior work. One by one the hypotheses are shown to be in error and either dropped or fixed. At the end, those hypotheses that survive this end up comprising a theory. To eliminate these hypotheses, they have to be falsifiable and testable. So far, nothing I have seen allows ID to be falsified or tested. In fact using Dembski's filter on real world applications has resulted in too many false positives to be useful.
"Where does it limit the earth as the only one? In this system it is a fact...I do not see that ID says only earth in the whole universe though I do not doubt some say that. I very much agree that life could exist elsewhere but that the human existance right now can only be proven to exist here and the earth MUST be where it is for this to happen.
Creationists are fond of using probability calculations to show how something could not be anything but the result of a designer. This is no different when they try to show that our galaxy\solar system\binary planet has been designed to support human life. This is an error in the application of probability. It is this error I tried to show in my little silver ball analogy. It is the difference between 'you' winning a lottery and 'anyone' winning a lottery.
Evolution is not really 'chance'. What 'variation' occurs in the genome at any given time may be pseudo-random, but the various types of selection are not random in any sense of the word. IDists use apparent complexity as an indication of design. They make an unwarranted assumption that only intelligences can produce what appears to be design. Before they can use complexity as a measure of a designer, they have to show, unequivocally, that complexity is exclusive to intelligence. As it stands, we've seen nature produce complexity that 'looks' designed.
"Where can evolution prove that chance or selection made the simple complex? It cannot...it relies on chances being good that the right things happened at the right time and place. How did organisms evolve to the point where they needed an eye if there was none before it required? While only one question it does beg an answer. We can not find a lot of such questions answered with certainty at all. Thsi alone amazes me and yet I think you have as much faith in chance as I do a designer on the subject.
I have little faith that chance will produce what I want. I do have faith in my ability to logically reconstruct how an eliminative process such as selection combined with a high rate of variation such as mutation gives us can result in morphological change to such a degree that we define the start organism and end organism as separate yet related species.
As far as complexity is concerned, in what way is a bacterium less complex than us? The number of parts, the ability to survive, the ability to reproduce, the ability to create? It is very difficult to answer questions about complexity when the word has so many different meanings and applications. If you consider simple genome size or chromosome number or even gene number as indicators of complexity, humans are not the most complex in any way.
All it takes for a morphological change to be observed is a simple change in a codon, gene, chromosome number, or an insertion by any number of means in the coding or control ares of the genome.
The transition in fossils in a number of lines, including those of the cetartiodactyls, show much more than just 'possible' connections. If those fossils just showed one or two transitional features, there would be room for doubt. In the case of whales, we have a continuous line of fossils that show 1) an elongation of the head, 2) movement of the head/neck joint from the lower rear to rear position, 3) movement of the nostrils from the front of the snout to the top of the head, 4) change in the ear from above water use to below water use, 5) change in leg length from long to short in the front, and gone in the back, 6) change in back leg/pelvis connection from connected to unconnected, 7) change in spine from rigid to flexible. There are a few more shared features that I won't bother to list, I think this is enough for a start.
"It is not evidence of evolution it is evidence of variation. Let me ask you this....are all dogs related? If yes, you will find variations like what you say, if no then you arguing that evolution exists in a fabulous form right in front of our eyes...but I dont hear ET folks saying that.
I take then that you consider Hippos and Whales to be the same 'kind'? What 'kind' do you consider platypuses to belong to? How about manatees and dugongs?
Evolution is happening all around us all the time, and yes, adaptation is part of evolution. You have been fed false information about what evolution encompasses. The theory of evolution was originally based on the observation of adaptation in finches, pigeons and barnacles. How could adaptation now not be part of the theory?
Nothing I have read about the fossil record gives an indication of conflict. More specifically I have heard nothing about human and dino fossils found together. (I have seen a photo of such but it was simply a prank) Perhaps if you would be a little more specific, post a link if possible, I could do some research.
I just do not understand how extinctions which were caused by unforeseeable catastrophes are arguments for ID. A supernatural creator could indeed cause them, but ID claims to be a supernatural free zone, so it doesn't mesh.
"A Supernatural free zone?? How could this be? A designer by definition has to have powers greater than the created. I am sure on this point we will simply disagree on faith issues but I find it hard to see how a designer of what we know in our universe to be bound by the rules we are goverened by, Physics and such.
I agree. However those at the Discovery Institute, the current source for all things ID, state quite clearly that the supernatural has nothing to do with ID.
"Forgive me if I missed anything, our post-repost is getting quite long, but I do appreciate your replies.
I just broke it into three posts to make it easier to deal with.(I hope)