Intelligent Design

[Adept]

The evidence already exists. See my post regarding various scientists and professors who disagree with it - they don't seem to have had much luck in getting any educational institutions to amend it.

Thats because their theories don't fit the facts.

If there is solid evidence that (macro) evolution is a fact, please post it. I am interested in the truth rather than speculation.

It's not a fact. It's a scientific theory which attempts to explain the biological diversity we have today, and have had in the past. Personally, I think the fact that the fossil record shows new species appearing at different points in history is, alone, an excellent indication that the current theory is very accurate.

To go further into this would require me to catalogue and present all relevant studies and discoveries for the last hundred years, and then explain why the current theory of evolution best explains them, but frankly that should have been the job of your school, and I don't have the time.

 

[pstarr]

Part of the problem is that the fossil record does not validate the theory/fact/whatever of macroevolution. That's one of the main reasons for the dissent among so many scientists.

 

[KOROHO]

The proof of change over time is all around. If it weren’t for evolution we wouldn’t have to get flu shots every year, antibiotic resistance would not be a concern, we wouldn’t get cancer, and we wouldn’t have DNA testing as a tool in criminal cases.

Here's a creative way to "prove evolution", change the definition of the word to meet your needs at the moment.

"Change" is not evolution. "Adaptation" is not evolution.

Viruses do adapt to antibiotics. But they remain viruses. There is no known case, where a virus, in the process of "adapting" to an antibiotic "evolved" into a fish, a monkey or any other type of creature. They adapt to the antibiotic and remain a virus. This "adaptation" in no way even suggests evolution.

When you have to change the meaning of words in order to "prove your point", even to yourself, it's a pretty good indicator that even you yourself have the idea that your story is full of holes and you understand that there is no support for your reasoning.

If you have evidence of a flu virus actually evolving in to something else, please share that with us.

Also, cancer is not "evolution" it's a disease. If you have evidence of a "tumor" growing up, adapting to it's environment then growing legs and starting to walk, then you can say that this "cancer" proves evolution.

 

[Adept]

Part of the problem is that the fossil record does not validate the theory/fact/whatever of macroevolution.

You've still got it back to front. People, or at least credible scientists, don't try and fit the facts to the theory. They fit the theory to the facts, and the current theory fits the current facts better than any other theories.

That's one of the main reasons for the dissent among so many scientists.

Not among credible scientists.

 

[heretic888]

I think I should point out that some people seem to be terribly confusing a few different concepts here. . .

First, there is evolution. Evolution is simply the idea that organisms and species change their forms over long stretches of biological history. It is really just a synonymn for "organic change" and, I'm terribly sorry if anybody is having problems but, is a fact. Period.

Next, there is Darwinism. That is, the theory of evolution via random variation, natural selection, and sexual selection. Now, this shouldn't be confused with the fact of evolution, as Darwinism is simply an explanatory framework or paradigm for describing how this natural fact actually works. There are other frameworks (such as the largely discredited Lamarckism), as well as proposed "amendments" to the basic Darwinian skeleton (such as punctualism or Baldwinism), so this shouldn't be treated as equivalent with the process of evolution per se.

Lastly, there is evolutionism. This is a term that proponents of creatonism and intelligent design often bring to the discussion. It seems to be a convenient attempt to cast evolutionary theory as "just another -ism", but this owes in large part to ignorance. What these people haven't figured out yet that evolutionism properly refers to a now discredited theory of sociohistorical development that was popular in Western anthropology in the late 1800's. The term has nothing to do with biological evolution and anyone who tries to claim otherwise just shows they really don't know what they're talking about.

I hope that cleared some things up, folks. Seriously, stop conflating concepts here. It's annoying.

Laterz.

 

[Adept]

Viruses do adapt to antibiotics. But they remain viruses. There is no known case, where a virus, in the process of "adapting" to an antibiotic "evolved" into a fish, a monkey or any other type of creature.

A level of evolution on that magnitude would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. And you wonder why it hasn't been documented in the last hundred years?

 

[michaeledward]

A level of evolution on that magnitude would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. And you wonder why it hasn't been documented in the last hundred years?

So, why are human beings 7 inches tall than they were 400 years ago? Do you think we are evolving into girraffe's?

 

[Dionysianexile]

A little more of a vocabulary lesson here:

Adaptation, along with By-products and noise are all producs of evolution.

Adaptation: inherited and reliably developing characeristics that came into existence through natural selection because they helped to solve problems of survival or reproduction better than alternative designs existing in the population during the period of theur evolution.

By-Products: Characteristics that do not solve adaptive problems and do not have functional design; they are "carried along" with characteristics that do have functional design because they happen to be coupled with those adaptations.

Noise: Random effects produced by forces such as chance mutations, sudden and unprecedented changes in the environment, or chance effects during development.

(Evolutionary Psychology; the new science of the mind, second edition. David M. Buss. 2004. p. 39)

 

[Dionysianexile]

So, why are human beings 7 inches tall than they were 400 years ago? Do you think we are evolving into girraffe's?

No, that is mainly due to better nutrition...

 

[heretic888]

(Evolutionary Psychology; the new science of the mind, second edition. David M. Buss. 2004. p. 39)

Heh. We used that same text for my evolutionary psychology class.

 

[heretic888]

No, that is mainly due to better nutrition...

Perhaps so, but it is not inconceivable that after several hundred generations of a relatively stable nutritional niche that we would see relatively permanent changes in our species' genome.

By the way, the theory that organisms can manipulate their environments to "guide" a population's evolution is known as niche selection, something of a hot issue in evolutionary theory today (along with epigenetic inheritance, punctuated equilibrium, self-organizing systems, and a few other ideas).

In fact, the Flynn Effect (the observation that average IQ scores in industrialized nations have progressively increased throughout the 1900's) is arguably a product of niche selection.

Laterz.

 

[KOROHO]

A level of evolution on that magnitude would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. And you wonder why it hasn't been documented in the last hundred years?

Even if this turns out to be true, that the flu virus I got last year is going to be a fish a million years from now, that still puts "evolution" back into the category of being a "theory" today.

Even then, a miilion years from now, when some "scientist" finds a fish swimming around that he never saw before, he will have no way to "prove" that a million years prior, that fish was a flu virus.

If you want to put your faith in men and accept evolution, that is your choice. I don't have a problem with it at all. The problem is with the arrogance and self-righteousness of people who come here and claim that they are smarter and better than others because they choose to place thier faith in an un-supportable theory rather than in God.

Like I said before, it essentially takes the same kind of faith to believe in evolution - which is unseen and there is no evidence - as it does to believe in God.

 

[heretic888]

Like I said before, it essentially takes the same kind of faith to believe in evolution - which is unseen and there is no evidence - as it does to believe in God.

Only if one is fairly clueless when it comes to biology.

There are numerous lines of evidence regarding evolution --- morphological, geographical, archeological, and genetic. To simply claim "there is no evidence" demonstrates one's own ignorance of the subject matter moreso than anything else.

As to those who claim evolution has no basis in reality, answer the following questions. . .

Why do human beings get goosebumps??

Why do upland geese have webbed feet??

I'll be waiting.

 

[Dionysianexile]

Part of the problem is the great misunderstanding of how evolution works. A flu virus would not evolve into a fish, because it is a virus, and a fish is a multicellular organism, most likely evolved from some smaller multicellular organism. Virus are on a completely different branch. A fish generally wont just evolve into a monkey overnight. A fish might, however, evolve a set of lungs, the first step to coming out of the water. And there are several species of fish on this planet now that have done this. It happens slowly, it doesnt just jump kingdom or phylum lines.

Unfortunately, many people still have the old image of evolution in which a fish turned to a small monkey, to a black caveman, and then to an ordinary white man. there were several things wrong with that picture, aside from the racial one. But that simply is not how it works...

 

[Ray]

A fish generally wont just evolve into a monkey overnight.

Good, cause I'm not staying up to watch it.

 

[Ray]

Why do upland geese have webbed feet??

I'll be waiting.

I thought you'd never ask: Geese have webbed, flat feet to stamp out burning forest fires.

Elephants have bigger flat feet to stamp out burning geese.

 

[pstarr]

As I stated earlier, MICROevolution, which is probably better put down as "adaptation" does exist and has been observed. MACROevolution, the evolution of a microbe into a fish or a cow into a whale (which, by the way, is how evolutionists have determined that whales came to be...honestly), has NOT been shown to have occured.

Some scientists believe that it did but no "in between" fossils have as yet been found in the fossil record. We are told that our modern birds evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs - but there is absolutely no physical evidence showing one of these huge reptiles with itty-bitty wings, and numerous scientists have speculated that IF such an event did occur (over X number of years) the half-grown/developed winglike structures would have posed a significant problem for these creatures. Their mobility would have been severely hampered, among other things...and they would likely not have survived as either dinosaurs or birds...they'd have become slow-moving, awkward meals for other carnivores.

As for Adept's remark that there is no dissent regarding evolution among "credible scientists", I guess that he regards the highly-educated, world-class scientists which I mentioned in a previous post as goobers because they don't know nearly as much about the subject as he pretends to.

It's not an issue of religion - it's an issue of bad science which has been touted for generations as good science. And that's why numerous top-notch scientists are now walking away from it. I don't know if they're turning towards creationism or not - doesn't matter - but they sure aren't buying into the evolution fairy story anymore.

 

[heretic888]

I thought you'd never ask: Geese have webbed, flat feet to stamp out burning forest fires.

Elephants have bigger flat feet to stamp out burning geese.

Oh, I can't wait to hear your explanation for human goosebumps!

 

[heretic888]

As I stated earlier, MICROevolution, which is probably better put down as "adaptation" does exist and has been observed. MACROevolution, the evolution of a microbe into a fish or a cow into a whale (which, by the way, is how evolutionists have determined that whales came to be...honestly), has NOT been shown to have occured.

"Macroevolution" has not been observed in a controlled laboratory, if that's what you mean, but we still have ample evidence to believe it has happened and will continue to happen.

In any event, this dichotomy between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is, to be perfectly blunt, completely absurd and illogical. "Microevolution" are morphological adaptations in a species that result in a permanent change to the species' genome (which is why they can be passed on from generation to generation). Once enough "microevolutionary" changes accumulate within a given species' population, it will form its own species (or sub-species) and be unable reproduce naturally with the parent species (due to the genetic variance between the two).

Accepting "microevolution" but rejecting "macroevolution" is completely nonsensical because "macroevolution" is accumulated "microevolution". You can't have your cake and eat it, too, as one cannot be separated from the other.

Some scientists believe that it did but no "in between" fossils have as yet been found in the fossil record. We are told that our modern birds evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs - but there is absolutely no physical evidence showing one of these huge reptiles with itty-bitty wings, and numerous scientists have speculated that IF such an event did occur (over X number of years) the half-grown/developed winglike structures would have posed a significant problem for these creatures. Their mobility would have been severely hampered, among other things...and they would likely not have survived as either dinosaurs or birds...they'd have become slow-moving, awkward meals for other carnivores.

Your scenario presumes gradualism. Rejecting gradualism does not reject natural selection.

As for Adept's remark that there is no dissent regarding evolution among "credible scientists", I guess that he regards the highly-educated, world-class scientists which I mentioned in a previous post as goobers because they don't know nearly as much about the subject as he pretends to.

I don't recall Adept claiming there was no dissent among credible scientists. His point was simply that they cannot provide convincing evidence for their claims, as evidenced by the notable lack of any published articles in peer-reviewed academic journals.

It's not an issue of religion - it's an issue of bad science which has been touted for generations as good science. And that's why numerous top-notch scientists are now walking away from it. I don't know if they're turning towards creationism or not - doesn't matter - but they sure aren't buying into the evolution fairy story anymore.

I find it humorous that "bad science" is what's discussed in the peer-reviewed academic journals, but the purported "good science" is what's discussed in populist books that are almost universally sympathetic to religious fundamentalism.

Anyone that doesn't think this is a matter of religion is just being naive, in my opinion. I'm not the only one of this opinion, either, as the recent ruling of a Pennsylvania judge has demonstrated.

Laterz.

 

[Flying Crane]

Viruses do adapt to antibiotics. But they remain viruses.

Viruses do not adapt to antibiotics. First off, antibiotics are useless against viruses. They only work against bacteria, which is completely different from a virus.

You can, however, get vaccinated against certain viruses such as flu. Usually this is done by injecting a weakened or dead sample of the virus into your body. Your body then develops antibodies against that particular virus, so if that particular virus enters your body again, it will be recognized as an enemy and destroyed before it can to any harm.

The problem with flu is that it does mutate and change rapidly and often. Once it mutates, the antibodies that your body has developed are no longer useful against this different strain of the virus. Your body is not able to recognize a different strain of the virus as an enemy, and act against it. But the virus itself does not change as a response to the vaccination. It does not react to the fact that you have been vaccinated, and actively try to do an end-run around the vaccination by mutating. The mutation is random. But the mutation gives the new disease variant the advantage of being able to survive in a body even tho the body has been vaccinated. Thus, the new variant can become dominant since the old variant can no longer survive under these conditions.

With regard to antibiotics and bacterial infections: when you have a bacterial infection, you are infected with millions of enemy bacteria that cause you to become ill. The infection is great enough that your body cannot fight off the infection on its own, so you get some antibiotics. The problem arises when you either don't take all of your medication because you start to feel better before your are done, or the medication itself isn't powerful enough to fully eliminate the bacterial infection. Those last remaining bacteria are stronger than the ones that were killed off. Something in their genetic makeup enabled them to survive the antibiotics. Since they are the only ones left, they are the only ones reproducing. When they multiply (which they do pretty much constantly) they will then pass along the genetic predisposition to be more resistant to the antibiotics that you were taking. Now you get sick all over again, with the same disease, the same bacterial infection, but the same medication no longer works as well, or even not at all. You have to find a different, more powerful antibiotic to kill off the infection. This is a very active example of evolution. The bacteria does not actively react to the medication and seek to change itself to defeat the medication. It is thru random genetic mutations that a small percentage of the bacteria simply are more resistant to the antibiotics.

This becomes a problem when people who are ill insist on being treated with antibiotics, even tho there is no evidence that they have a bacterial infection. Needlessly introducing antibiotics into your body can kill off some harmless bacteria, but leave a small number of stronger bacteria to reproduce, which may become harmful. Or if you fail to take all of your medication and fully eliminate the infection, the remaining bacteria will come back stronger overall. Then we get Super Bacterial infections that don't respond to the normal antibiotics. This is happening with some diseases, because of needless medications and people failing to complete their medications.