Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:41 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:41 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism document has been widely criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to previous lists produced by creationists, the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent and is alleged to be deficient.[36] Also, the professional affiliations and credentials that are claimed for some of the signatories has been questioned. Finally, there appear to be a few who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds. Russell D. Renka, a political scientist, said that the Discovery Institute presented the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint.[37]
A paper from a think tank, the Center for Inquiry said that Dissent From Darwinism is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[1]
In November 2001, the National Center for Science Education stated that the then current version of the document appeared "to be very artfully phrased" to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[11]
A paper from a think tank, the Center for Inquiry said that Dissent From Darwinism is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[1]
In November 2001, the National Center for Science Education stated that the then current version of the document appeared "to be very artfully phrased" to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[11]
1
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:42 am to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:42 am to mattloc
quote:
and how did you string that bit info together....
Science.
quote:
does your DNA evidence illustrate this
Sure does.
quote:
if so demonstrate it for us in this thread....
I mean. If I am ever blessed enough by the Lord Almighty to find a wife and have children I will.
quote:
or is that a "fairy tale" you happen to believe
I can't even you to demonstrate any part of the Book of Genesis any more so that I can ask a Scientologist to demonstrate Dianetics. Both are impossible fairy tales.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:45 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism document has been widely criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to previous lists produced by creationists, the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent and is alleged to be deficient.[36] Also, the professional affiliations and credentials that are claimed for some of the signatories has been questioned. Finally, there appear to be a few who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds. Russell D. Renka, a political scientist, said that the Discovery Institute presented the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint.[37]
A paper from a think tank, the Center for Inquiry said that Dissent From Darwinism is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[1]
In November 2001, the National Center for Science Education stated that the then current version of the document appeared "to be very artfully phrased" to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[11]
LOL. Why of course!
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:46 am to beejon
quote:
LOL. Why of course!
Why are you ignoring me?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:50 am to TeLeFaWx
Those remains have skulls that are smaller than wolf skulls but teeth that are wolf-sized, and they are often found alongside specimens that were clearly wolves, said evolutionary biologist Susan Crockford of the University of Victoria in Canada. It will take more study of fossils and ancient DNA to sort out whether these were wolves that had started down the road toward domestication or were merely examples of the natural variation that existed in wolves, she said.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:51 am to mattloc
quote:
does your DNA evidence illustrate this
Yes
quote:
,if so demonstrate it for us in this thread
Certainly
LINK
LINK
LINK )
quote:
All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.[3] Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[4][5]
The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[6][7]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[8]
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[9]
Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [9]
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 11:54 am
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:55 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
It produces mutations in DNA, mutations which are either deleterious, beneficial or have no effect either way.
Mutation doesn't produce new organisms. Selection does by selecting for advantageous traits in a very non-random manner.
The ultimate source is randomness though. Randomness is the driving impetus behind the creation of more and more complex life forms through selection. It's a hit and miss sort of creation.
The mechanism is either atheistic, with no intelligence or design in the mechanism, or there's intelligence in the process, with design and meaning. The atheistic viewpoint promoted today in Darwinist evolutionary are guesses and suppositions with no allowance for dispute, no allowance for disagreement. The truth of the matter is, there's no support for complex and varied creation by randomness yet that's the accepted view of those who are blind and narrow minded, yet who call themselves enlightened scientists.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:56 am to mattloc
quote:
Those remains have skulls that are smaller than wolf skulls but teeth that are wolf-sized, and they are often found alongside specimens that were clearly wolves, said evolutionary biologist Susan Crockford of the University of Victoria in Canada. It will take more study of fossils and ancient DNA to sort out whether these were wolves that had started down the road toward domestication or were merely examples of the natural variation that existed in wolves, she said.
So you're stupid.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:57 am to beejon
quote:
The mechanism is either atheistic, with no intelligence or design in the mechanism, or there's intelligence in the process, with design and meaning.
Again with this false dichotomy bullshite. Why are you ignoring me?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:02 pm to beejon
quote:
The mechanism is either atheistic, with no intelligence or design in the mechanism, or there's intelligence in the process, with design and meaning. The atheistic viewpoint promoted today in Darwinist evolutionary are guesses and suppositions with no allowance for dispute, no allowance for disagreement. The truth of the matter is, there's no support for complex and varied creation by randomness yet that's the accepted view of those who are blind and narrow minded, yet who call themselves enlightened scientists.
Evolution isn't a life philosophy. People who make it so are adding in more than just evolution.
Pure evolution is atheistic only in that it makes no mention of God and doesn't speak to him one way or the other.
As has been said, Darwin himself was a theist.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:10 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Evolution isn't a life philosophy. People who make it so are adding in more than just evolution.
Atheistic Darwinist theory is definitely a life philosophy. One's existence and purpose is determined by the acceptance of the theory that our life is the result of random, purposeless, events and that our interaction with one another is, ultimately, based on the survival of the fittest.
quote:
Pure evolution is atheistic only in that it makes no mention of God and doesn't speak to him one way or the other.
Not true. Darwinist creationist evolution is inherently atheistic because it completely rejects any consideration that anything, other than random purposeless events, is the mechanism behind one's life and creation in general.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:14 pm to beejon
quote:
Darwinist creationist evolution is inherently atheistic because it completely rejects any consideration that anything, other than random purposeless events, is the mechanism behind one's life and creation in general.
This just isn't true, no matter how many times you say it. Evolution makes no claim about where the mechanisms that drive evolution came from, only that they exist. Darwin himself believed a higher power guided it.
Have you even read "Origin of Species"?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:22 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
This just isn't true, no matter how many times you say it. Evolution makes no claim about where the mechanisms that drive evolution came from, only that they exist. Darwin himself believed a higher power guided it.
Yes, atheistic Darwinist does make claims about the mechanisms which drive evolution. They claim that it's solely, completely, by random events. Creation not by design, but by randomness with absolutely no design. That's an atheistic viewpoint.
Doesn't matter if I've read "On The Origin of Species" or not. My point is that only the atheistic viewpoint of creation is permitted, there's no allowance for creation to be influenced at all by anything but mindless, non intelligent, random events.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:27 pm to beejon
quote:
atheistic Darwinist does make claims about the mechanisms which drive evolution.
BUT THIS ISNT WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION STATES. You are arguing that because some people believe evolution validates atheism, that evolution itself is inherently atheistic. You are wrong, period.
I will not indulge this fantasy of yours any longer. I'll gladly discuss evolution with you, but I will not discuss this caricature you've set up.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:35 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I will not indulge this fantasy of yours any longer. I'll gladly discuss evolution with you, but I will not discuss this caricature you've set up.
It's no caricature. Please explain to me how the model of evolution which promotes the view that life and creation is solely and completely by a series of random events, with the creation becoming more and more complex without direction or design of any sort resulting in us being the just another result of purposeless, random, directionless creation isn't inherently atheistic. Truth is, it's pure atheism.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:36 pm to beejon
Do you think you know more about evolution than 99.9% of the world's scientists with pHD's on the subject? More and more people are realizing that the bible and intelligent design are bullshite, there is nothing that can be done about it (as there is no evidence for creationism). Trying to discredit evolution and revealing your limited understanding of the subject is quite comical.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:39 pm to RTOTA
quote:
Do you think you know more about evolution than 99.9% of the world's scientists with pHD's on the subject? More and more people are realizing that the bible and intelligent design are bullshite, there is nothing that can be done about it (as there is no evidence for creationism). Trying to discredit evolution and revealing your limited understanding of the subject is quite comical.
Do you think that current Darwinist thought is inherently atheistic?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:54 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.[3] Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[4][5]
The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[6][7]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[8]
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[9]
Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [9]
I must admit that this argument appears very convincing on its face, as I read it between appointments anyway, and this is your area... but a cursory google search reveals that it may not be as definitive as represented
The purportedly overwhelming DNA evidence for a fusion event involving two primate chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 does not exist, even without the aid of new analyses. In this report, our review of only the reported data shows that the sequence features encompassing the purported chromosome-2 fusion site are far too ambiguous to infer a fusion event. In addition to a lack of DNA sequence data for a head-to-head chromosomal fusion, there also exists a decided paucity of data to indicate a cryptic centromere. In a companion paper (part 2) to this, we report the results of additional data analyses using a variety of bioinformatic tools and publicly available DNA sequence resources that further refute the hypothetical chromosome fusion model
Page 47 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News