Not Just A Theory

[beerbitch]

Of course I take others' words for good many times. Every time I open a textbook that's exactly what I'm doing. The question becomes "whose word is worth accepting?" I place my bets on science, seems how religion is a crock of shit.

I agree. There are varying degrees of trustworthiness attached to what we read, and science has a very high degree of trustworthiness.

To say otherwise in favor of a theistic explanation on the same topic implies that science is conspiring against religion or that the scientific process is somehow flawed.

If the scientific community has it out for theism, it would be obvious.

If the scientific process is flawed, then how are we flying around in jets and using computers  ?

Theists can't have their cake and eat it too, but I see them try all the time in this debate.

[Nux]

An interesting aspect of the arguments from religious circles is that they often see science as yet another religion. Most likely this is because that's all they know from personal experience.

Let me highlight the key difference.

Religion is about having faith in what you're told.

Science is about not having faith in what you're told.

Both of these have thier uses. For example, religion is good for controlling a large number of people.

[BeerBastard]

People aren't inherently stupid.

Most of you who agree with the concept of evolution will not have seen the evidence for yourself.

It would be very difficult to come to modern scientific conclusions without 'taking their word for it' somewhere along the way. Wikipedia is a good place to start as it usually provides citations throughout the article.

Keeping your post short is sometimes tough when you have a lot to say but is worth considering since then people will actually read it.

That is why the scientific method is so emphasized and important to science. So when something is hypothesized. It isn't taken into consideration until it's been researched.  The difference between a hypothesis and a proven theory is huge. Yet we get tons of people linking 30 year old books where someone tossed out an idea(hypothesis) and didn't prove it. They try and link this as proof. It isn't.

Some of us have gone that extra step to ask things like. Why are the odds of humans,chimps, and apes having 6 identical markers from an ERV so astronomical. It takes an understanding of what DNA and RNA are. I was learning this on my own, and it coincides with what I am learning in Micro biology. 

New york times article about our DNA being composed of Viral. (Guy they talk about won noble prize)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/science/08angi.html?_r=1&em&ex=1199941200&en=3bd96f63379d275d&ei=5087%0A

[BeerBastard]

An interesting aspect of the arguments from religious circles is that they often see science as yet another religion. Most likely this is because that's all they know from personal experience.

Let me highlight the key difference.

Religion is about having faith in what you're told.

Science is about not having faith in what you're told.

Both of these have thier uses. For example, religion is good for controlling a large number of people.

Exactly.

Also science when proven wrong goes "oh we were wrong,lets make sure we have the best understanding again based on the evidence"

Religion claims never to be wrong.

[Bissig]

Of course I take others' words for good many times. Every time I open a textbook that's exactly what I'm doing. The question becomes "whose word is worth accepting?" I place my bets on science, seems how religion is a crock of shit.

Exactly!

It's like the "fear" argument from religious believers:

"But what if hell DOES exist! You wouldn't want to risk going to hell would you?"

They are all scared and can't manage life on their own. In the past years I have seen lots of such people and they make me sick. If you can't take life and live it, then what the hell are you doing here?

[A Spork]

...Anyways, please try to stop trolling/flame anyone else who isn't interested in a serious discusion.

While I agree less flame in this thread would be nice, would you not agree that people are somewhat setting themselves up for flames if they post in this thread "[not] interested in a serious discusion."

Sorry, my wording is off, I meant if you aren't interested in a serious discussion, shut up and go away(In more civil terms)


Anyways, For ID:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. (From http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/)


Proof of God - Nature
So where's the proof of God's existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!

Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)

When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.

Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)

The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)(From http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm)


Also: @ The Religion Bashers: This isn't exactly about religion vs atheist, so dont start please, also, as for your claims for religion being false, evidence? or just personal conjecture.

[player1]

falsifiability

^this^ is what separates scientific inquiry from other forms of seeking knowledge

religion is inherently non-falsifiable, as it demands unquestioning acceptance of the supposed "word of God" (as interpreted, of course, by those who "speak for God")

also, if God is truly infinite, why are the usual conceptions of God so limited, limiting, and infinitesimally small?

acceptance of the theory of evolution has little or nothing to do with accepting God (it usually has to do with accepting an Iron Age, pre-scientific view of God)

as for those who would hope to gain all knowledge from one holy or sacred tome, i would remind you of the Roman adage: "beware the man of one book"

if God is representative of truth, then rejecting evidence which would lead us away from ignorance would seem to me to be a rejection of the immanent and numinous nature of God, in favor of believing some a particular flavor of mythology, which we have been taught is somehow more relevant than another

[Plague Bringer]

God doesn't give a fuck about the truth. (S)He's an egomaniac. (S)He loves you if you worship him. That's all (s)he cares about.

[Silver]

I know this has already been lightly touched but I thought I'd re-emphasize that a scientific theory is not the same as the english word THEORY.

In order to make it to the state of "theory" in a scientific experiment it means to have had a hypothesis which is what the english word theory transcibes to.  Its a concept, an idea, or as commonly referred to, "a guess."  Most scientific thoughts or procedures don't make it past hypothesis, because in order to become a scientific theory it must go through countless steps and repitition of malicious attempts to prove your own hypothesis wrong.  Since guess and check is really the only way we have to prove stuff, we have to keep repeating something until we are left without doubt that it is the correct answer and under said circumstances will always be the correct answer.  At which point, undeniably if we've proven we can't prove it wrong, it becomes a theory.  It then remains a theory until society as a whole accepts it, and under societie's acceptance only can it become a law. 

Consequently, most theories even though proven to be 100% true in hundreds to thousands of experiments and tests from multiple people and as many view points as possible will never reach the state of law, because the ignorant masses refuse to accept them due to their own "faith" or views. 

So just because Evolution is a theory, does not mean its not true.  Every step that has been taken to disprove evolution has been countered and on a regular basis we continue to prove its truth.  Now, because creationism and religion in a whole are so largely apart of this world, undeniably Evolution will NEVER become a law, but just because its a theory and not a law doesn't mean shit.  It's still just as liable and has to be looked at respectfully in the same manner as you would a law.

Just a thought to nibble at, think before you consider saying evolution is just a "theory" because in the case of scientific experiments, inventions, and discoveries, a theory is not a theory, its a theory.

[beerbitch]

Right right... the word theory is actually one of the first things I mention in my essay.

Actually, most of what is in the first 2 pages of my essay eliminates many of the asinine semantic Creationist arguments from the get go, but naturally the Creationists are probably not going to read my essay since its "too long" based on some responses I've seen here.

Thanks for elaborating on the concept though. We do hear from the Creationists about that word a lot don't we ? As if redefining a word can somehow make all the empirical evidence vanish.

The other favorite tactic the other side uses is a direct attack on the messenger's character, in other words, the classic ad hominem. You can see a good example of this on the original thread on our clan forum I linked to.

I could be an evil spawn of Satan and that would still not make the empirical evidence vanish. I'm just the messenger  

[player1]

Regarding Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:

the work is purely anti-evolution and does not mention intelligent design

Denton himself was involved with the intelligent design movement but has since left. Denton's later book Nature's Destiny contradicts many of the points of A Theory in Crisis.

Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertations accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."

... his second book Nature's Destiny is his biological contribution on the Anthropic Principle debate which is dominated by physicists. He argues for a law-like evolutionary unfolding of life.

from this page:

... these long discussions seem to amount to little more than saying: "We haven't told an evolutionary story for it yet, and it seems difficult to me to believe that such a story could exist, therefore there is not one." This is the type of reasoning that Richard Dawkins has dubbed the "Argument from Personal Incredulity"(Dawkins, 1987, p. 38). Dawkins notes as well as any evolutionist that "anti- evolution propaganda is full of alleged examples of complex systems that 'could not possibly' have passed through a gradual series of intermediates"(Dawkins, 1987, p. 86), and he goes to great lengths to show that accounts can definitely be formulated that explain the development of structures and processes as sophisticated as the human lung and bat echolocation. Perhaps if more evolutionary theorists were around, we would have accounts about every single structure Denton could incredulously point to. But Denton really should be able to formulate such stories himself. The point is, pointing out how impossible it seems, at first glance, for a structure to have evolved gradually, does not constitute evidence that gradual macroevolution is impossible or improbable - it says something rather about one's failure to give hard thought to the possible means whereby complex structures could be generated.

see also

from this page:

Because of the errors and the bias, I cannot recommend [Evolution: A Theory in Crisis] to those with little biological training, unless endowed with a sound critical attitude. Especially since Denton adopts the evolutionary view of life in Nature's Destiny.

"Undoubtedly, one of the major factors which contribute to the immense appeal of the Darwinian framework is that, with all its deficiencies, the Darwinian model is still the only model of evolution ever proposed which invokes well-understood physical and natural processes as the causal agencies of evolutionary change."

from this page:

The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility.  The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems.  Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellum’s complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization.  (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events.  (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components.  Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum.... in light of the organized complexity and apparent “design” of the flagellum, the very fact that a step-by-step Darwinian model can be constructed that is plausible and testable significantly weakens the suggestion that extraordinary explanations might be required.

from this page, see this subheading:

An approach to the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components is similar to the Type III secretory and transport system.

All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. It is also a possibility that the flagellum could have evolved from a currently undiscovered system with similar flagellar traits or a currently extinct organelle/organism.[citation needed] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system.

[amz181]

Anthropic principle, nuff said.

[beerbitch]

Anthropic principle, nuff said.

We can say more... how about string theory and the multiverse ?

[tuple]

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

This is the whole failure of ID.  As a higher intelligence cannot be "proven", therefore a process designed by a higher intelligence cannot be proven.  A premise must at least have the possibility of being proven to be a valid premise.  If it cannot, then the theory is based on a false premise and is not actually a theory.

A best explanation must be based on evidence, not the lack of evidence which is needed to describe something as "too complex" to arise from nature.  A theory by definition is a premise supported by evidence, not the lack of evidence.

Saying that we haven't found an explanation for something isn't evidence.

[Silver]

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

This is the whole failure of ID.  As a higher intelligence cannot be "proven", therefore a process designed by a higher intelligence cannot be proven.  A premise must at least have the possibility of being proven to be a valid premise.  If it cannot, then the theory is based on a false premise and is not actually a theory.

A best explanation must be based on evidence, not the lack of evidence which is needed to describe something as "too complex" to arise from nature.  A theory by definition is a premise supported by evidence, not the lack of evidence.

Saying that we haven't found an explanation for something isn't evidence.

Quit making sense, its hard for faith.

[KamikOzzy]

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

This is the whole failure of ID.  As a higher intelligence cannot be "proven", therefore a process designed by a higher intelligence cannot be proven.  A premise must at least have the possibility of being proven to be a valid premise.  If it cannot, then the theory is based on a false premise and is not actually a theory.

A best explanation must be based on evidence, not the lack of evidence which is needed to describe something as "too complex" to arise from nature.  A theory by definition is a premise supported by evidence, not the lack of evidence.

Saying that we haven't found an explanation for something isn't evidence.

On top of that, if intelligent things need an intelligent creator, what then created the creator? >.>

[Plague Bringer]

...

This is the whole failure of ID.  As a higher intelligence cannot be "proven", therefore a process designed by a higher intelligence cannot be proven.  A premise must at least have the possibility of being proven to be a valid premise.  If it cannot, then the theory is based on a false premise and is not actually a theory.

A best explanation must be based on evidence, not the lack of evidence which is needed to describe something as "too complex" to arise from nature.  A theory by definition is a premise supported by evidence, not the lack of evidence.

Saying that we haven't found an explanation for something isn't evidence.

On top of that, if intelligent things need an intelligent creator, what then created the creator? >.>

I'd like to be the first to say: Check-fuckin'-mate.

[beerbitch]

...

This is the whole failure of ID.  As a higher intelligence cannot be "proven", therefore a process designed by a higher intelligence cannot be proven.  A premise must at least have the possibility of being proven to be a valid premise.  If it cannot, then the theory is based on a false premise and is not actually a theory.

A best explanation must be based on evidence, not the lack of evidence which is needed to describe something as "too complex" to arise from nature.  A theory by definition is a premise supported by evidence, not the lack of evidence.

Saying that we haven't found an explanation for something isn't evidence.

On top of that, if intelligent things need an intelligent creator, what then created the creator? >.>

I'd like to be the first to say: Check-fuckin'-mate.

Oh there is always a way out of that one. God is "eternal" or other such nonsense.

[player1]

Sorry, but this was too well-researched and offered with too authoritative an air not to be totally taken to task, quote for quote. "A" for effort. "F" for totally buying into the party line, and completely being taken in by an unsubstantiated case of the Argument from Silence.

Anyways, For ID:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

Saying that natural selection is an undirected process is a sort of non-statement. If there is a creator God, why can't evolution, mutation and natural selection be the "mysterious ways" in which s/He works? Also, it is possible to believe in evolution and believe in "design" in the morphology and processes of living systems. That  "design" is the combination of mutation and natural selection in producing beautiful and functional organisms, well in harmony with the environment with which they have co-evolved. The chief failure of the whole ID argument is its need to anthropomorphize these multitudinous systems into a "personal" Creator God, to euhemerize Nature into a particular figure, usually the favorite "Daddy God" of a specific creed.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

In a broader sense, ID is about recognizing patterns: patterns mostly present in the biases, prejudices and pre-conceptions of those why try to obfuscate an understanding of basic evolutionary principles with a lot of bad science and nonsense.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. (From http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/)

ID is not controversial. It is a load of malarkey, which seeks to traffic in the lack of evidence, not any actual evidence, as pointed out above, and adequately refuted below.

Proof of God - Nature
So where's the proof of God's existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!

While I'll stipulate that I personally see God in every sunrise, the following argument will prove no such thing, except that the author has taken - hook, line and sinker - the wholly unsupported claim that somehow God and evolution are incompatible, and yet this God also somehow is representative of "Truth" with a capital "T". Remember, when you see exclamation marks, somebody thinks something is important!

Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)

Wow! Isn't evolution wonderful? Life is indeed mysterious. Belief in God and belief in evolution still have no quibble. (Unless of course you only want to believe in a specific, limited, finite way of defining God. Oh wait, I thought God was infinite and eternal. And yet s/He can only be defined by your tiny mind, which seems unable to hold two conflicting thoughts at the same time.)

When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.

Indeed we do not find it reasonable to infer the presence of intelligent design; instead it appears to be axiomatic to the ID argument and not open to question. Just because nature has designed systems over billions of years which we recognize (or more to the point, categorize) as machines does not mean that they were "designed" by a specific creator; what it means to me is that they were "designed" by the self-organizing systems of evolution, which produce forms of life that adapt to their environment, through mutation and natural selection.

Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)

This is a bald assertion, unsupported by any evidence, and completely debunked in the linked matter that I have provided in my above post, all of which I found on the first Google search I did.

The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)(From http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm)

All the more reason to argue for an "old" dating, and a slow and incredibly complex process occurring and recurring under a wide variety of conditions. Michael Denton may be a brilliant molecular biologist, but not only has he done a complete flip-flop on evolution (to fit his new infatuation with the anthropic principle), he seems more interested in finding things that he can't believe, instead of doing the hard work of actually researching the evolutionary links that others have been able to point out. This book should have been titled, Michael Denton: What I Don't Know About Evolution.

Also: @ The Religion Bashers: This isn't exactly about religion vs atheist, so dont start please, also, as for your claims for religion being false, evidence? or just personal conjecture.

People find spirituality useful in their lives or not, belief in a particular "brand" of mythology or religion useful or not, and one's belief in God alternatively silly or comforting, depending on the personal reality tunnel from which they perceive the world that they themselves create.

I bid you a good day sir, and hope that in future you will not be so taken in by silly arguments without researching them further. Cheers.

If you'd like to see a more spiritual, beautiful and wonderful side of evolution, I would recommend the works of Stephen Jay Gould and David Quammen (especially the "Natural Acts" column that the latter wrote for Outside magazine).

[KillerWhale]

-snip-

I bid you a good day sir, and hope that in future you will not be so taken in by silly arguments without researching them further. Cheers.

Good to see that Player1 still has some of the "totally annihilating someone's argument" left in him.

[Bissig]

The only thing that I have to add to Player1's statement is, that we as human beings find nature and it things to be "beautifully designed" because we are part of it and as such it is only natural that we should appreciate it (well, except for mosquitos and dog turds maybe).

[Demolution]

Because people only now (20th century) have the tools to examine nature on the molecular level and gain a better understanding of it, religious folks advocate natural design as intelligent design. Prime example: the E. coli bacterial flagellum as mentioned above.

[KamikOzzy]

What bissig said in another set of words; people see the world as if it was made special for us, but as it turns out we evolved to fit into the world as it was.

[your face]

how did a woodpecker evolve

[KamikOzzy]

how did a woodpecker evolve

By reaching level 20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo8nxqG54Wo

[mooseberry]

Proof that not only is God real, but so is the devil.


((Yes, the devil tried to make a sheep but if didn't have life or something, I don't actually believe that but the article is cool.))

[beerbitch]

The only thing that I have to add to Player1's statement is, that we as human beings find nature and it things to be "beautifully designed" because we are part of it and as such it is only natural that we should appreciate it (well, except for mosquitos and dog turds maybe).

Indeed.

Dogs sure appreciate their own dung though, seeing as how they often eat their own (evolved to for avoiding predators who can smell it)

[Nux]

Proof that not only is God real, but so is the devil.

I enjoyed that! (even if it got the size of the granrojo jellyfish wrong by a scale of 4)

When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design.

What are these 'general principles of detecting specified complexity'? They sound really useful.

I think you meant to say 'when I find something I don't understand which looks like someone made it, someone must have made it'.

Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source.

Flagella are indeed incredible things and pehaps hard to imagine coming about by chance. Then again, we are talking about an organism cable of evolving in front of our eyes. The trouble with your argument is not that you point out an evolutionary step that is hard to explain. It's that you don't TRY to explain it.

No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts.

Funny you should say that when the evolutionary model includes humans too.

A long time ago, early human ancestors developed in thier brains a proficiency in the use of tools. Where other creatures might take in calcium carbonate and from within themselves build a shell, humans would now start to build things using thier hands. Brains that were adapted for tool construction were more successful than brains that were not. The outboard motor is just one of many tools which are just as much the result of evolution as we ourselves are.

[beerbitch]

I would just like to add regarding the flagellum that you can do a simple Google search and find all kinds of studies done on it that show how it evolved using modern genetics as proof -

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=flagella+genetics

[Ingar]

Ask yourself these questions:

what is Intelligence? what is Design? What are we talking about? Cross-reference with:
What is Artificial Intelligence? Does quantumphysics imply the universe can be described
as a discrete system?

If the theory of intelligent design is correct, then the universe was designed
in such a way that the Theory of Evolution would be true.