A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

[empirex]

Please don't misrepresent me. I've not argued that there's nothing to debate, but merely that proponents of ID aren't legitimate parties to any such debate. I'm very happy for you that your insipid strawman brought you such abundant amusement.

Sorry man, but I can do nothing but LOL at these comments. Chances are you wouldn't know an ID argument if it bit you on the a$$.

Furthermore, your signature suggests that

"Science adjusts its views based on what is observed... faith is the denial of observation so that belief may be preserved"

I agree, yet it seems you are unfamiliar with "what has been observed" over the years. You and others choose to deny these observations and hence your faith preserves your ideology. neo-Darwinism has been a patch-work of quick fixes to accommodate the many new discoveries over the last decade. It is a theory built upon a foundation of quick fixes; a house of cards, that is now held up by nothing more than faith and repetition.

For those for whom it is more than an ideology, worldview or "calling", for those who would still call it science, it has failed. The debate should've at least progressed to Punc. Equ. or a post-Modern Theory by the majority, but it will not, perhaps cannot, as there is too much invested - both financially (paychecks and grants) and emotionally - in the neo-Darwinian dogmatic narrative.

There is vast debate to be had within the Intelligent Design field, they are had all the time. There are many challenges the neo-Darwinian crowd fail to address, so it's left to the likes of Myers, Dawkins and co. to resort to the old "ignorant" fallback to dismiss the argument, to which their sheople followers almost always respond with "Horaahhh!"

[Randhir]

Lol.

[porchrat]

ROFL @ "Intelligent Design field"

It is so cute to see them playing at being real scientists. Like watching kids play house

[HapticSimian]

Sorry man, but I can do nothing but LOL at these comments. Chances are you wouldn't know an ID argument if it bit you on the a$$.

Furthermore, your signature suggests that

"Science adjusts its views based on what is observed... faith is the denial of observation so that belief may be preserved"

I agree, yet it seems you are unfamiliar with "what has been observed" over the years. You and others choose to deny these observations and hence your faith preserves your ideology. neo-Darwinism has been a patch-work of quick fixes to accommodate the many new discoveries over the last decade. It is a theory built upon a foundation of quick fixes; a house of cards, that is now held up by nothing more than faith and repetition.

For those for whom it is more than an ideology, worldview or "calling", for those who would still call it science, it has failed. The debate should've at least progressed to Punc. Equ. or a post-Modern Theory by the majority, but it will not, perhaps cannot, as there is too much invested - both financially (paychecks and grants) and emotionally - in the neo-Darwinian dogmatic narrative.

There is vast debate to be had within the Intelligent Design field, they are had all the time. There are many challenges the neo-Darwinian crowd fail to address, so it's left to the likes of Myers, Dawkins and co. to resort to the old "ignorant" fallback to dismiss the argument, to which their sheople followers almost always respond with "Horaahhh!"

You can swing your pom-poms around all you want in an effort to legitimise the musings of a bunch of charlatans, it counts for nought. Let's just - because I'm bored and I apparently have nothing better to do on a public holiday - take one of the phrases you yanked out earlier, thinking it lends credence to your position: the 'public goods hypothesis'.

This is a hypothesis put forward in a paper by real scientists, doing little beyond questioning ideas like Dawkins' selfish gene postulation as it would apply to prokaryotic life - bacteria and the like - and the large amount of horizontal gene transfer found in populations of simple creatures. This is illustrative of precisely what I'm saying, insofar as actual scientific work is being done to further our understanding of evolution. It isn't without criticism, and even if it's accepted it doesn't substantially alter the established view of the tree of life at the level of eukaryotes.

I fear you are conflating the Theory of Evolution - the overarching framework which seeks to explain the observed phenomenon of the diversification of life - with the simple fact that things evolve. The other positions you mention are similarly mere disagreements as to the details of the theory; they do not constitute grounds upon which to start trumpeting the non-existent virtues of ID.

ID is still not science, and you're still wrong. But then we knew that before we started this discussion...

[DrJohnZoidberg]

What goals does ID have?

[] Throw years of scientific research out the window.
[] Turn people against science.
[] Have no plausible theory to counter evolution.
[] Bring religion in to the science classroom.
[] Pretend to be doing real science.
[] All of the above.


I don't see anything that the so-called evolutionists are doing that could be worse than any of the above. While some tactics may be direct and harsh, I would also do anything to prevent them from damaging the minds of young people any further.

[empirex]

You can swing your pom-poms around all you want in an effort to legitimise the musings of a bunch of charlatans, it counts for nought. Let's just - because I'm bored and I apparently have nothing better to do on a public holiday - take one of the phrases you yanked out earlier, thinking it lends credence to your position: the 'public goods hypothesis'.

This is a hypothesis put forward in a paper by real scientists, doing little beyond questioning ideas like Dawkins' selfish gene postulation as it would apply to prokaryotic life - bacteria and the like - and the large amount of horizontal gene transfer found in populations of simple creatures. This is illustrative of precisely what I'm saying, insofar as actual scientific work is being done to further our understanding of evolution. It isn't without criticism, and even if it's accepted it doesn't substantially alter the established view of the tree of life at the level of eukaryotes.

I fear you are conflating the Theory of Evolution - the overarching framework which seeks to explain the observed phenomenon of the diversification of life - with the simple fact that things evolve. The other positions you mention are similarly mere disagreements as to the details of the theory; they do not constitute grounds upon which to start trumpeting the non-existent virtues of ID.

ID is still not science, and you're still wrong. But then we knew that before we started this discussion...

I haven't been "trumpeting the virtues of ID", I've been pointing out the secular religion and ultimately ideology that has become evolution. The fact that people such as yourself claim "there is no argument" illustrates that point brilliantly.

You have created your perfect little world. In it, evolution is a cold hard, immovable fact. There is no debate. The earth is flat, and the centre of the universe. There is no objectivity, there is no room for alternate views, even though evolution has failed to account for the most basic of life's mysteries -- male and female, procreation, sex. It has no frikken clue, not one, and that list is endless.
Yet it is settled science, dream on, dream on that happy dream.

I am first and foremost a Christian; do I care if it's lambasted, heck no (fire away) -- but Intelligent Design raises some serious questions, answers others and makes perfect sense in the light of much research, and I will use those arguments.

Is it a theory in the strictest sense, many would argue yes (as would I), and some no. But in the end, if it makes more sense than the drivel coming out of the evolutionary camp, then it is well on it's way.

This it seems has become a battle of ideologies for many, otherwise people wouldn't be as intimidated by ID, Creationism or whatever else. Science, sadly, has taken a back-seat to the world (and war) of spin and marketing.

[copacetic]

Science, sadly, has taken a back-seat to the world (and war) of spin and marketing.

It certainly has, in some areas. ID proponents and creationists have turned it into a fine art, quite right.

[HapticSimian]

I haven't been "trumpeting the virtues of ID", I've been pointing out the secular religion and ultimately ideology that has become evolution. The fact that people such as yourself claim "there is no argument" illustrates that point brilliantly.

This just serves to illustrate that you do in fact conflate the fact of evolution and the theory which seeks to explain it. The former would not simply vanish, even if great swathes of the latter had to be re-evaluated. An unlikely, but strictly possible scenario.

You have created your perfect little world.

The world likely wasn't created... and it sure as **** ain't perfect...

In it, evolution is a cold hard, immovable fact. There is no debate.

...but this much is true, yes. Evolution happens. This is as near immutable knowledge as humanity has ever attained.

The earth is flat, and the centre of the universe.

My, how disingenuous of you. Ya know how these two positions were found to be incorrect? Scientifically.

There is no objectivity, there is no room for alternate views, even though evolution has failed to account for the most basic of life's mysteries -- male and female, procreation, sex. It has no frikken clue, not one, and that list is endless.

Go here - see how many of the claims on your endless list haven't been addressed. I'd hazard your list would shrink quite dramatically. All the points are referenced - you're free to follow the trail to their individual sources. Your specific incredulous claim on the emergence of genders is dealt with here.

Yet it is settled science, dream on, dream on that happy dream.

Does evolution happen, and does it adequately account for the diversity of life we see on Earth? Yeppers, settled science right there. Why and how exactly? We're still figuring out some of the details but hey, it's bound to be much more fascinating than any dream... happy or no.

I am first and foremost a Christian; do I care if it's lambasted, heck no (fire away) -- but Intelligent Design raises some serious questions, answers others and makes perfect sense in the light of much research, and I will use those arguments.

This seems to be the sticking point for you; it emphatically does not raise any serious questions. At all. Ever.

Is it a theory in the strictest sense, many would argue yes (as would I), and some no.

That you even pose the question only shows that you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of what arduous process a given hypothesis has to endure in order to reach the certainty of being proclaimed a scientific theory. Have a read. And no, ID isn't a theory; it's a load of horse manure an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

But in the end, if it makes more sense than the drivel coming out of the evolutionary camp, then it is well on it's way.

Problem then (for you, at least) that it doesn't. It fits your preconceptions, which blinds you to its flaws. You have been bamboozled. Here's good ol' Carl Sagan on your position: “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

This it seems has become a battle of ideologies for many, otherwise people wouldn't be as intimidated by ID, Creationism or whatever else. Science, sadly, has taken a back-seat to the world (and war) of spin and marketing.

Again, you perceive a battle where there is none. A small complement of ill-informed, often nefarious hacks regurgitating long-dead lies and half-truths does not a battle make. You'd do well not to mistake indignation for being intimidated; simpletons wanting to force their non-science into the minds of the impressionable is to be fought at every turn.

**EDIT**

For those with the inclination (and bandwidth) there's a lovely series on Youtube by AronRa entitled "The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism"... Watch it, if you hear something you don't agree with, pause the vid & go check up on it. Learn something.

[empirex]

This just serves to illustrate that you do in fact conflate the fact of evolution and the theory which seeks to explain it. The former would not simply vanish, even if great swathes of the latter had to be re-evaluated. An unlikely, but strictly possible scenario.

...but this much is true, yes. Evolution happens. This is as near immutable knowledge as humanity has ever attained.

Which just goes to show you've been downing mouthful's of the evolution kool-aid (ie. hype).

Even Dawkins admits that we haven't witnessed macro-evolution in action. That is a fact.
Everything else is assumption.

The main question is not whether or not evolution happens, of course it does, the question is whether or not micro-evolution can be extrapolated to macro-evolution.

And if you answer yes without even thinking about the question then you have failed, as there are far greater systems at work when considering micro- and macro-.

And as for settled science, just how much is science and how much is wishful thinking:

It seems the Journal of Evolutionary Biology has confirmed Jonathan Wells' findings on the Peppered Moth all these years later. Much maligned by the likes of Dawkins, it seems those ID folk get it right more often than not even if it takes several South Korean researchers to admit as much; as not in a million years would you find US or UK scientists admitting, or even considering attemting an experiment that might validate an ID proponets writings in a decade old book (Icons of Evolution). Truth you see, is secondary to the "fact of evolution".

Journal of Evolutionary Biology Confirms Jonathan Wells (by Name) on Peppered Moth Myth

Keeping in mind I don't follow the evolution / ID/ creationism debate as closely anymore, so who knows what else has come and gone..

[copacetic]

Even Dawkins admits that we haven't witnessed macro-evolution in action. That is a fact.
Everything else is assumption.

The main question is not whether or not evolution happens, of course it does, the question is whether or not micro-evolution can be extrapolated to macro-evolution.

Micro and macro evolution are exactly the same thing, the results of which are perceived over differing lengths of time...

Is your ignorance really that profound? Your incessant obnoxious yammering, so full of all the right buzz-words almost had me convinced you had a clue (albeit an extremely misguided one), but really now...

[HapticSimian]

Which just goes to show you've been downing mouthful's of the evolution kool-aid (ie. hype).

Don't project. It's not becoming.

Even Dawkins admits that we haven't witnessed macro-evolution in action. That is a fact.

And...? Is this some massive revelation to you? If dramatic changes from one organism to another were observable during a single human lifetime (or a couple, for that matter), you'd have pretty strong evidence against evolution. However, to accept what evolution has been responsible for hardly hinges on massive changes being directly observed.

Everything else is assumption.

There's a massive rift between assumption and evidenced extrapolation.

The main question is not whether or not evolution happens, of course it does, the question is whether or not micro-evolution can be extrapolated to macro-evolution.

You've got the question arse-about-face - it is actually 'can a mechanism be demonstrated to prohibit successive small changes from accumulating into eventual big change?' Well... can it?

And if you answer yes without even thinking about the question then you have failed, as there are far greater systems at work when considering micro- and macro-.

Like...?

And as for settled science, just how much is science and how much is wishful thinking:

It seems the Journal of Evolutionary Biology has confirmed Jonathan Wells' findings on the Peppered Moth all these years later. Much maligned by the likes of Dawkins, it seems those ID folk get it right more often than not even if it takes several South Korean researchers to admit as much; as not in a million years would you find US or UK scientists admitting, or even considering attemting an experiment that might validate an ID proponets writings in a decade old book (Icons of Evolution). Truth you see, is secondary to the "fact of evolution".

Journal of Evolutionary Biology Confirms Jonathan Wells (by Name) on Peppered Moth Myth

Keeping in mind I don't follow the evolution / ID/ creationism debate as closely anymore, so who knows what else has come and gone..

Clearly, as evidenced by your propensity for citing outdated garbage - or holes of creationist bias referencing outdated garbage. See here for a thorough dissection, exposing the flaws in Wells' initial writings on the peppered moths (and peppering the rest of his book, if you bother to scroll up or down). Read it and you'll quickly see that the criticism in your link is all embarrassingly off-target.

The misappropriation of the cited paper by what is just another Discovery Institute front isn't really surprising, is it? You need to find your evolution news elsewhere.

Thank you, come again.

[empirex]

Micro and macro evolution are exactly the same thing, the results of which are perceived over differing lengths of time...

Is your ignorance really that profound? Your incessant obnoxious yammering, so full of all the right buzz-words almost had me convinced you had a clue (albeit an extremely misguided one), but really now...

I believe we've covered this already in another thread , it seems your ignorance is compounded by your arrogance and self-righteousness.

You deserve the facepalm of the month, or perhaps year. What a shame to be you. Did you willfully ignore this, or just "forget".

You see there is a vast difference between micro-evolution, macro-evolution and macro-mutation. From the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry:

The evolutionary mechanism of cancer

Heck, before speaking with such authority, at least make sure you've done your homework, so as not to make a complete fool of yourself next time.

[empirex]

Don't project. It's not becoming.

Meh.

And...? Is this some massive revelation to you? If dramatic changes from one organism to another were observable during a single human lifetime (or a couple, for that matter), you'd have pretty strong evidence against evolution. However, to accept what evolution has been responsible for hardly hinges on massive changes being directly observed.

There's a massive rift between assumption and evidenced extrapolation.

'Evidenced' being the key word here

You've got the question arse-about-face - it is actually 'can a mechanism be demonstrated to prohibit successive small changes from accumulating into eventual big change?' Well... can it?

Like...?

Absolutely. Protein-protein binding sites for starters.

Take our old friend the flagellum for instance. Evolutionists have cited co-option as a method for it's origin, yet creating those necessary binding sites alone would be well beyond the evolutionary "mechanism" (random chance) itself.

How many binding sites have been created by random mutation, in:
Humans (10⁸ organisms) = 1
E.coli (10¹³ organisms) = 0
HIV (10²⁰ viruses) = 0
Malaria (10²⁰ organisms) = 0

Stat (according to evolutionary theory ):
Primates in the line leading to modern humans in the past ten million years = 10¹²

Clearly, as evidenced by your propensity for citing outdated garbage - or holes of creationist bias referencing outdated garbage. See here for a thorough dissection, exposing the flaws in Wells' initial writings on the peppered moths (and peppering the rest of his book, if you bother to scroll up or down). Read it and you'll quickly see that the criticism in your link is all embarrassingly off-target.

The misappropriation of the cited paper by what is just another Discovery Institute front isn't really surprising, is it? You need to find your evolution news elsewhere.

Thank you, come again.

Talk Origins?? LOL bud, that place has about as much chance of being right, as a blind man has at passing his drivers test. Sheer will and misdirection ftw.

You see this is my point, there is no debate to be had here.
I have had my fill of juvenile back-and-forth's over the years - when you're willing to have a real debate about facts while respecting each others right to hold those views, like Meyer and Ward did, let me know.

Until then continue speaking from on high, while throwing poo at whoever you feel like if it makes you so happy I seriously couldn't give a f***

[CoolBug]

Wow..

Secular religion called evolution?

Really!?!

Are you from Texas?

[copacetic]

*blather, insults, etc*

Explain this, please:



It makes perfect sense to me, and I've yet to encounter an argument that exposes a flaw in the reasoning... If there's a 'vast difference' between micro and macro evolution, I'll be glad to hear about it. I'm not sure why you are now talking about 'macro-mutation' either...

***

I would also like to point out that I have not at all made the claim I am speaking with any authority - I am not educated, trained or officially involved in any science oriented field, I'm just another dude, sitting at my PC, reading books, watching documentaries and lecturers, and trying to make sense of the world.

***

I wasn't going to, but I'm just posting your angry bile for posterity:

I believe we've covered this already in another thread , it seems your ignorance is compounded by your arrogance and self-righteousness.

You deserve the facepalm of the month, or perhaps year. What a shame to be you. Did you willfully ignore this, or just "forget".

You see there is a vast difference between micro-evolution, macro-evolution and macro-mutation. From the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry:

The evolutionary mechanism of cancer

Heck, before speaking with such authority, at least make sure you've done your homework, so as not to make a complete fool of yourself next time.