Are You Intelligently Designed?

Oct 23, 2012 Full story: The Capital-Journal 409

Sometimes, when I'm discussing or debating issues with online atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists, the huge topic of Intelligent Design comes up, and they ask me to explain the Intelligent Design hypothesis to them.

Full Story
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#243 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
I really don't care if it upsets you that people claiming 98% similarity think it matters or proves common ancestry.
You misunderstood me completely. I assert that Darwinists are religiously motivated propagandists that know absolutely nothing about percent similarity of strings that consist of the letters A, T, C, and G.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#244 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Garbage in; garbage out. Why not start with a realist sense of fitness?
Note that if we were actually debating reality, we would begin by questioning how researchers decide which diseases originate from externalities like environmental pollutants versus genomic decay.
So you aren't going to back up your claim? I take that to mean you no longer disagree.

What are you defining fitness to be?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#245 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You misunderstood me completely. I assert that Darwinists are religiously motivated propagandists that know absolutely nothing about percent similarity of strings that consist of the letters A, T, C, and G.
They could know nothing of the similarity of nucleotide strings and still accept evolution and be competent scientist to boot. Your assertion is juvenile and without merit. If anyone is propogandist, it is you. Look at the nonsense you post and continue posting despite evidence to the contrary.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#246 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You misunderstood me completely. I assert that Darwinists are religiously motivated propagandists that know absolutely nothing about percent similarity of strings that consist of the letters A, T, C, and G.
I have seen it reported as a similarity shared with chimpanzees and not that we are 98% chimpanzee. Talk to journalists if you have a complaint about that.

It seems kind of like nitpicking to be attacking these ephemeral, vague and meaningless points. Is that what Chimney left you with? It sure is.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#247 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
it s SANFORD that used longevity as a proxy for fitness, quoting early Biblical figures...
So, genius, if Sanford used an inadequate marker, and experimenal biologists used an inadequate marker, do tell us all what a better, TESTABLE proxy for fitness should be. If you are stumped you should ask these clever hypothetical children that you maintain can do better.
Longevity is just one factor. Why not also consider the abundance and alarming escalation of genetic diseases?

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#248 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You misunderstood me completely. I assert that Darwinists are religiously motivated propagandists that know absolutely nothing about percent similarity of strings that consist of the letters A, T, C, and G.
In reality, Shoob, it is you that misunderstand, well, just about everything. Those people that accept the ToE based on the evidence are not "believers" in some weirdo religion as you preposterously say. Rather, the ones who are immune to reality, who reject evidence with a hand wave and babble on about a lot of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo are people like you. In fact you are the grand pooh-bah of pseudo scientific babbling nut-jobs. I don't recall ever reading anything written by you that had any basis in real science or that had any actual evidence to back it up. You should seriously consider joining the Raving Looney Party, they need all the twits they can get.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#249 Jan 30, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
What are you defining fitness to be?
Everyone understands fitness to mean health. Shouldn't we also include the absence of genetic diseases? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_...

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#250 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Everyone understands fitness to mean health. Shouldn't we also include the absence of genetic diseases? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_...
Shouldn't you answer the questions that have been put to you and lay out the assertions you have claimed?

Fitness in the basic sense it the reproductive sucess of an organism.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#251 Jan 30, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
In reality, Shoob, it is you that misunderstand, well, just about everything. Those people that accept the ToE based on the evidence are not "believers" in some weirdo religion as you preposterously say. Rather, the ones who are immune to reality, who reject evidence with a hand wave and babble on about a lot of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo are people like you. In fact you are the grand pooh-bah of pseudo scientific babbling nut-jobs. I don't recall ever reading anything written by you that had any basis in real science or that had any actual evidence to back it up. You should seriously consider joining the Raving Looney Party, they need all the twits they can get.
Hello Bluenose. Haven't seen you in a while. Hope things have been well.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#252 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Everyone understands fitness to mean health. Shouldn't we also include the absence of genetic diseases? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_...
If genetic disease impacts fitness, it should be included. Have you reproduced (crosses fingers, holds breath) by the way or are we lucking enough to dodged that bullet?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#253 Jan 30, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Fitness in the basic sense it the reproductive sucess of an organism.
Robustness is a measure of the "fitness for life," not the ability to spread genes. Niles Eldredge makes this point in his book, Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene.[7].

The Eldredge anti-Darwinian emphasis also appears in Life on Earth: An Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Ecology, and Evolution:

"Fitness is not equivalent to survival or the number of offspring that an organism produces, but in the long run individuals that are more fit are more likely to survive and produce more offspring." Vol. 1, p. 521.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#254 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Robustness is a measure of the "fitness for life," not the ability to spread genes. Niles Eldredge makes this point in his book, Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene.[7].
The Eldredge anti-Darwinian emphasis also appears in Life on Earth: An Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Ecology, and Evolution:
"Fitness is not equivalent to survival or the number of offspring that an organism produces, but in the long run individuals that are more fit are more likely to survive and produce more offspring." Vol. 1, p. 521.
You are never going to address the questions put to you are you?

What are you hiding?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#255 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Robustness is a measure of the "fitness for life," not the ability to spread genes. Niles Eldredge makes this point in his book, Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene.[7].
The Eldredge anti-Darwinian emphasis also appears in Life on Earth: An Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Ecology, and Evolution:
"Fitness is not equivalent to survival or the number of offspring that an organism produces, but in the long run individuals that are more fit are more likely to survive and produce more offspring." Vol. 1, p. 521.
Since you are too gutless to come out and state your so called theory, I had to read it myself. Utter nonsense and as Chimney says, refuted.

You are a nut case.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#256 Jan 30, 2013
I had to go find it and read it myself.

www.garbagefromselfabsorbedmorons.com
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#257 Jan 30, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Since you are too gutless to come out and state your so called theory,...
My theory is freely available to all:

http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
http://everythingimportant.org/devolution
http://everythingimportant.org/science
http://everythingimportant.org/naturalism
http://everythingimportant.org

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#258 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
You don't have a theory. You don't even know what the word means.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#259 Jan 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
You don't have a theory. You don't even know what the word means.
As described by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron (2004), Evolutionary Analysis 4th Edition, Darwin’s theory rests on four postulates.(Why isn't common descent recognized as a fifth postulate)? Since I accept Darwin's first four postulates, which constitute the basis of a theory, then my emendation of Darwin's theory, which consists of Darwin's first four postulates together with the converse of the common descent postulate, then obviously I have a theory also.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#260 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I'm saying that it's so far from perfect that it's downright silly.
Yes, you claim recovery of longevity and fecundity as measures of fitness is downright silly - although alleged decreasing longevity based on Biblical references was one of Sanford's primary sources of evidence for claimed genetic entropy. You know this, you read the book right?

So what do you propose?
Nematode Olympic swimming?
Drosophilia aerobatics?

Come on. There must be other proxy measures for Sanford's "loss of fitness". Why don't you man up and suggest one, instead of pompously criticising the ones used without even saying why?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#261 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>As described by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron (2004), Evolutionary Analysis 4th Edition, Darwin’s theory rests on four postulates.(Why isn't common descent recognized as a fifth postulate)? Since I accept Darwin's first four postulates, which constitute the basis of a theory, then my emendation of Darwin's theory, which consists of Darwin's first four postulates together with the converse of the common descent postulate, then obviously I have a theory also.
Umm.. Let me think.......... No.

As I said you have no idea what a theory is.

Why don't you look up the definition and try again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#262 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You misunderstood me completely. I assert that Darwinists are religiously motivated propagandists that know absolutely nothing about percent similarity of strings that consist of the letters A, T, C, and G.
While I assert that those "Darwinists" who have specialised on population genetics and DNA analysis will know plenty about analysing the similarity of these strings and will have debated and clarified the point with the usual academic argumentation and rigor.

And even if the method agreed is imperfect, it is irrelevant so long as the comparisons made are made consistently using the same yardstick.

We all know that this is not a simple issue - certainly not the "middle school biology" issue you pretended it was. For example, does a single insertion make every element in the string that follows, displaced by one unit, "different" or "identical" to the comparison? Does a change in a redundant base, which does not affect gene expression, count the same as one that does change gene expression? How do we place a "percentage" difference on a change like the fusion of two chromosomes?

Yet, these issues do not make the comparison meaningless. Clearly, base by base, chimps and humans do share the vast majority of their respective genomes.

And just as clearly, this could be the case whether we evolved or were designed. The tell tale signs of common ancestry are in specific details, not in statements like "we share 98% of the genome".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How would creationists explain... 3 min Hidingfromyou 426
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 50 min Hidingfromyou 133,974
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Chimney1 678
Science News (Sep '13) Wed positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web