Are You Intelligently Designed?

Oct 23, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Capital-Journal

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.

Comments (Page 14)

Showing posts 261 - 280 of409
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#263
Jan 30, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Longevity is just one factor. Why not also consider the abundance and alarming escalation of genetic diseases?
Genetic diseases are escalating in direct proportion to our ability to make them non-fatal, of course. Medicine operates in direct opposition to natural selection, preserving those who would not otherwise survive. And its the price we willingly pay, because evolution is not a moral code - not a prescription of how we should live - its simply an account of our origins.

As we have chosen the path of preservation for ourselves and our loved ones through medical intervention, so we will continue. And the day will come - its already here - when intervention at the level of the genome will do humanely what nature always did with utmost cruelty.

I guess you will go on a tirade about eugenics after I state this so openly. Yet like all knowledge it could be used to serve good or evil ends. I personally cannot see an issue with removing genetic susceptibility to Huntington's or breast cancer from future generations.

And still, this does not alter the fact that if humans are like animals tested to date, the reintroduction of natural selection will restore fitness, falsifying Sanford.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#264
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_...
Actually, everyone who understands evolution understands fitness, in the evolutionary sense, to mean purely the following:

The ability to survive.
The ability to procreate.

For someone who claims the precision of a mathematician, you choose a deliberately woolly and subjective measure of fitness, and of course you do so precisely in order to try and make this assertion of Sanford's unfalsifiable.

Restoration of the species natural level of longevity and fecundity will do fine as proxies, thanks, and are more than sufficient to falsify Sanford.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#265
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].
Eldgredge is clearly talking nonsense. The mechanism of natural selection operates iteratively and whatever survives and reproduces, predominates over time. The ability to spread genes is the final measure of evolutionary fitness.

"Robustness" is yet another woolly and subjective term you favour only because its imprecision allows you to BS.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#266
Jan 31, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>My point is that children can't even be fooled by Chimney1's definition of fitness. It takes years of programming to achieve his level of delusion.
So you cannot provide a mathematical formula to define fitness? Fine, I understand

Conclusion is that unlike what you actually claim, your point is that you require actions from others that you are incapable of providing yourself, you place limitation on others and you are not willing to limit yourself by those limitations. That is the whole basis for christian goddidit belief and typical of creationists.

i.e. hypocritical

I also see you have no response to the facts of the discovery and understanding of evolution over the last 2500 years. You were probably completely unaware, not surprising and it does a lot to explain why you were unable to respond to my question of why you consider the term “Darwinist” an insult

It seems your programming consists of being repeatedly battered about the head throughout childhood with a babble book until you repeated the mantra “goddidt” without hesitation and without questioning. The thing is you will never consider that as indoctrination.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#267
Jan 31, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It certainly is an issue since I've submitted an unanswered challenge.
Yes you fool, one that YOU are unable to answer. And of course you don’t see the hypocrisy of this.

Here is one, If, as stated in the babble, before the universe there was void, what did goddidit use to create the universe?- Nothing? But I was of the assumption that you guys always claimed you can’t get something from nothing

And another If, as stated in the babble, the earth was formless, what waters? Consider that the amount of water in earth amounts to a little more than 0.02% of the mass. Incidentally this fact also blows a huge hole in the Noah story.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#268
Jan 31, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
Yes, you claim recovery of longevity and fecundity as measures of fitness is downright silly
Clearly, longevity and fecundity are two measures of robustness but I'm not going to deny that having fewer genetic diseases is an important measure also.

Clearly, diseased people that inherit enough money to be able to pay for lifelong life support could live a long time but aren't really fit.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269
Jan 31, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
Come on. There must be other proxy measures for Sanford's "loss of fitness". Why don't you man up and suggest one,
I just did but you couldn't have imagined it yourself from what I've already posted in this thread. There you go. Not being able to understand the obvious is another measure of the loss of fitness.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#270
Jan 31, 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.
Which would be one of the 33,900 webpages (and some more on that particular topic that i did not show)
We know hormones when switch off is in place f.i. stop the process of women ovulating.
Well a lot of chemicals do haveimpact on hormones,so that wod be the strart.
I recall the frogs (signalling species, like filterfeeding molluscs f.i) somewhere in America becoming barren, the males infertile, because of some pesticide and fertilizer affluent entering their water. People somehow never realising that they in turn can form new chemical bonds.
The same ended up in the watertable used to irrigate and rain the land and for human consumptions.
Well in that region you would (somewhere in the south)find the staunchest defenders of statements like : climate chance is not happening, pollution is nonsense and all figuring for some odd reason that god would agree with them.
But grap a man by the balls and suddenly he becomes a fervent believer of polution capable of effecting people and lifestock.
And they frankly push the researcher on, offering funding for tests etc.

So that's how such research usually starts.
helnt

Voorhees, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#271
Jan 31, 2013
 
no God was drunk when he made us..
helnt

Voorhees, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#272
Jan 31, 2013
 
welp maybe the bible was talking about the human body as those waters..
helnt

Voorhees, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#273
Jan 31, 2013
 
even if the bible wasn't around it doesn't change the fact that jesus came down and performed miracles...

“Happy New Year”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Eldgredge is clearly talking nonsense. The mechanism of natural selection operates iteratively and whatever survives and reproduces, predominates over time. The ability to spread genes is the final measure of evolutionary fitness.
"Robustness" is yet another woolly and subjective term you favour only because its imprecision allows you to BS.
You all are much more familiar with Shoo Bee's pseudoscience than I am. So I had to check out some of his "very important" blog to find his "contribution" to the theory of evolution. He has taken a clever approach. Add his bits and pieces to the theory without actually doing any research to support it, but do it in a way that satisfies some rules and definitions of a theory syntax, structure and design. Like a lawyer drafting legislation. It doesn't matter if it is good as long as the bases are covered.

His first postulate “All life forms are molecular machines. I don't believe that any scientist doubts this scientific hypothesis” is superfluous and adds nothing to the theory. It is a vague description and doesn’t explain anything. Amidst all this he is comparing his efforts to the evolutionary synthesis of the 1930’s and 1940’s. This is as any good pseudo scientist knows, a great way to sell your half-assed idea, by placing yourself amongst great minds and becoming part of some real event.

Here is Shoo Bee’s second postulate.“The second postulate, the devolution hypothesis, stipulates that all models of molecular machines are becoming less robust over time. As genetic code in all life forms continues to get corrupted and degrades through copying errors and other mutations, successive generations of machines, in all series, must plod along with increasing inefficiency and sometimes features are entirely lost.” His second postulate is where we see the need to include “molecular machines.” It makes the second postulate sound more technical and gives a nod to human created machines as an analogy, which is what this is all intended to do in the first place. Humans create machines, therefore a creator of humans must exist. Nothing new. He robs his second postulate from Sandford and as you stated, that has been refuted.

Shoo Bee even includes a lie about how this so called “devolution” is “now being recognized as legitimate science.” Not by science it isn’t.

What a shameless, fame grubbing, lying, little pseudo scientist our Shoo Bee is

“Happy New Year”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275
Jan 31, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly, longevity and fecundity are two measures of robustness but I'm not going to deny that having fewer genetic diseases is an important measure also.
Clearly, diseased people that inherit enough money to be able to pay for lifelong life support could live a long time but aren't really fit.
If they can survive long enough to pass on their genes, and those offspring inturn pass on their genes, they are fit.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#276
Jan 31, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly, longevity and fecundity are two measures of robustness but I'm not going to deny that having fewer genetic diseases is an important measure also.
Clearly, diseased people that inherit enough money to be able to pay for lifelong life support could live a long time but aren't really fit.
No, "robustness"is your measure. Fitness on the other hand is the measure of science.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#277
Jan 31, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You all are much more familiar with Shoo Bee's pseudoscience than I am. So I had to check out some of his "very important" blog to find his "contribution" to the theory of evolution. He has taken a clever approach. Add his bits and pieces to the theory without actually doing any research to support it, but do it in a way that satisfies some rules and definitions of a theory syntax, structure and design. Like a lawyer drafting legislation. It doesn't matter if it is good as long as the bases are covered.
His first postulate “All life forms are molecular machines. I don't believe that any scientist doubts this scientific hypothesis” is superfluous and adds nothing to the theory. It is a vague description and doesn’t explain anything. Amidst all this he is comparing his efforts to the evolutionary synthesis of the 1930’s and 1940’s. This is as any good pseudo scientist knows, a great way to sell your half-assed idea, by placing yourself amongst great minds and becoming part of some real event.
Here is Shoo Bee’s second postulate.“The second postulate, the devolution hypothesis, stipulates that all models of molecular machines are becoming less robust over time. As genetic code in all life forms continues to get corrupted and degrades through copying errors and other mutations, successive generations of machines, in all series, must plod along with increasing inefficiency and sometimes features are entirely lost.” His second postulate is where we see the need to include “molecular machines.” It makes the second postulate sound more technical and gives a nod to human created machines as an analogy, which is what this is all intended to do in the first place. Humans create machines, therefore a creator of humans must exist. Nothing new. He robs his second postulate from Sandford and as you stated, that has been refuted.
Shoo Bee even includes a lie about how this so called “devolution” is “now being recognized as legitimate science.” Not by science it isn’t.
What a shameless, fame grubbing, lying, little pseudo scientist our Shoo Bee is
For all their long winded diatrabess, none of them seem to recognise the effects of natural selection.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#278
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DanFromSmithville wrote:
Here is Shoo Bee’s second postulate.“The second postulate, the devolution hypothesis, stipulates that all models of molecular machines are becoming less robust over time. As genetic code in all life forms continues to get corrupted and degrades through copying errors and other mutations, successive generations of machines, in all series, must plod along with increasing inefficiency and sometimes features are entirely lost.” His second postulate is where we see the need to include “molecular machines.”... He robs his second postulate from Sandford and as you stated, that has been refuted.
I am very happy to acknowledge that my fellow Christian brother Dr. John C. Sanford was the first person to define devolution theory scientifically. However, I believe that I deserve the recognition of discovering devolution theory independently of Sanford and more importantly, that I’m the first to axiomatize devolution theory. http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

Devolution theory is certainly not refuted by noting the obvious and unquestionably uncontested fact that average population fitness initially increases if a sizable number of extremely defective machines do not reproduce.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#279
Jan 31, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
For all their long winded diatrabess, none of them seem to recognise the effects of natural selection.
I was reading some ID site on EP and the fossil record.

To those people the cambrium is the new creation moment.
Huge disastrs are also not taken along, let alone understanding natural selection.
Or the concept of a hard start but once certain tried and true methods are in -place that can have the same function but various forms- it takes of exponentionally, and will re-evolve.
Life in competion or rather parasitism or symbiosis, will cause mutations and see re-mergence of concepts.
They consider the new un-tree like bush clade structure, just clutter/packingmaterial to fill up the gaps. Every fossil to them (and this is the biggy) is non-transitional. They are not capable of considering a fossil as transitional and in general the concept of concestors where frankly everything is in a transitional state!
Nor what it takes to preserve a fossil, and the rarity of finds and causes for that, nor pre-cambraian life being softshelled for a very long time, leaving no trace (Canada's Burghess shale and two more places would be the exception)

They also addressed the accusation of quotemining and cherry-picking, with the rebuttal that they are quoting (an) evolutionist(s).
Hopeless bunch.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#280
Jan 31, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I am very happy to acknowledge that my fellow Christian brother Dr. John C. Sanford was the first person to define devolution theory scientifically. However, I believe that I deserve the recognition of discovering devolution theory independently of Sanford and more importantly, that I’m the first to axiomatize devolution theory. http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Devolution theory is certainly not refuted by noting the obvious and unquestionably uncontested fact that average population fitness initially increases if a sizable number of extremely defective machines do not reproduce.
So all you are here to do is sell your snake oil. Sadly, no atheist is stupid enough to buy it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#281
Jan 31, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I am very happy to acknowledge that my fellow Christian brother Dr. John C. Sanford was the first person to define devolution theory scientifically. However, I believe that I deserve the recognition of discovering devolution theory independently of Sanford and more importantly, that I’m the first to axiomatize devolution theory. http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Devolution theory is certainly not refuted by noting the obvious and unquestionably uncontested fact that average population fitness initially increases if a sizable number of extremely defective machines do not reproduce.
I'm sorry to disappoint you but a dutch scientist allready wrote this in 1976, and has repopularised. I dismissed the contradictory theory straighaway becaus it's self-defeating given the bottleneck idea. That again squares with evolution.(Whatever etc., i never figured people would go on and on and on about it.)
Sandford just jumped on the bandwagon after engineering everything to a standstill, by weeding out weaknesses, and then concluded that devolution must be a fact.

But kind of forgot to mention the culling.

quote
Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun".[3][4][5] He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor.

[edit] Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the GenomeSanford has argued for devolution in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005, 2008).,[6][7] He summarized all evolutionary major population models in the Appendix.

end quote
The man should have first studied the genome and then would have econsiered writing the entropy book.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282
Jan 31, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So all you are here to do is sell your snake oil. Sadly, no atheist is stupid enough to buy it.
I recall the first 'genetherapy' trial in bethesda? hospital.
A women that suffered pain from even the simplest touch, would receive the opposite gene( to keep it simple) extracted from a goat. This again was put in a small sealed plastic tube and inserted close to the backbone.

If she was in pain before it had now doubled.

If Sanford or rather his team (there is usually one pesky guy doing nothing but being a PITA ordering people around and disturbing any sound toughprocess but taking credit for the foiled result.)came up with this kind of injection i do not see why he should be so proud.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 261 - 280 of409
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

15 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min Aura Mytha 105,972
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 32 min DanFromSmithville 127,054
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr The Dude 168,528
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 1 hr Dogen 13,475
Kevin Wingate: ID should be included in science... 5 hr llDayo 5
Science News (Sep '13) 8 hr Ricky F 2,671
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Wed MikeF 1,236
•••
•••
•••
•••