In support of Intelligent Design

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman
...if additional data is able to be independantly reproduced that adds to or strengthens a hypothesis, a theory or current known facts, then that leaves you know room to stand and shout.

Please provide the link to (an explanation of) the experiment that shows a telomere to telomere fusion in the chromosome of a living healthy cell and the cell remaining healthy in its operational processes (not a cancer cell gone haywire and not just pointing to more sequences and repeating claims of mythological fusion events that haven't actually been observed or properly analyzed in an experiment with organisms that can be made sure of that they are biologically and genetically related because they're part of the same experiment), preferrably one that was just fertilized after conception. That'd be a good start, but it's only a start, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not twisted half-truths and not not telling people that a telomere to telomere fusion has only been observed in cells that are damaged and gone haywire (which understanding people understand doesn't fit the chromosome #2 fusion storyline, since that telomere-to-telomere fusion supposedly happened in the first fertilized cell of a mysterious never discovered and unspecified apelike ancestor, that can't be or become a cancer cell or damaged cell because of that fusion if the fusion happened the way it is claimed, cause you won't have any birth then, no birth, no life, no biological evolution).

A next possible step could be tackling the fact that these supposed "telomeric sequences" or "vestigial telomeres" or "remnants of telomeres" are found all throughout the human genome. Why are these sequences in these other places in the genome not used to claim a fusion happened there?

Then you could tackle the real big issue of the supposed fusion site being actually in a gene vital for the continuation of life (as acknowledged by Kenneth Miller, one of the main proponents of the chromosome #2 fusion story; well the first part up to "gene", but also denied, he's a Roman Catholic Trinitarian after all, can't pass up on the opportunity to talk in contradictions or tell 1 thing to the public and another in private, off-the-record or in cases where you know your flock or fans will find it easier to dismiss it, such as in an e-mail to someone who you know has already been targetted and discredited and nobody is going to take seriously or they just won't understand what the conversation was about or what you were doing when talking in contradictions to obscure matters). No problem right? Some people however think things through and understand what this means for the fusion story and the mythological apelike ancestor that doesn't have this gene yet since it hasn't fused yet, according to the story. But again, no problem right, just pretend that they can live without this gene since their genomes are more like the 24 chromosomes in chimpanzees and the fusion somehow happens and creates this gene instantly with a whole bunch of mutations and re-arrangements, etc but doesn't result in a cancer cell, in spite of what we've observed concerning telomere to telomere fusions (who wants to even talk about those facts and how they relate to the story). As if by magic, nothing is a problem for Mother Nature. We'll just give it a fancy name, let's call it punctuated equilibrium, that always impresses the public. Punctuated equilibrum is Mother Nature's Magic (M&M's from the people that are so smartie).

Oh, it would be nice if people didn't twist what I am talking about to what they want people to think I'm talking about (and then respond to that, again manipulating what people are thinking about or how they think about these subjects; I could for example think about the technique of bringing up other types of fusions, not telomere-to-telomere as supposed evidence for this mythological telomere-to-telomere fusion in our mythological apelike ancestor; another technique that could be used is to start complaining that I misunderstand evolution when I used the word "instant" somewhere in my commentary, cause it's supposedly gradual and then make it a discussion about the subject of punctuated equilibrium which is not a gradual process and I only mentioned as a reminder of another story that is very similar to what one would need to explain away or talk past my questions, a side point to my main points; while pretending the fusion story doesn't logically need an instant arrival of that particular gene for the organism to be alive and pass on genes to their offspring). I don't have high hopes but responding to every twist and never getting any logical or reasonable answers to most of my questions (by some people perhaps all, not sure; I even got illogical unreasonable answers to questions relating to the fact that 1+1=2) is rather wearisome.

a reply to: logicsoda

Oh wow! Do you like have a reading comprehension problems or something?

Me: There is more proof for intelligent design then for random change,
You: How about you provide this "proof", then.

I said the exact opposite of this in many ways. In fact just what to you mean by intelligent?

Me: and there is more proof for haphazard design then there is for intelligent design,
You: Again, show this "proof".

Well for one you haphazardly read what I said and somehow did not read it at all just started writing some things which I did not say. Its like I was talking about cheeseburgers and you sunddenly burst out saying " I like oranges" To which I would reply...Thats nice but the topic is cheeseburgers.

Me: However its highly likely and most probable that whatever life is and if and whoever created it was basically making # up as it went, you know improvising.
You: If there was a designer, how is it "highly likely" and "most probable"? What if all life in the universe is exactly how they wanted it to be?

That is not possible, that is quite obvious...Duh! That would imply perfections. And perfections do not exist in nature or anywhere else. In fact even if there was some sort of all knowing and all powerful entity out there, it still would not be able to create a perfect thing.

There is no intelligent design there is only haphazard half assed design, There is no evidence to support design. None whatsoever... no matter as to how hard you try to argue against it.

What I am merely saying is that its also highly likely that some species some millions of years ago may have wondered by our little lonely somewhat blue world on a binge tour of the galaxy, and maybe somehow may have jacked off into the the ocean, which released its spermy life giving wonderton potential all through out the deeps, and then somehow millions of years later it lead to the first life in the oceans and eventually lead all of life that you see today.

For all you know we have some space traveling jack off to thank for being here experiencing the wonders of typing words on a screen and all the magical experiences that entail.

Me: I suppose we really are made in his image.
You: What do you mean that we are made in his image? Are children who are born with horrific defects made in his image as well? What about those born with chronic illnesses? Are they also made in his image?

What the funk are you talking about? What does any of this have to do with gods or god or even any higher intelligence or being at all?

But if any of those things or entities did exist. I am pretty sure they would care about any of those things about as much as you would care about a toad or a fish born with some chronic illness or horrific defects, which is to say you would not give a # or even notice any such thing or take the time out of there busy godly day to be bothered with it.

So in that respect the respect that they would not give a flying # or two #z about any of us or would even notice any of this unless it was somehow benefiting them or intruding on something in there day. So then yes we are all so much alike in many ways. Image may however be the wrong word used here, likely a miss translation.

As above and so below right?

a reply to: whereislogic

What does anything in your post, including the video, have to do with disseminating Tompkins' misuse of other people's work? I posted the original article which clearly contains nothing that Tompkins claims.

You never answer a question or address someone else's comments on your posts. You simply ignore the responses and hope that no one notices. You have yet to explain how any of Tompkins' "work" proves anything about fused chromosomes.

Tompkins' and the Creationist goal is to disassociate the evolution of primates with humans. As I mentioned in the other post, Tompkins extracts bits and pieces of other people's work and then reconstructs them into something that amounts a complete misrepresentation of the original work. That's fraud. He's not alone, of course - every "research" paper at the Creationist website uses exactly the same formula.

This research article was published in May 2016. Perhaps you should pass it on to Tompkins and ask him what his response is to this research.

Symposium Article
Chromosome-Specific Centromere Sequences
Provide an Estimate of the Ancestral
Chromosome 2 Fusion Event in Hominin
Genomes
Karen H. Miga
From the Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering, University of California, 501 Engineering 2 Building, UC
Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064.
Address correspondence to K. H. Miga at the address above, or e-mail: [email protected].

Abstract
Human chromosome 2 is a product of a telomere fusion of two ancestral chromosomes and loss/
degeneration of one of the two original centromeres. Genomic signatures of this event are limited
to inverted telomeric repeats at the precise site of chromosomal fusion and to the small amount of
relic centromeric sequences that remain on 2q21.2. Unlike the site of fusion, which is enriched for
sequences that are shared elsewhere in the human genome, the region of the nonfunctioning and
degenerate ancestral centromere appears to share limited similarity with other sites in the human
genome, thereby providing an opportunity to study this genomic arrangement in short, fragmented
ancient DNA genomic datasets. Here, chromosome-assigned satellite DNAs are used to study shared
centromere sequence organization in Denisovan and Neandertal genomes. By doing so, one is able
to provide evidence for the presence of both active and degenerate centromeric satellite profiles on
chromosome 2 in these archaic genomes, supporting the hypothesis that the chromosomal fusion
event took place prior to our last common ancestor with Denisovan and Neandertal hominins and
presenting a genomic reference for predicting karyotype in ancient genomic datasets.

jhered.oxfordjournals.org...

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Phantom423
Also, when someone comes back and posts a serious response to your questions, you should respond in kind that you agree or disagree. After all, you're the one posing the questions. We assume you've done some homework.

Have I not been doing that?
My apologies, please point me to the response I ignored.

I went over the thread and you are correct - you are responding to the posters. I apologize for making that error. I was more focused on another poster's lack of response.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Pete, you need to use bullet points, I am just not interested in the argument enough to waste my time reading all that

Your laziness is not my cross to bare. Your lack of interest in reading anything not put in the simplest of terms says more about you and how tenuous your position is than about the evidence against your opinion.

Believe what you will, learn to accept others don't believe what you do

This is absolutely hilarious when you essentially tell someone to grow up and just accept that you refuse to understand science.If you held to your own standards you wouldn't even be posting in threads like this let alone making the comments about other people that you do. It's beyond hypocrisy.

I'm fine with other people believing in fairy tales if it helps them sleep at night so long as they state that all it is, their personal opinion. You don't do that though.

It's a sign of growing up, disagreeing with others but accepting they have another opinion.

So you are nowhere near the level of grownup maturity that are attempting to call me put on huh? Will wonders never cease...

Atheist fundamentalists can't help themselves in this forum, they can't stop themselves, just have to deny others their opinion.

The only fundamentalists in this conversation are you and Whereislogic. I'm neither an Atheist nor a fundamentalist anything. But keep making blanket statements to cover up your ignorance you demonstrate in every post, every reply.

Fundamentalist Christians, listen to yourselves

I fixed your typo for you.

Because you aren't addressing any of the OP's questions and are doing nothing to contribute to the thread and instead chose to detract and distract from the Thread with your usual ad hominem attacks and slurs, I'm not going to play your game anymore in this thread because I don't want to contribute to a further derailment here. Feel free to start a thread of your own and I'll gladly entertain your trolling a little longer.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I think the problem here is that both sides think they know everything.

In 6 pages has anyone else mentioned anything they don't understand which may go against their beliefs?
Everyone is just asserting things they know, and not one person is even willing to accept they believe the moon/sun ratio thing is weird.

The conversation is always fighting it should be....

Atheist: "Yeah, there is some stuff that seems beyond chance"
Creationist:"Yeah, and perhaps science for religious institutes just pays really well."

If we can't be open to the flaws in our own thinking then the argument is pointless no matter which side you are on.

Like someone pointing out the fly in your soup before returning to their bowl of flies.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It's always the same fundamentalist atheists fighting the same old battle with the same old tactics
They think they have chosen the right faith and anyone who questions their chosen belief should be evangelise out of existence
Sometimes it's just better to keep the pearls in your pocket

As an atheist fundy i take offense at that.
I am trying new tactics to evangelise these beliefs out of existence.

But as we can see in this thread no one is willing to give an inch.
Just as none on my side are willing to accept there are things they don't understand the same thing applies to yours.

How do you think a constructive discussion could happen regarding this topic?

We could both be wrong, but we both cannot be right.
How important is the truth?

a reply to: peter vlar

Historical science is different to other sciences, research

Pete, I have heard your argument, some chirp, different time.

You fundie atheists don't have any other tuned, we disagree, learn to live with it

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Historical science is different to other sciences, research

Pete, I have heard your argument, some chirp, different time.

You fundie atheists don't have any other tuned, we disagree, learn to live with it

right back at ye, sirrah! although we at least look good doing that disagreeing thing.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Constructive discussions can't and won't happen, both sides have to accept the other side has a different opinion, learn to accept that opinion
The atheist moans about indoctrinating children and I can moan about Darwins effect on Hitler, Mao, Stalin etcetera, etcetrea etcetera

Oddly enough I accept why atheists are atheists, why they can't accept creation, I know Christians who accept evolution, I can accept their views on evolution, disagree respectfully and move on

Evolution has caused over 100 million deaths, it's not a nice philosophy, there are issues

It's about respecting another's opinion, right or wrong and not acting like petulant children, both sides

The truth is always important, if it's known, I know the two sides can't agree on the truth, evolution is assumption, we all know what phage sais about science and assumption

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Historical science is different to other sciences, research

Pete, I have heard your argument, some chirp, different time.

You fundie atheists don't have any other tuned, we disagree, learn to live with it

right back at ye, sirrah!

I can accept your views, even understand why you choose them
It's nothing for me to understand your reasoning, I was an evolutionist once myself, didn't accept God once as well.
You have nothing to fear from me

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Historical science is different to other sciences, research

Pete, I have heard your argument, some chirp, different time.

You fundie atheists don't have any other tuned, we disagree, learn to live with it

right back at ye, sirrah!

I can accept your views, even understand why you choose them
It's nothing for me to understand your reasoning, I was an evolutionist once myself, didn't accept God once as well.
You have nothing to fear from me

the point is not theology, but humanity. we are not minions searching for a "boss" to anchor us down. we are the starship enterprise, boldly becoming what no man has been before. we revel in existence before existence consumes us as it did the stars whose ashes comprise our molecules. or the dinosaurs whose corpses fuel our obnoxious approximations of them. the point is not subjugation, but revelation, flagration and resubstantiation. our master is time and it has already registered our footnote and gotten bored and wandered off. all thats left is to do. to have done is to have been, which is all any of us can hope for. doesnt matter how or why the universe. we are microbes and bacteria either way.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Evolution has caused over 100 million deaths, it's not a nice philosophy, there are issues

It's about respecting another's opinion, right or wrong and not acting like petulant children, both sides

The truth is always important, if it's known, I know the two sides can't agree on the truth, evolution is assumption, we all know what phage sais about science and assumption

I would obviously dispute that evolution has caused millions of deaths. But even if I accept that figure, what does that have to do with the accuracy of it?

I don't think anyone is advocating a society based on evolutionary principles. Personally I think that would be awful and I agree that it is not a nice philosophy to live by.

The let's respect everyone's opinion seems to be a cop out. A stalemate should only be the goal of someone who already accepts they are wrong.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Evolution has caused over 100 million deaths, it's not a nice philosophy, there are issues

Do you have any evidence for that? I didn't think so................

a reply to: Raggedyman

Constructive discussions can't and won't happen, both sides have to accept the other side has a different opinion, learn to accept that opinion The atheist moans about indoctrinating children and I can moan about Darwins effect on Hitler, Mao, Stalin etcetera, etcetrea etcetera

Opinions in science are backed by some evidence. Do you have any? Didn't think so.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Historical science is different to other sciences, research

Pete, I have heard your argument, some chirp, different time.

You fundie atheists don't have any other tuned, we disagree, learn to live with it

You're struggling to rationalize your drowning friends position and now you're trying to make up some reasoning to make it look like you arrived at this conclusion by some process of actual thought? Evolve or face extinction!

Besides, we are on to your apologetic games and know that's a bunch of bull excrement, you guys ignore historical science just as well. Turns out many of the main characters in your book of fables are made up.
Lying to defend a lie.. I kinda feel sorry for you, I hope it pays well.

Links

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Historical science is different to other sciences,

I guess its a good thing that the study of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis isn't a party to your fictional nomenclature of "historical sciences" then. It is the culmination of data from multiple disciplines. Let's focus on the evolution of our own Genus. This falls under Anthropology which is considered an Earth Science. Evidence supporting the physical aspects of Paleo-Anthropology comes from Genetics, Biology and Geology to name just a few. Are you going to try to tell me that Biology is a "historical science"? What about genetics?

research

I did for many years prior to pursuing a degree in Anthropology and continued to do much more in depth research into it when the focus of my work narrowed quite specifically to potential admixture events and definitive episodes of Pleistocene cohabitation between Neanderthal and HSS in the Levant. How much research have you done?

Pete, I have heard your argument, some chirp, different time.

How can you have heard it when you have repeatedly stated that without bullet points, you refuse to read anything I post? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds when you insinuate that I need to do research( on matters I have an actual degree in and continue to keep up with new research by others because ) while simultaneously refusing to read information coming from someone who has put far more effort into understanding the subject matter than you.

The biggest difference between you and I is that were you or your erstwhile comrade, Whereislogic, to produce anything resembling science, I would actually read through the information to determine the veracity of it. It's called due diligence. You guys should give it a try sometime. Unlike you, I don't ever stop trying to learn new things nor do I ever cease questioning things despite your insistence to the contrary.

You fundie atheists don't have any other tuned, we disagree, learn to live with it

It's cute how you continue to foster and grow your wildly out of control willful ignorance. I'm not an Atheist. Most people I worked with or engaged in research with or dug at a site with, likewise...were not Atheists. It just makes it easier for people like you to rationalize your dismissiveness of anybody with an understanding of science by insinuating that their position on Evolution is based on either Atheism or a hatred of Christianity.

Theology plays no part whatsoever in any of this. Its about what can be proven, what hypotheses are testable and repeatable by independent researchers. But you would know that if you took your own advice and researched anything for yourself. This isn't about having differing opinions and lets all live and let live Kumbaya and so on. It's a matter of people like you routinely dismissing facts and marginalizing them by insisting they are just opinions and we just don't agree so I should get over it.

Constructive discussions can't and won't happen,

Except that they do happen, every single day. When I can have a civil and honest discussion about this topic with posters like RandyVS and establish mutual respect despite the fact that he is a biblical literalist and Young Earth Creationist, I think that says more about your approach and attitude towards other people than it does about the debate between science and proponents of Creationism.

Evolution has caused over 100 million deaths

Evolution is a biological process, it hasn't done any such thing. I'm sure you can support this statement with citations though, right?!?

it's not a nice philosophy

You are confusing the science behind Modern Evolutionary Synthesis with 19th century philosophies like Social Darwinism. But you know this as it's been pointed out to you before. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with MES or even Charles Darwin aside from bastardizing his name as a way to promote some heinous practices

there are issues

Yes, that is quite clear when you attempt to misrepresent 19th century philosophies where the goal is furthering classism and rankism as being the same thing as evolutionary theory. What does that say about your position is you have to lie in order to rationalize its superiority? Its as if you've taken a page out of the Social Darwinism playbook to further your own agenda.

It's about respecting another's opinion, right or wrong and not acting like petulant children

Lying about the foundation of evolutionary theory isn't really a great way to gain your opponents respect is it? The claims you made above where you claim that Social Darwinism is synonymous with evolutionary theory or the evolution itself killed 100 million people is most certainly not putting your best foot forward and attempting to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue. Have I or anyone else in this thread attacked your faith or religious beliefs? Made statements based on misrepresentations or half truths regarding your beliefs or the tenets of your religion? How can you honestly expect to be taken seriously or shown the respect you feel you should just be given, with the arrogant, hypocritical finger pointing and baseless accusations that you are continuously levying at anyone who does not share your YEC world view?

The truth is always important, if it's known,

Anybody who says we have every question completely answered and every blank regarding evolution filled in is a flat out liar. Likewise with anyone who completely dismisses an entire scientific discipline and the results of a century and a half of in depth research. With that said, there are many "truths" or known, scientifically proven facts, that support MES. The bottom line is that MES is the most well researched, with the largest amount of supporting evidence, in the history of science. Again, this does not mean that every single aspect of evolutionary theory is settled what it does mean though is that MES is not, as you have repeatedly claimed, based in assumptions. The amount of information confirmed in the last decade alone since the HGP completed their study and published their results, is beyond compare. And we're talking about a project headed by a devout Christian(Dr. Francis Collins who is one of the worlds most preeminent geneticists). Instead of a contradiction, he believes that God is indeed the creator of the Universe and set everything in motion. He believes, like Hebrew scholars, that the OT is allegorical and not a literal telling of the history of the Universe and our origins.

I know the two sides can't agree on the truth, evolution is assumption,

What exactly are the 2 sides though? As someone who spent literally, decades, studying evolution, primarily the evolution of hominids, there are many opinions both for and against Modern Evolutionary Synthesis as a whole or specific portions of the Theory. When you say the 2 sides, are you looking at it only as a Evolution vs. YEC debate?

we all know what phage sais about science and assumption

Why don't you PM Phage and invite him to add commentary in his own words. Would that not give more appropriate context in this particular instance?

a reply to: peter vlar

Look, Pete has decided an epic post about everything again will sway me to confessing that atheism is the true faith
You have said it all before pete

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Historical science is different to other sciences, research

Pete, I have heard your argument, some chirp, different time.

You fundie atheists don't have any other tuned, we disagree, learn to live with it

You're struggling to rationalize your drowning friends position and now you're trying to make up some reasoning to make it look like you arrived at this conclusion by some process of actual thought? Evolve or face extinction!

Besides, we are on to your apologetic games and know that's a bunch of bull excrement, you guys ignore historical science just as well. Turns out many of the main characters in your book of fables are made up.
Lying to defend a lie.. I kinda feel sorry for you, I hope it pays well.

Links

Look, the same old same old again.
Nothing new, interesting

Your post holds no information at all, commentary, you offer nothing, nothing at all.
It's vague fluff, pointless to the thread

The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life......."
www.ideacenter.org...

Again, from my eccentric viewpoint, scientific observation shows Evolution - And Intelligent Design says it has a meaning.

Everything that occurs in nature and the universe is based upon cause and effect and all causes and effects that can be
perceived by an intelligent mind must be based upon some form of intelligent action

There is no way you can completely separate your mind from what you are observing and if it is perceived by the
mind of an intelligent being it must posses properties of Intelligent Design