Originally posted by Rren
no evidence???you must be joking
Neither demsbki nor Behe have been able to present scientific evidence that supports intelligent design. I'm quite serious, they haven't been able
to present strong scientific evidence. At best, they've been able to say "this bacterial flagella is extremely complex, I can't imagine how it
formed naturally", which simply isn't enough to demonstrate design.
as a biologist
I'm not a biologist, I have a degree, but I am not a biologist. I'm just this guy, see...
i understand that perhaps you feel it's not proof cause you have no way to test the assumptions.
It gets difficult to accurate discuss these things when one is talking about 'proof' and the like. Technically, so far as I understand it, science
doesn't prove anything. Its like with medecine, you receive a vaccine and you don't get the disease. Thats not proof that vaccines work, in the
Anyway, without putting too fine razor to the terms, I would say that if the statements of intelligent design can't be tested, then it definitly
can't be said to be a science. If you can't test for intelligent design in, say, a frog, then there's no science going on.
cells, DNA, evolution etc
I understand very little, I'm just trying to figure out this stuff too.
you see NO evidence for design.
Another member noted that he didn't see a difference between natural 'design' and intelligent 'design'. Without getting into that here tho, I
would say, no, there is no evidence for intelligent design in nature.
Indeed, if I thought that there was, I'd be advocating for it. I think that all intelligent design advocates have are some examples of structures
that are exceedingly complex, and that certainly look just so complex that they can't have come up naturally. But thats not a good standard to go by,
apperances are extremely deceiving. There was a time when people thought that amino acids were far far too complex to form without organisms making
them. Miller-Urey demonstrated that this was incorrect in 1953. That was only slightly longer than 50 years ago, and its a pretty basic begining for
the subject. I'm not at all surprised that there are still lots of things that we haven't figured out the precise sequences for, infact, I don't
expect that we'll ever have an answer to every single thing. But thats simply not enough to demonstrate that an intelligent being created these
What does that mean exactly random non-directional process' account for all we see, and that is emperically based 'solid
In breif, the random part of evolution is that mutations occur relatively randomly, an organism does expereince the need to run faster and therefore
have mutations that permit it to run faster, or even to take in more oxygen with each breath (beyond the limits of acclimatization, like when you go
from the sea-level to a city with great altitude). There is a background of mutations that is allways occuring in a population of individuals. Upon
this essentially random background, the 'pressure' of selection can act. The pressure isn't an intelligent agent tho. In a herd of prey animals,
the faster ones will tend to survive and produce lots of offspring and therefor, intrinsically and automatically, this requires
, by simply
logic, that the next generation will be made up of more individual that have these mutations and variations that permit them to run faster. By this
relatively straightforward process, populations change over time. Even if the change is very small, given time (and steady application of this
pressure), you can get great over-all change. That applies to 'increasing and decreasing' 'current' traits beyond their current limits, and also
applies to the creation of new traits. I won't pretend for a moment that there are books anywhere with the entire phylogenetic history of the various
proteins and chemicals that make up the animals in the world tho.
Did I say 'in brief'