There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

a reply to: Masterjaden

You can cite this right? Because one can't take your word for it after all

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

The point about science is however, that the gaps are to be expected. You can not expect a complex system to be totally understood. WE don't understand Gravity, as much as we understand evolution. So should we come up with an alternative?

There's different interpretations of gravity. Some see gravity as an emergent property instead of a fundamental force. Some are trying to connect gravity to the entropy of entanglement.

Again, ID isn't an alternative to evolution. ID is a different interpretation of the evidence that doesn't have the gaps or the lack of understanding of a naturalistic interpretation.

Here's more evidence.

Someday we may get tired of being vindicated. But not yet! Günter Bechly recently discussed a new paper that confirmed Stephen Meyer’s claims in Darwin’s Doubt that arthropods appeared abruptly in the Cambrian explosion, without evolutionary precursors in the Precambrian. Another recent groundbreaking paper in Nature Communications has also provided massive confirmation of Meyer’s arguments in the book that new genes were required at the origin of animals.

Thus, the first animal genome was not only showing a higher proportion of Novel HG [homology groups], but these also perform major multicellular functions in the modern fruit fly genome. The implication is that the transition was accompanied by an increase of genomic innovation, including many new, divergent, and subsequently ubiquitous genes encoding regulatory functions associated with animal multicellularity.

evolutionnews.org...

What this is saying is similar to the recent paper on the Octopus.

These “homology groups” (HGs) are exactly what they sound like — groups of genes that are similar. A “novel HG” is a group of genes that is found in animals, or particular groups of animals, that do not exist elsewhere. This indicates that these groups of genes were necessary for these animals to exist.

For the origin of Eumetazoa (sponges + Planulozoa + Bilateria), 494 novel HGs are required.
For the origin of Planulozoa (ctenophores, placozoans, cnidarians + bilaterians), 1201 novel HGs are needed.
For the origin of Bilateria (animals with two-sided symmetry — a left and a right side), an additional 1580 HGs are required! According to Figure 2, about 16 percent of the bilaterian genome entails novel HGs!
No wonder a commentary by the paper’s lead author at The Conversation cites “a burst of new genes” associated with the origin of animals:

We discovered the first animal had an exceptional number of novel genes, four times more than other ancestors. This means the evolution of animals was driven by a burst of new genes not seen in the evolution of their unicellular ancestors.

evolutionnews.org...

a reply to: neoholographic

Yes there are also different interpretations of evolution neighbour. They all however are about evolution. ID and creationism are not about evolution in any way shape or form however. Thus your point is invalid.

a reply to: Noinden

Here's some quotes to prove my point.

“The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” (Koonin, Eugene, “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution,” Biology Direct, 2007, 2:21.)

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. …Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, pp. 229-230.)

www.genesispark.com...

I recently saw a debate with Dawkins and he's still singing the same tune with "I don't know but ...." He's basically saying there's no answers but in the next breath he's saying what the answers can or cannot be based on his atheism.

“Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

www.genesispark.com...

ID is a theory that can be falsified. All you have to do is show that certain features and big gaps in the fossil record show that this could have arisen naturally. Nobody can and that's why there's so many gaps.

Look at the WOW signal from SETI.



People still debate if the Wow Signal had an intelligent source. This can be falsified though by finding a natural explanation for the signal.

Nearly four decades after it was received, astronomers still can’t say with 100% certainty that the ‘Wow!’ signal was not an interstellar radio beacon from some far-flung extraterrestrial civilization. But the signal --- which got the Wow! moniker after an astronomer first scribbled those letters in the margins of the incoming data --- was never reacquired.

The remote possibility that it’s the real thing is what makes the ‘Wow!’ signal so haunting . You can dismiss it as Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) until the cows come home. But as Werthimer himself reluctantly acknowledged: “We can't rule out E.T.”

www.forbes.com...

Really??

Of course ID is Science that can be falsified. The gaps in evolution are WAY MORE COMPLEX than the Wow Signal, yet we can't rule out E.T. for the Wow Signal but we can rule out ID?

I think the only problem with ID is that it has been attached to Creationism. It's not Creationism it's Science and just like we can rule out the Wow signal through natural explanations we can do the same thing with ID. The problem is, Science can't refute ID so they just blindly yell Creationism.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

The God did it "argument" (cop out, when we are talking science) is indeed faith based. Show proof, not faith. Otherwise its UPG/USG.

Evolution has screeds of testable, verifiable evidence. Creationism? It is all gnoses.

I don't know if you have a learning disability but I seriously think you should seek help
Creation is faith based, I have never argued otherwise

But please, show me the repetable observable testable evidence for evolution from a macro scale onwards

Havnt we done this before and you ran away as usual
Run away again
Noindie, so many of your very own peers admit there is no repetable observable and testables, hence the theory aspect

better to be thought a fool than open your mouth
For goodness sake, stop playing with your Star Wars toys and learn what science is
But from what I read in your arguments I wouldn't be shocked if you were 9 or 10 years old

originally posted by: MteWamp
a reply to: neoholographic

The thing that never made sense to me is that so many people on EITHER side of the argument seem to think that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

They are not mutually exclusive.

They address two completely different phenomenon.

Those looking to validate their belief in supernatural origins of the universe and all within it don't see that distinction.

Those looking for natural origins of the universe and all within it see all things supernatural as flawed hypotheses since there is no way to test supernatural event.

The two approaches are mutually exclusive, not the ideas.

a reply to: Raggedyman

And nobody tells me that life evolving from nothing is not evolution, it is. It's like saying the baby in the womb is not a life till its born, it's arguable

A better simile: Its more like arguing that writing a book is not the same as reading a book.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Einstein abandoned his unified theory,

Uh... that would be a negatory, good buddy.

Einstein’s folly: how the search for a unified theory stumped him to his dying day

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
The word nothing means that there is no thing. The assumed first thing was 'you' - 'you' are divided from the whole.

What leads you to make that assumption? Why wasn't the assumed first thing 'them'?

Really there is the whole and 'them' are not really divided from it.

We have met the enemy and they is us.

a reply to: neoholographic

Intelligent Design doesn't need to compete with Evolution.

Yes it does, if it wan't to be taken seriously.

Intelligent Design isn't trying to replace Evolution.

Yes it is, especially when its proponents suggest that it be taught to students exclusively despite its lack of scientific basis.

Intelligent Design is a different interpretation of the evidence without any gaps that's backed by Scientist that have been published in peer reviewed journals.

ID has an two enormous gaps, from which it cannot possibly survive, no matter how many dime-a-dozen pulp journals publish papers from psuedo-scientists. And that gap is identify of the 'intelligent designer' itself.

First, an "Intelligent Design" absolutely requires an 'Intelligent Designer'. Since there is NO WAY to demonstrate or test for that designer, ID must by its own internal logic.

Second, even if we allow for the question of the identity of the designer to be placed to one side for the moment, Occam's Razor demands that we accept the simpler of two possible explanations. A natural explanation of the natural world is, by any definition, simpler than any supernatural explanation.

a reply to: neoholographic

That's a weak answer. It's basically saying I don't know but they somehow know that the answers must please their belief system.

No, it is saying that the answers must be TESTABLE and make valid PREDICTIONS. It has nothing to do with belief one way or the other.

originally posted by: MteWamp
a reply to: neoholographic

The thing that never made sense to me is that so many people on EITHER side of the argument seem to think that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

the reconciliation of religion with science is basically people saying "okay science, you win, but we take credit for all of the information you beat us over the head with because god made it that way" gee thanks so much for losing graciously.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: HiddenWaters

The creation was fine, sin was introduced and mankind took over, corrupted everything and destroyed it
Should God have intervened, how, taken away our free choice? Killed us all? What's your answer

god should have "intervened" by closing the stupid goddamn gate in the garden. no snakes allowed. especially that slippery mischievous one who somehow managed to sneak past the omniscient all-father without his knowing. both a curious accident and absolutely preventable. unless you need an excuse to scapegoat your kids and kick them to the curb. but that is just me speculating.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes I have noted many people here would prefer the mind of a child.
As Westley said in the Princess Bride, life is pain.
What would be the point of joy or happiness, the anticipation of something good if we didn't understand bad
If God intervened we would have people complaining that free will was never granted to humanity
Philosophy, doesn't marry with science, probably beyond most people here

We chose the kerb, still do mostly

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes I have noted many people here would prefer the mind of a child.
As Westley said in the Princess Bride, life is pain.
What would be the point of joy or happiness, the anticipation of something good if we didn't understand bad
If God intervened we would have people complaining that free will was never granted humanity
Philosophy, doesn't marry with science, probably beyond most people here

if god intervened in the manner i described in my previous post, the only people would be a very small family of very devoted cultists that god would be very satisfied with because there is no free roaming devilish serpent to make anyone look stupid. who needs free will when there are no real choices to make.

a reply to: neoholographic

Evolutionews is a biased propaganda site. LMAO at citing genesispark as a legitimate source. You people have NO SCRUTINY at all. Where are all the scientific research papers that support your case? Oh wait, there are none, just lying religious propaganda websites. Evidence isn't up for interpretation.

The Theory of Evolution is about vanilla as you can get. The reason they don't call it the Theory of the Origin of Species because it would fall flat. The Theory of Evolution is just vague. Of course systems evolve over time. You can just look at any evidence that shows evolution of a species over time and say Viola! That's evidence for the Theory of Evolution.

This is complete and utter nonsense.

Intelligent Design is an interpretation of the evidence that species evolve. It doesn't need any gaps because it can answer the questions Dawkins and others can't with a naturalistic interpretation.

Completely bogus. ID has no supporting evidence. Name a single test you can do to verify that ID is even possible.

It's not even worth addressing the rest, it is THAT bad.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I thought it was scientists saying "we really don't have a clue but won't concede any ground so we are going to make lots of stuff up and pretend we are on to something"

I would just like to see some information every one is claiming is out there

Gee, thanks so much for lying to us

Did you know some people believe there was nothing and bang, there was everything, I know right....

a reply to: TzarChasm

You might want to think that through in detail, get back to me...maybe not

a reply to: Barcs

See how we disagree
ID has as much supporting evidence as evolution
You just choose not to accept it

While I disagree with evolution, I am smart enough to see why some people believe it, I can stretch my intelectual capacity to understand how others think, I can see evidence for evolution
You don't have that ability, that's strange, kinda a mental deficiency

I can't understand how an intelligent person can't understand the evidence for ID, maybe not scientific evidence, but evidence non the less

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

I thought it was scientists saying "we really don't have a clue but won't concede any ground so we are going to make lots of stuff up and pretend we are on to something"

I would just like to see some information every one is claiming is out there

Gee, thanks so much for lying to us

Did you know some people believe there was nothing and bang, there was everything, I know right....

i think thats your line, tbh.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

See how we disagree
ID has as much supporting evidence as evolution
You just choose not to accept it

While I disagree with evolution, I am smart enough to see why some people believe it, I can stretch my intelectual capacity to understand how others think, I can see evidence for evolution
You don't have that ability, that's strange, kinda a mental deficiency

I can't understand how an intelligent person can't understand the evidence for ID, maybe not scientific evidence, but evidence non the less

you do not know enough about evolution to disagree with it, much less properly trolling the origins forum over it.