Intelligent Design? Myth or Fact

sorry.. it's not indisputable.. in fact that's why it's called a theory

it's a supposition Something taken to be true without proof, like religion

our present .. wild ass guess based on insufficient data

there is nothing in post #69 that is proof without doubt

 

That is a particularly unhelpful analogy. These "briefcases" are not "useless" if they are "stuck on lower steps", each organism of each species is the product of thousands of generations of natural selection: each organism is an evolutionary success story, each species adapted to its own niche. Also this idea of cracking a lock by random chance is false - it implies that each attempt to crack the lock is completely useless if not all of the digits are correct. In fact the lock becomes by slow degrees more and more useful as the accumulation of steps towards the "correct sequence" builds up, and it is this very usefulness which differentiates between helpful and unhelpful changes to the code. There is also no "correct sequence". The usefulness of particular phenotypic traits is relative to the environment.

In addition to the fossil record there are multiple lines of evidence from diverse fields of enquiry from ethology, ontogeny, to molecular biology which are all startlingly consistent and all point to the same conclusion.

From this post I would assume you don't understand modern evolutionary theory.

 

It is your subjective opinion, to which you are entitled, but it doesn't necessarily make it correct or it could be only partially correct.
It may not be helpful analogy to you but it may be helpful analogy to those other than you.

This depends on your interpretation and understanding of the word "useless".
What I mean by this word in the context may not be what you assumed I meant.

That is what theory claims and I didn't say it has claims to the contrary.

Again, not a hint of contradiction to what I said. Did I specifically say that each organism is an evolutionary unsuccess story?
One could infere, to the contrary, that each broken lock on the briefcase is a step forward, as the theory claims.
But once "opened", some briefcases either get eliminated, discarded in the process of natural selection (like dinosaurs) or get stuck on the certain level of evolutinary ladder (like anything from microorganisms all the way to monkeys).
So you have to read the meaning of the word "useless" in the context and try to come to better understanding of what it means in such context.

Read what I write, don't read into what I write what you already have in your own mind.
If you make your own inferences about it, that's up to you, of course, but don't claim those arise from what I say - unless you get to the point of commprehending what I mean (which does not appear to be the case, judging from you replies).

Now you use words "helpful" and "unhelpful" in describing the process to which I applied word "useless" ("useful" being implied for opposite outcome).
But that's word play I could argue and say that any attempt to unlock the case is helpful since it gradually eliminates the sequences that didn't help to open the case and so on
Just back at ya.

And btw when you say "lock" do you mean what I described using the word "briefcase", because lock itself is not a step or anything, it's is just there as a potential to open a new briefcase by choseing the right sequence, code to open it.

Read above

a)Be more specific. Since you are the one who claims that theory is correct, it is then puts the burden of proof on you to come up with convincing evidence to back up your claim that theory indeed has valid grounds (which would nevertheless remain a theory and not a proven fact, but at least you could possible show how it makes more sense than what I understood it does) .
Don't tell me "there are multiple lines of evidence from diverse fields of enquiry from ethology, ontology, to molecular biology which are all startlingly consistent and all point to the same conclusion".
Quote the text and give a reference.

If material is too specialized for average reader not in the narrow field of particular study, then give a clear and precise explanation of what any particular study means followed by quoted text, formulas and etc.
This would be scientific way of advancing an argument if you hope to prove your point.
Saying "there are multiple lines of evidence from diverse fields of enquiry from ethology, ontology, to molecular biology which are all startlingly consistent and all point to the same conclusion" does not say nothing other than that you have such an impression and who knows just how justifiable your impression is or on what particular grounds you have it or what exactly is the evidence you refer to.

b)Besides, I never disputed the existence of fossil evidence or any empirical evidence about what is so far known about the sructure of biological organisms as observed in nature, by means available for such observation.

But I said that I am well aware of thought pattern that generated the theory and I still stand by my word and still maintain that using whatever scant evidence available , Darwin, by sheer power of his wishful fantasy and by relying on his subjective thought pattern, came to conclusion about origins of species , with the the theory that doesn't convince me anymore than any of the ancient myths.
I maintain that the fallasy is in the thought pattern, and regardless of mountain of empirical evidence, it is still the same wishful fantasy and thought pattern which used to supposedly "prove" the validity of the theory.
In other words the empirical data, no matter how complex, is being shoehorned into way too simplistic "unlock the briefcase by random chance" theory, and it doesn't convince me a bit that it is truly reflective of how things in fact came into existence in Nature.

Incorrect assumption.
From your post above (and your earlier posts) I must conclude that you assume too much without giving much thought into what you are saying, and this conclusion should hold tcorrect unless you are able to prove to the contrary (which will require all that I mentioned above).

 

"Theory" in science isn't just "supposition". It is a well-substantiated unifying explanation of phenomena based on, and consistent with, the available empirical evidence, and capable of generating hypotheses by which the theory can be further tested. I think "Big Bang", like evolution, fits that definition. And for humans, there is no such thing as "proof without doubt". But that's a far cry from "wild ass guess based on insufficient data".

 

No, it's unhelpful because it's incorrect, misleading, inaccurate... May I suggest if you have to spend so much time explaining exactly how your helpful analogy metaphorically illuminates the concept then it's really not all that helpful

Childish and inane pointscoring. This is not the place for me to provide an evidenced proof of the totality of evolutionary theory, a huge body of scientific knowledge spanning multiple disciplines. If you want to have an informed and interesting discussion about modern evolutionary theory, familiarity with its basic concepts and the evidence underpinning them is a prerequisite. If you have specific questions you would like to discuss please raise them.

I'm sorry, but I have to return to the point that if you think "unlocking a briefcase by random chance" is a valid metaphorical description of evolutionary theory, then you simply don't understand it. I realise this may simply be a problem with communication, your writing is poor and your meaning frequently difficult to fathom. There are no ideas here for me to engage with.

 

This is the process which removes "random chance" from the outcome. I believe this where your analogy fails. What you are actualy talking about is a process of methodical testing.

 

It may be unhelpful to you, as I said, since you have your own interpretation of word "useless" which is not the same as what I meant in the context, to which you apparently paid no heed.
Looks like in essence you have no counterargument other than engaging in wordplay

Childish namecalling is all I hear from you

Why not? You claim to have a valid point then you conveniently try to escape the necessity to back it up when called on it.

I can say that australian aborigens came up with the theory about wood sticks causing the rain and that they have huge body of "tribal knowledge" spanning multiple hearsays and if you don't take it for a scientiffic fact then you are childish and inane in pointscoring.
What you say about that?

 

Burden of proof is on you since you
are the one claiming that the theory has valid points.
It is therefore imperative that you come up with evidence to prove your claim, or the alternative is the equivalent of inability to back up your claims when called on it.

You seem to be fixated with my writing skills and chritisizing my grammar instead of addressing the essence of my argument.

Which in effect means that you have nothing to back up your claim and have instead near religious belief in the myth created by Darwin [unless you can prove me wrong by presenting the evidence to the contrary]

 

No, that is a circular argument based on wordplay you initiated in the first place, semantic trick that shifts focus from the essence of argument to wordplaying.

Which is understandable, because in absence of evidence to back up your claims all you have got left is seeking the way to digress the discussion

 

I'd say this indicates that you don't understand the concepts of empirical evidence and falsification.

Here is a pretty thorough summary for you, actually quite a good read from the looks of it:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm#Evidence_of_Evolution

Have a look through that and if you want to discuss or challenge any particular line of evidence for evolutionary theory please raise it here.

 

No, it doesn't mean so just because you say so.
It simply means you have no evidence to back up your claims unless you act to the contrary.

No, posting a general link doesn't prove YOUR point.
It takes more than that.

Show me the EVIDENCE! lol

 

What? There are a ton of references throughout that summary to original empirical research consonant with the theory of evolution. "My" point is that there is a great deal of such evidence, I have provided you with references to that evidence. What do you want? To be dragged bodily into a laboratory?

I can't provide you with the research papers themselves because they are usually not freely available online, but if you want to pursue this to that level, get yourself along to a library and look up all the references.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051220000639.htm
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=6&id=56
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2006/02/21/birds_that_make_teeth.html
http://toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://toarchive.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

 

I could post as many, nay , ten times as many links and references pointing to the contrary of what you are claiming [with dozens, no, hundreds of challenges to the theory you claim to be valid] ,without engaging myself in a meaningful discussion and without a proper use of the links provided, but that wouldn't prove the point or would it?

Besides, you are the one with burden of proof, since you are the one who claims that this theory is valid [I am not claiming that any of the existing theories are valid], so the ball is in your court and it is you who has to get yourself along a library, look up all the references and make a sense of it while pursuing your claim.

 

Please post those links! That will give us something to discuss, since you seem reluctant to discuss the evidence I've shown you. I'd be happy to look at the contrary evidence you have.

You seem to have a naive understanding of what science is, if you think one person on a message board can "prove a theory". There is plenty of corroborating evidence and countless ingenious experiments and inferences alluded to in the links I've given you. No, I'm not interested in typing it all out in my own words, to do so would be fruitless, when better minds than mine have done so many, many times before. What we can realistically do is discuss the merits and demerits of the theory and the evidence for that theory - I've given you a pretty good starting point for that, if you want to pursue a meaningful discussion of evolution. If you have specific concerns about any particular line of evidence or contrary evidence, please do bring it up.

Until you do so, I have to assume you have no interest in discussing the issue sensibly. You have made no substantive points.

 

well if you prefer I'll use a different term

swag--- scientific wild ass guess

Comparing evolution and the big bang is totally unrelated , while both are theories .. evolution is quite a bit more tangible, just a shade more hands on.

Don't get me wrong, certainly I feel that there is more truth in the big bang then there is in religion, but at this point in time and due to our short term observations and human bias , it is more of a guess than something definitive.... as you spend a little more time on this rock you will begin to understand, that the more so called answers we have, really bring up more questions. :cheers2:

 

Jumbuli55,Today 05:00 PM, quote:

".... you are the one with burden of proof, since you are the one who claims that this theory is valid [I am not claiming that any of the existing theories are valid], so the ball is in your court and it is you who has to get yourself along a library, look up all the references and make a sense of it while pursuing your claim."
end of quote

 

Childishly repeating yourself does not add substance to your already inane body of posts in this thread. Do you have anything substantive to say or are you trolling?

You want me to "prove" evolution. Firstly evolution is not "proven" in the technical sense, since nothing in science is. It is however supported by a vast body of data some of which I have referenced in some very clear and accessible articles, which I doubt you've looked at. Evolution is a vast field, not a single theory. Please be specific which parts you're unclear on or unhappy with, and I'll be happy to discuss it. Natural selection? speciation? phylogenetics? common descent? adaptation? genetic inheritance?

 

Childishly calling me childish , inane or troll does not add any weight to your argument.
As a digression, it probably substracts from whatever credibility you hope to establish while making your claim.

I want you to prove your point of view, that the theory of evolution is the valid one.
Not just repeat yourself that it is valid just because you heard some brighter minds than yours say it is so.

What you mean nothing in science is proven?
Plenty of things in science are proven, it just so happens that unproven or unprovable things are not one of them.

Don't tell me about it, show it here for all to see and then explain, in clear , precise, accessible to all language [when it involves the body of specialized knowledge and terminology which may not be expected to be known by those outside of the very specific and narrow field of corresponding study].

Keep making assumptions

I don't have to be specific about any part of evolutionary theory since I am not the one who has the burden of proof to prove its' validity here.
I don't claim that evolutionary theory is valid as you do.
Nor do I claim that any existing theory in this regard is valid.
When and if I make such claim ,about any such theory being valid, then I will have the burden of proof and will need to be specific in bringing the body of evidence and references, along with clear and precise explanation of it , particularly when it involves the body of knowledge so specialized that it requires someone who is in the narrow field of corresponding study, to make understandable the terminology and the body of knowledge itself to those to whom I would like to present it.

So, since you claim that this theory is valid one please proceed to prove your claim.
In anbsence of such I have benefit of assumption and you demosntrate the lack of ability to substantiate your claim.

 

You have clearly not understood much of what I've said, you are just repeating the same things over and over. If you want to engage in a sensible and mature discussion please engage with the points I've made and the evidence I have provided.

 

You clearly lack the comprehension of what I said all along and just unreasonably shift the burden of proof on me while it is by default resting on your own shoulders.

Or could it be that you just know you can't make a scientific argument to validate your point of view, that you realize too well that you have only the faith, belief in a myth essence of which you yourself do not even partially comprehend ? Then what premises do you have to raise the claim, to begin with?

Perhaps admitting your ignorance would be a big embarrasment to you [in light of all the claims you have made on subject matter this far] so, as a last resort, you keep digressing and shifting the focus of discussion to my not understanding what you are saying or to my grammar , or my writing skills, my childishness or what not, just about anything unrelated to necessity to substantiate the claim of validity that you made in the first place?

If not, then proceed to validate your claim , which you made in the first place.