Intellagentdesign - Page 5

Ancient: thats a very valid point.

cturtle: Your examples are well established and understood in evolutionary biology. "Odds" refer to logical statistical probability, something that is absent in intelligent design.

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." - David Brooks

okcitykid: If I read your post correctly the term 'chaos' that you refer to, regards to the force of chaos known to physics. Well chaos is actually very organized and follows certain patterns. Chaotic systems are mathematically deterministic but nearly impossible to predict. Unpredictable results can and will occur in systems that are sensitive to their initial conditions. Chaos actually helps to explain almost any physical process in 'our' universe including evolution.

You do well in explaining what is going on but you skip right over the subject of how it happened.

You fail to explain how this all happened by accident - without intelligence.

Thats the thing you cannot prove either intelligent design nor evolution to be the cause of our existence... or is it that both took part in it? that a spark from a far superior being or force first created the spark and let evolution take care of the rest.

quote:

---

If you believe in ghosts (which may be an improbable truth), there is no problem whatsoever with that and you may explain and defend your right to believe in ghosts. However, this does not permit you to argue those who would claim that ghosts do not exist, because your belief is an improbable one.

---

Note new regulation which extends that probability of response is at question.

quote:

---

This is because observation in specific circumstances serves only as a counter-example to an umbrella theory, but cannot dis-prove a theory that is not all-encompassing. If someone were to say all ghost experiences are definitely fake, then you have the right to interject that that is illogical because that person is then asserting their beliefs unto everyone, definitively.

---

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/frmid=10-u-thrdid=55893-u-page=0

So have you not made an umbrella theory if you insist [assert] that all evolutionary changes result from random probability? Which is the point of the argument of the lizard -- if you don't know how the mechanism works? Then are you not making an assumption that it is a product of random variation? That the cockroach become resistant to poisons, if that resistance is genetically passed on then is not the process 'an unintelligent design factor'? I have heard it said that the only survivors [long term] of nuclear war would be the roach. By default because of our superior intelligence? If by chance the chameleon's adaption is related to sight then is not the mental function a possible source of [genetic] change?

Okcitykid: Its not only the 'what' but it is also the 'how' which is well understood and explained in evolutionary science, especially in genetics. The Blueprint of Life is DNA. Life is reduced down to the central dogma- cellular control and inheritance of information. Most genes are highly conserved during evolution. Huge overall changes in the structure and function of organisms arise from simple modifications in DNA. Biodiversity was generated by rapid (and therefore small) modifications in DNA. This involves a change in gene frequencies within the gene pool of a sexually reproducing population.

The members of a population reproduce with one another to produce the next generation. Each member of a population is assumed to be free to reproduce with any other member, and when reproductoion occurs, the genes of one generation are passed on in the manner described by Mendel's laws. Therefore, in this so-called Mendelian population of sexually reproducing individuals, the various alleles of all the gene loci in all the members make up a gene pool for the population.


cturtle: It seems your making premature assumptions. Not all evolutionary processes occur through random probability such as gene flow, nonrandom mating and genetic drift. The 'mechanisms' are well understood.

quote:

---

It seems your making premature assumptions. Not all evolutionary processes occur through random probability

---

Oh, thank GOD, I had formed a wrong conclusion that we might not evolve beyond our savage animal instincts.

quote:

---

Your examples are well established and understood in evolutionary biology. "Odds" refer to logical statistical probability, something that is absent in intelligent design.

---

So man [all life] evolved from a simple organism through bio-diversity, an attribute of a simple single celled organic life form? But then that doesn't prove or disprove random chance as the creator of life? In fact, we don't know if life extends beyond [smaller] than cellular form? The flea's . . . etc . . . flea concept? After all as pointed out that our existence is a complex organization of sub-organization, etc. which would indicate a certain logical orthodox {continuity} of our existence?

Non-responsiveness to my last post, leaves me to wonder if I have failed to communicate effectively?
So perhaps I need to try again with greater detail or perhaps go to greater lengths & ask questions? But to do I may seem to go off topic and go into trivia, so please bear with my ineptness.

quote:

---

In the Native American Traditions, there is a term Maka Ina, which has been given a gloss to [translate] define it in western [European, christian] terminology as mother earth or mother nature.

---

Now, excuse my prejudice but I would tend to think that most people never really gave creditable thought to such a ludicrous perception? Some would [have] indicated as Intelligent design, is nothing more than a smoke screen to put GOD into scientific context.

quote:

---

The gloss in itself shows a prejudice: Judea-Christian conception that Indians worshipped [false] Gods?

---

So bear with me if I seem to circumnavigate such misconception by asking or presenting pseudo-scientific analysis

Summit, I would ask you to define [according to biological concerns] what constitutes a living organism? To more accurately define the nature of the question, I will add these as considerations of the question.
Example: Man [human beings] are composed of living organisms? On one-side, we have viruses, like colds which invade the body? On the other, we have anti-bodies which the body produces to fight these infections. Right?
Of course, these actions happen within the our [body] form, in our blood. So in part the question ask 'what is the differences [separation] between these entities? After all, we do produce serums & perform blood transfusions?
So as are white & red blood cells, individual life forms?
I mean if you take a fish out of water, it will not survive so to if you take these cells out of their environment, they will not survive? Yet we can pass some viruses {air borne} by coughing & sneezing, some take contact with others, etc and we develop these immunity by first coming into or being infected.
Now you might tend to answer quickly so let me ask or state to you. Do not these cells exist live & die within the environment of the body & therefore cellular life forms?
Hmm . . . on the other hand, we have certain bacteria which exist in our bowels which are positive in that they help our bodies digest food [break down cells] to convert them to energy. Ya, we have white & red blood cells & hemoglobin? It carries oxygen in the body [environment] to various areas & are necessary for our existence but does it represent life? Not that I think so but to help make [define] a living organism. Oh, just how many separate organisms [functions] exist in relation to our existence as a human [form] body?

quote:

---

Went out to take a photograph, yesterday. The day before I had to go over to a friends house to help him & on the way home, I noticed these cherry trees in blossom.
Ya, I was talking with a friend telling how these honey bees were all around the flowers. I was trying to make a close-up shot, I hadn't realized till I went to set the aperture & shutter speed, just how close up I was. Had to take care not to stick my head into the flowers as I looked at the settings.

---

Let us see, where were we? Oh, ya we were discussing evolution, were not we? So I stopped to photograph threes because of their beautiful colours [flowers] but I understand that the insects [in this case the bees] are attracted by the aroma of the blossoms [nectar]?
Funny thing, I was thinking what a strange coincidence?
Why did the tree evolve flowers unless the bees evolved but then why did the bees evolve unless there were flowers? Almost seems that they co-evolved because they are so closely related?
Mitakuye' Oyas'in, All my Relations

things perfically in union huh well too bad cause im seeing some things that arnt in union. first of all dust is not dirt per say. fine powdery material such as dry earth or pollen that can be blown about in the air sure this is the defintion of dust but earth is more then just "dirt" its rocks plants etc. second what is dirt made out of? sure its made from carbon which is a major building block of life but is made out of many other things too.

quote:

---

Genesis tells us that the serpent would 'then' crawl on his belly eating dust. Therefore, we know he had legs before

---

what is this serpant you are mentioning?

quote:

---

WE are made of dust...aka dirt

---

hmmm another problem. we are not made out of dirt becouse dirt is dead matter we on the other hand are made out of living matter.

quote:

---

Some science groupies get aggravated over the spilt terms micro and macro.

---

what does this have to do with ID as well? seems like your whole genises rant as some holes in it affter all. Ohh and heres a theory for you to think about have you ever considerd that the guys who wrote the genises were actaully from the future, yes I know some people are going to laugh at me about this but its entirelly possible. They could have travlled back in time affter having been taguht theorys and using advanced psycology wrote this book affter they went back in time.

Ah, where was I . . . consider that DNA or some related portion may in fact control agent in evolution? I had mentioned [alluded] to this earlier so I wonder did species like gator's, croc's and kaman [SA version] may have ranged to various continents but the supposition that migrations of land animals is questionable. Is it just as possible that divergence species may have evolved independently according to their domain & its particular environmental variables? In NA, we have mule deer, whitetail & in the keys a species the size of a medium sized dog. Then Europeans have species of horses but I understand the only indigenous horse in NA is extinct & rather small like the deer down in the keys?
I think I heard something about Intelligent Design being limiting? I don't see it being particularly limiting but then each his/her own, right?

Ok - so why did I stop getting email messages telling me that there has been a reply to my post?

Maybe I need to ask this another way.

If asking how evolution was created doesn't work then how about DNA.

You fail to convince me that these things were created by random chance and not intel.

quote:

---

Thats the thing you cannot prove either intelligent design nor evolution to be the cause of our existence... or is it that both took part in it? that a spark from a far superior being or force first created the spark and let evolution take care of the rest.

---

Exactly - While I believe that both Evolution and ID should be taught together in a life theory class I don't think it is so wrong that they both be taught in a science class and I don't see any reason why millions of dollars is being spent promoting and denying either in our schools.

As I explained to someone else elsewhere, this is like a train is coming and saying wait, I need to tie my shoes.

While our world is facing an avalanche of trouble we're fretting about this little stuff.

How is intelligent design science? Intelligent design is being promoted by the same people who, a few decades ago, were pushing for creationism to be taught in schools. These people also belong to some of the most conservative anti-scientific sects of christianity around. Seems like creationism to me.

But let's not stop there.

Intelligent design claims that an "intelligent designer" created everything. So where's the evidence of the designer? I'll save you some research, There isn't any. Intelligent designer, interesting phrase don't you think? It is in the singular case of all things, meaning that there was supposedly only one designer.
Sounds like creationism to me.

But according to the intelligent design movement, you can't see the evidence for the "intelligent designer, unless you BELEIVE in the intelligent designer. Once again,
Sounds alot like creationism, carefully copy edited.

And we also can't ignore the fact that intelligent design is only accepted as more than a fairy tale by a mere 2% of the scientific community. And there's the fact that the biggest supporters of intelligent design also beleive in the genesis story.

How is it right to teach kids with no background in science, some story that a group of people pulled out of a 2000 year-old storybook?

Furthermore, doesn't the intelligent design idea claim that it was either an intelligent designer or super intelligent aliens that created life as we know it? Super intelligent aliens sounds alot like scientology to me, but i don't see anyone falling over themselves to get scientology drilled into the kids in high school biology.

Intelligent design is just another attempt to get christianity back into a classroom where it doesn't belong. But as long as we're claiming that religion is scientific enough to teach in school, that must mean that science is religious enough to teach in church.