The Bone of contention is “ do you have any evidence for the ID”?

budaatum:

Why? Are you assuming you can't learn everything about the intelligent designer? You know that'll mean you're kind of not intelligent, right? Or that the intelligent designer didn't put the artificial intelligence model in you!

I don't agree you can't understand. You just being lazy!

LordReed:


How do you know what I interpret as evidence? Anyway this is getting tedious, I am not begging you, provide or don't.

I actually never set out to prove anything and this diversion was aided by Hakeem as would be done to anybody that shows the slightest support for God,gods or ID.

I have checked and didn't see the one that doesn't.

Why is it this way with you? Are you being forced? If you don't want an honest discussion just say so.

Lol..I can only wonder how narrow your search was cos it's pretty obvious how the world of science is aware of the gaps in transitional fossils.
"Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record, because the fossil record is not complete. Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered."
Peharps you misunderstand me? Nevertheless not all illustrations depicting evolutionary stages of species is actually backed by actual fossils.

LMFAO! Car is not a vehicle because car came after vehicle. LoL! Even when the scholarly work you requested confirms that the hypothesis has its roots in Greek philosophers you are going to deny it over semantics? Wow.

Lol..You misunderstand me yet again."Abiogenesis is dependent on evolution".Abiogenesis is a natural explanation for the origin of life and evolution is the natural explanation of how simple organisms became complex.Evolution is the foundation on which any origin of life hypothesis relies on for plausibility,I refer to scientific hypotheses only.If a abiogenetic hypotheses somewhat contradicts evolution,would such hypotheses be deemed more plausible when juxtaposed with hypotheses corroborating it? Would you understand my point if I said,God depended on it's creation? Yes God depends on it's creation cos I don't see the use of a God without it's creation? Would you deem a theory stating that a God that created nothingness and watches over nothingness plausible if you couldn't find any shred of suggestive evidence that such a theory might just be true? In the same vain,complexity and the universe and all things within are what God depends on for plausibility.An observable reference for the unknown.Evolution is a dominant theory and as such any theory that explains the origin of life scientifically would most likely have to support the evolutionary process.I hope you fill in the gaps I'm unable to fill with this explanation.

BTW you can show me which of Lamarck's work was called Theory of Evolution.

None actually literally and seems you are guilty of the same act of you accuse me of.But if you searched on google "Who first postulated the theory of evolution?" I wonder whose name pops up.

I think this is a sign, the discussion has reached its end point.

It had actually reached it's end point a day ago when I stated that we don't have much to disagree on.Would you have much to disagree on with an agnostic as much as an atheist? I'm guessing not.(I don't mean this literally).

budaatum:

Did you miss how tough johnydon22 was on op? Your evidence can only not be enough to convince because it isn't evidence or because the person you present it to refuses to look at it or see it, in which case we'd just say they are blind. Interpreted evidence on the other hand is of a different order, and more especially if its in the form of words which are subject to interpretation.

I'll give an example. I'm going to write a few words in my next sentence. I'm going to hide them just to make it harder for you. With them I intend to state how I feel about you. I have to forewarn you that its not pretty and if I were in front of you you might not like it a tiny bit. In fact that feeling rages in me at this very moment and I wish I'd change my mind.
You ready? Don't blush on me now!







There, interpret that!

Lol,That is way too much for me to process buda.

EmperorHarry:

Lol..I can only wonder how narrow your search was cos it's pretty obvious how the world of science is aware of the gaps in transitional fossils.
"Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record, because the fossil record is not complete. Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered."
Peharps you misunderstand me? Nevertheless not all illustrations depicting evolutionary stages of species is actually backed by actual fossils.

You post a list of animals and I asked you which of them in the list doesn't have fossils on record, you are now saying you are referring to other animals not on the list you posted. Why didn't you post a list of animals that don't have fossils instead of a list of ones that do?

hakeem4:
Johnydon22 gave me an a typical exam most creationist use in the defence of the intelligent designer. Mind you intelligent designer is just another term used for god

The popular one I see here is that “ have you ever seen an iPhone come by a random process?”

I took a look into the history of the intelligent design and one of its popular proponents was William paley who talked about the watchmaker argument .

Some people might use the example of the eyes because it is very complex and if you remove any part of the eyes, it won’t function properly again.

First and first and foremost they commit a special pleading fallacy. Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle
If were to accept the human eye is complex and it was created by an ID, then the force behind the creation of the eye must be created by another ID.

Secondly they commit an strawman fallacy
This is just another religious argument from ignorance. Let’s assume that most biological organ couldn’t evolve by natural selection. The only thing this does is to only discredit natural selection and it doesn’t give any evidence for any ID

Thirdly they misrepresent natural selection
Most of all the ID proponents misrepresent evolution by natural selection and this is actually annoying . Most creationist claim that complex organs like the eye can’t come from natural selection. But the truth is we know a lot about the eye and you can read on types of eyes
1) eyespot
2) cup eyes
3)pin eyes
4)lens eyes

The last but not the least flaw the ID proponents commit is the personal incredulity fallacy. Now most creationist don’t understand evolution by natural selection. And because you do not understand it is not an evidence for god it is an evidence of lack of understanding

Could you explain Natural Selection?

hakeem4:
The Bone of contention is “ do you have any evidence for the ID”?

None, whatsoever. I can still understand it as an idea though.

Intelligent design was a lame attempt to get God into the science class. It failed because it wasn't science.

OpenYourEyes1:



Could you explain Natural Selection?

I suspect an attempt to derail, Eyes!

Evolution 101

OpenYourEyes1:



Could you explain Natural Selection?

Natural selection is a scientific theory that best explain evolution. As General relativity explains Gravity.
NS is a key mechanism of evolution, it is the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. it explains how complex life came to be without any intelligent Designer.

you could read more on it on reputable science journals

hakeem4:
Natural selection is a scientific theory that best explain evolution. As General relativity explains Gravity.
NS is a key mechanism of evolution, it is the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. it explains how complex life came to be without any intelligent Designer.

you could read more on it on reputable science journals

Natural selection aka "survival of the fittest". Do you totally agree?

OpenYourEyes1:


Natural selection aka "survival of the fittest". Do you totally agree?

when Darwin said "fittest" he did not mean strongest rather he meant organism that can pass down its gene from one generation to another.

yes i totally agree

hakeem4:
when Darwin said "fittest" he did not mean strongest rather he meant organism that can pass down its gene from one generation to another.

yes i totally agree

So why do albinos, sick cell carriers, dwarfs etc still exists.

OpenYourEyes1:



So why do albinos, sick cell carriers, dwarfs etc still exists.

can they reproduce?

hakeem4:
can they reproduce?

Ofcourse, they can. People with mutation reproduce like normal people. These mutations continue to appear in all generations. This totally contradicts the natural selection model.

Albinism shouldn't appear at all (or should eventually dissappear) in Africa for example, if the theory is correct.

OpenYourEyes1:


Ofcourse, they can. People with mutation reproduce like normal people. These mutations continue to appear in all generations. This totally contradicts the natural selection model.

Albinism shouldn't appear at all (or should eventually dissappear) in Africa for example, if the theory is correct.

what type of straw man fallacy is this ? Natural selection doesn’t care if the mutation is good or bad. As far as the mutation is beneficial to the organism.

Albinism is the lack of black pigment ( melanin £ in the body. So I don’t see how and why they should go extinct. I think you don’t understand NS

OpenYourEyes1:


Ofcourse, they can. People with mutation reproduce like normal people. These mutations continue to appear in all generations. This totally contradicts the natural selection model.

Albinism shouldn't appear at all (or should eventually dissappear) in Africa for example, if the theory is correct.

That's not the way it works. Like hakeem4 pointed out natural selection is not a conscious agent picking organisms with good genes to reproduce. It just means natural pressures like environment and reproductive capacity constrain organisms with the effect that those organisms that can no longer reproduce because of these factors die out. If albinism is to die out in humans, it will have to be by artificial selection not by natural selection because the gene for albinism has no natural factors that will lead to its demise as of yet.

LordReed:


That's not the way it works. Like hakeem4 pointed out natural selection is not a conscious agent picking organisms with good genes to reproduce. It just means natural pressures like environment and reproductive capacity constrain organisms with the effect that those organisms that can no longer reproduce because of these factors die out. If albinism is to die out in humans, it will have to be by artificial selection not by natural selection because the gene for albinism has no natural factors that will lead to its demise as of yet.

You probably don't understand natural selection.

These codes don't "die out". Mutation can cause a change in gene code but such changes are mere mistakes that are never beneficial.

OpenYourEyes1:


You probably don't understand natural selection.

These codes don't "die out". Mutation can cause a change in gene code but such changes are mere mistakes that are never beneficial.

if the mutation is beneficial for the organism survival then it would live.

I do not see how albinism is bad sha

hakeem4:
if the mutation is beneficial for the organism survival then it would live.

I do not see how albinism is bad sha

Examples of beneficial mutations?

Albino no longer produces melanin. The pigment protects us from sun. Sun still shines on earth.

OpenYourEyes1:


You probably don't understand natural selection.

These codes don't "die out". Mutation can cause a change in gene code but such changes are mere mistakes that are never beneficial.

LoL, look a who is talking about understanding. You came here with your gotcha question as though you know what natural selection is only to reveal that your understanding is at jungle justice level. Read the following introductory passage and help your ignorance:

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which in his view is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and offspring can inherit such mutations. Throughout the lives of the individuals, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment. Because individuals with certain variants of the trait tend to survive and reproduce more than individuals with other, less successful variants, the population evolves. Other factors affecting reproductive success include sexual selection (now often included in natural selection) and fecundity selection.

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, the characteristics of the organism which actually interact with the environment, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives that phenotype a reproductive advantage may become more common in a population. Over time, this process can result in populations that specialise for particular ecological niches (microevolution) and may eventually result in speciation (the emergence of new species, macroevolution). In other words, natural selection is a key process in the evolution of a population.

LordReed:


LoL, look a who is talking about understanding. You came here with your gotcha question as though you know what natural selection is only to reveal that your understanding is at jungle justice level. Read the following introductory passage and help your ignorance:

The Wikipedia theory/myth does not address my post. I corrected you because you posted something that is totally false.

OpenYourEyes1:


Examples of beneficial mutations?

Albino no longer produces melanin. The pigment protects us from sun. Sun still shines on earth.

see no mutation is beneficial.

But the lack of melanin won’t make them go extinct

OpenYourEyes1:


The Wikipedia theory/myth does not address my post. I corrected you because you posted something that is totally false.

LoL. Ok I don hear, school don close.