Advertisement

Archive for Friday, December 8, 2006

Biologist speaks for intelligent design

December 8, 2006

Advertisement

Penguins, yes. Flagella, no.

One of the nation's leading proponents of intelligent design told a Kansas University audience Thursday that Darwinism or evolution can explain how, in the absence of predators, a bird might lose its ability to fly and begin to walk on the ground.

But it can't explain how complex living systems are built - the designs are too complex to have been randomly generated, said Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."

Behe's lecture, titled "The Argument for Intelligent Design in Biology," was part of the "Difficult Dialogues" lecture series sponsored by KU's Hall Center for the Humanities and KU's Biodiversity Institute. About 100 people attended.

A professor of biology at Lehigh University, Behe's main argument was that evolution has become so ingrained and accepted that it becomes difficult to raise any questions about it in the scientific community.

"When I start to point out problems, often people don't have time to listen," he said.

He said intelligent design was not a philosophy, but a scientific conclusion that uses inductive reasoning.

"An inductive conclusion is a scientific conclusion," he said.

He listed several points, including:

¢ The intelligent design argument is "not a mystical conclusion." He said the design argument is a recognition there is a "purposeful arrangement" of the parts that make up an organism.

¢ He said "everyone agrees" that aspects of biology include the appearance of design. Cells appear to be arranged as a collection of complex molecular machines, he said.

¢ He said he recognizes evolution has occurred but it doesn't explain everything.

For example, random mutation and natural selection can't explain how complex mechanisms, such as the whiplike flagella "motors" that propel bacteria, developed, he said. So that leads to one controversial conclusion: They were designed that way, he said.

Behe also said some complex biological parts are irreducible - if you take them apart, they no longer have the same function.

Michael Behe responds to a question about Intelligent Design.

None

During a question-and-answer session, Leonard Krishtalka, director of KU's Biodiversity Institute, asked Behe how he could know the mind of God well enough to determine how far an organism's parts could be reduced to nondesigned components.

Behe said he has been careful not to say "God did it" when speaking about the structure of the flagellum being irreducible.

"It just says that an intelligent designer was involved," Behe said. "We deduce design from the purposeful arrangement of parts."

Behe said he doesn't get into questions of who the designer is or how and when the design was done.

"I do not claim to know the mind of God," he said.

Comments

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Oh I forgot to comment on your original comment of the "problem" you have. I don't have different ideas then gr8dane regarding evolution. gr8dane is much more complete in his/her understanding of the concept of evolution than I am or possibly will ever be.

While I enjoy reading about science in general and specific topics such as evolution, I have never claimed to be any kind of expert in this field. I am not perfect and am prone to misunderstanding concepts or what is actually being said. Even more so, when I do think I understand it, my attempts to explain it to others can and has resulted in poor word choices and not conveying the concepts properly. Or I will simply get it wrong and not really understanding.

Besides Gr, if you really wanted to talk to people who are more or less experts in evolution, there are many web sites that are way more comprehensive and coherent regarding the concept of evolution and how it works. I suspect you don't though because of your weak arguments and your desire to cling to such outdated nonsense like the YEC fallacies.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

"I think my problem is I'm talking to two different people with two different ideas of evolution and then trying to hold them accountable to each other." --Gr

Ha ha ha.

That most definitely is not your problem Gr. Your problem is that you are misquoting and misleading by doings thing like taking comments out of context and changing the meaning of the phrases by adding or leaving out certain words. In other words, Gr you are being dishonest. You can't hold someone accountable to their own words if you don't use their actual words or use them in their context that they were taken from. I have noticed that when this is pointed out to you, you completely ignore it and try to move on to something else.

Ultimately Gr what it really comes down to is that YOU are uncomfortable with your own worldview, belief system and find them to be undefendable. You demonstrate this anxiety over and over again through trying to mislead, misquote, or changing the definitions of terms. Sometimes you even try to skip past any opportunity to truly understand each other by making up some kind agreement. A recent example of this is with this statement of yours...

Gr said -"Now that you're with what I was trying to say, do you see why I'm saying the talk origins comment really has no meaning...."

It was quite obvious we weren't understanding each and not in agreement but when I pointed this out, you chose to drop it and changed the subject. We never get anywhere Gr because you choose to play this game. The reason why you play this game is because of your fears and anxieties over your own irrational belief system.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

You are truly a lost soul. I feel sorry for you since you can't seem to get past this behavior of trying to change meanings and creating false connections.

I can cite a large number of "scientific peer-reviewed" articles concerning geochronology which is the specific field that you are referrring to but I suspect that you would probably be able to find the same if you were really interested in doing this. It is quite obvious that you are not.

I have no idea what you are trying to do with Geology which is by the way a independent separate field of study and actually had already began to discover "deep time" long before Darwin rose to the scene. You should go look up what a "unconformity" is in Geology, understand what forms it and find a picture of it. The sheer reality and direct proof of one really drives the concept of "deep time" home. There are multiple dating methods both from a relative and absolute methodology that all confirm the concept of an old earth(4.6 billion years old). Stratigraphy has also shown the existence of life back to ~2 billion years.

All I said was that concepts of an old earth within these fields of geochronology and stratigraphy are compatible with evolution. I never said that one is defined by the other. Can you understand this? Completely independent major fields of science are compatible with evolutionary theory. This is of course you trying to confuse the issue. You are really starting to bore me Gr especially with your obsession with the YEC beliefs.

While your attempts to obscure and obfuscate other people's words and standard scientific definitions is disappointing, it is not surprising and something I have only come to expect for you.

Oh if you want me to, I can go compile a list of journal articles dealing with geochronology, I will. I do want to make sure that I deal with every one of your points to your satisfaction (after all it isn't like you ever do that do you Gr.....rolls eyes....)

0

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

I think my problem is I'm talking to two different people with two different ideas of evolution and then trying to hold them accountable to each other.

For example:

Posted by gr8dane (anonymous) on December 22, 2006 at 12:20 a.m. "Then gr babbled: "Don't teach creationism nor evolutionism in school. Teach science. You know, things like genetic transfer of genes, mutation, selection..."


Aha. So you want us to teach the kids evolution. You just don't want us to CALL it that. All those things you just mentioned ARE evolution. They are the mechanisms of the process of evolution, and the theory explains how they all work together."

Maybe they "AREN'T" but only a small part, because now you're bringing geology into it. But, geology doesn't determine life.

"we know for a FACT that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we know for a FACT that we can go as far back as 600 million years to find life on earth."

Yeah?.... And do you have some datebook that has dates in it to prove it? Any peer reviewed article that proves dates of such?

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Gr says --"Are you now saying "evolution" includes more things? For each point I agree with, you will keep adding more until you find something objectionable? So, are you saying when you talk about inheritance, mutation, gene shift as to what evolution is, should not be objected to in schools, and is a fact, you really mean it's a FACT that life began 2-3 billion years ago?"

Lol. You are quite the "bait and switcher" aren't you Gr. Let's see here. Geology already teaches the FACT that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Go look at any earth science textbook in the public schools. It is presented as a fact. There is overwhelming evidence for this. And this was found completely independent of evolution. Evolutionary theory does happen to be compatible with this fact. Evolutionary theory is not compatible with a 6000 year old earth. But that is ok since we know for a FACT that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we know for a FACT that we can go as far back as 600 million years to find life on earth.

I haven't changed any definitions Gr. Maybe you are misunderstanding what the definitions are but nothing has changed.

Gr says --- 'time-travel should be taught in gradeschool as an absolute FACT that has happened. We have theories it's possible, even more so than life evolved on it's own (or whatever your current specific definition is), therefore teach it as FACT, even though we haven't actually done it."

Is this an act of desperation Gr? I am not even sure what you are trying to compare here. And please enlighten us as to what the "even more so" refers to. I think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about regarding time travel.

Evolution has been occuring it occurs now and it will continue to occur. Think about this Gr. These are facts.... Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago; Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history; Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors; Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

These facts are not in dispute. The best you can do for time travel is a mathematical theoretical possibility based on hypethetical conditions that have no basis in reality such as an absolute vacuum or absolute zero.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Gr says -"Changing definitions - hence my claim of bait and switch."

Kodiac- Now you are going to have to explain to me what you mean by this. I see this term used for advertising and in sales but not here. In fact I can't figure how I am baiting you with an inferior product to switch you to a different more expensive product? It doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you mean something else I don't know but I do not recognize the usage of this term in the way you are using it.

Sigh don't you ever get tired of these games gr...

Kodiac - "It is observable, repeatable, and testable."

Then Gr's reply was -- "Please remember, that "We don't have to OBSERVE something to study the EVIDENCE that it DID HAPPEN." and "It's a creationist fallacy that it has to be "observable, repeatable" before we can say it's SCIENCE.""

Are you using a creationist's fallacy?"

Then Gr proceeds to even "change" this wording to "Actually, gr8dane said that. I thought it was clear that I was quoting.

"You can't test the idea that there is something there because it can't be nothing. " I suppose not if you disagree with gr8danes idea that it DOESN'T have to be observable and repeatable to be called science."

Either this is extremely poor comprehension on your part Gr a your attempt at confuse and deceive.

Shall we go through this post by post Gr.

Lets go real slowly so you can keep up here

gr8dane's original comments in more complete and understanding form was --- "Again, you're confusing creationism, which has no evidence supporting it (and much disproving it) with evolution, which IS observable and repeatable.

To continue gr8dane's post...

"And again, I'll point out that it's NICE if something is observable and repeatable, but it doesn't HAVE to be for science to study it. There are HISTORICAL sciences, which study the evidence that SOMETHING HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

It's a creationist fallacy that it has to be "observable, repeatable" before we can say it's SCIENCE. It's a further creationist fallacy that evolution is not observable/repeatable. Scientists are doing both today."

Interesting how all of that changes your whole deception Gr. See how you were trying to confuse the issue because my point was about belief and that science is repeatable observable and testable. You attempted to subvert that by taking gr8dane's comment out of context. gr8dane was talking about historical evidence which is observed and can be used to make hypothesis that is observable and repeatable and testable. This was illustrated by werekoala in a simple example. However you attempted to make gr8dane look like he/she was saying that science doesn't have to be observable or repeatable. gr8dane was actually talking about historical evidence.

To be continued...

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Did you look at my response to the response that you made in response to my 1:44 pm post. I did address your response about the myths topic. I told you what I was talking about specifically which is what you believe Gr and it is quite apparent that you are struggling with the idea that your narrow-minded literal interpretation of the bible is false and you are attempting to hang on to fantasy of your by trying to change the definitions of science.

I did not feel like I needed to address your "exceptions" and "almost" comments because I thought it would be clear to you what I was saying. Both present and past biogeophraphy provides overwhelming evidence for evolution. If you go back and actually read the confirmation paragraphs regarding present and past biogeography in the talkorigins site, it does say "a few exceptions" and "virtually absent". Ok it doesn't say "almost all" but I think that is the same things as saying "a few exceptions". It also proceeds to explain these specific exceptions as well. You however have shown nothing to back up your statement that "the living mammals (I read animals) are NOT closely related to the extinct species of the same region?" So gr why did you say that statement and why have you not given any specific examples of this?

I have other comments but I will have to continue this later.

0

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

Kodiac: " "It's a creationist fallacy that it has to be "observable, repeatable" before we can say it's SCIENCE."

No no no Gr. It is a creationist misunderstanding. There is nothing fallacious about observing, repeating and testing. "

Actually, gr8dane said that. I thought it was clear that I was quoting.

"You can't test the idea that there is something there because it can't be nothing. " I suppose not if you disagree with gr8danes idea that it DOESN'T have to be observable and repeatable to be called science.

"It is clear that you still "believe" the earth is 6000 years old. Really really Gr. How is this compatibile with a theory that goes back 2 to 3 billion years if not more?"

Are you now saying "evolution" includes more things? For each point I agree with, you will keep adding more until you find something objectionable? So, are you saying when you talk about inheritance, mutation, gene shift as to what evolution is, should not be objected to in schools, and is a fact, you really mean it's a FACT that life began 2-3 billion years ago?

Changing definitions - hence my claim of bait and switch.

Maybe time-travel should be taught in gradeschool as an absolute FACT that has happened. We have theories it's possible, even more so than life evolved on it's own (or whatever your current specific definition is), therefore teach it as FACT, even though we haven't actually done it.

"We didn't settle anything and you know it. " "and I said they ARE closely related to the exinct species of the same region." Sigh. Did you look at your December 26, 2006 at 1:44 p.m. post? and my response to that? and your failure to further address that? and your insertion of the "myths" topic?

0

werekoala 7 years, 3 months ago

"Why can't a more broader view include the Bible?"

For the same reason it doesn't include the Baghavad Gita, or the Chinese creation myths. The Bible does have scientific relevance as a historical document for various activities of historical middle eastern peoples. But as regarding physics, geology, or abogenesis, it doesn't do much more than any other collection of creation myths.

================================

"It's a creationist fallacy that it has to be "observable, repeatable" before we can say it's SCIENCE."

Are you using a creationist's fallacy?"

Imagine pottery shards from the Ming dynasty were found in a new cave in China.

The scientific position would be to take the shards that we do have and fit them together to see the shape of the previously-unknown vase. Thus, even though we may not have all of the pieces, and have never seen the entire vase, we can examine the remaining evidence (the shards) to approximate the shape and decoration of the unique vase.

The creationist fallacy, on the other hand, would be to say that since we never saw the whole vase, and cannot make and break another vase into the exact same pieces as have been discovered, then there is no way to say for certain what the vase really looked like.

What they are trying to do is set some arbitrary limit on scientific evidence as being only experiments done in labs by guys in white coats. A better terminology would be that scientific evidence has to be physically observable, available to be observed repeatedly by multiple objective witnesses, and the theories must (in principle) be falsifiable (ie, there is a possibility that some other evidence could disprove that theory).

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Really Gr I don't want to go digging through all of your postings. I don't have to show it because I know you. You have been arguing from a biblical basis before and it is quite obvious you still are. Why else would you say

"Why can't a more broader view include the Bible? And why isn't young earth, old earth, creation compatible with evolution? Please show me where it's not." --Gr

It is clear that you still "believe" the earth is 6000 years old. Really really Gr. How is this compatibile with a theory that goes back 2 to 3 billion years if not more? Special creation specifically says that all forms are "its own kind" and insists on separate origination event for each "kind". This is not compatible with evolution.

"It's a creationist fallacy that it has to be "observable, repeatable" before we can say it's SCIENCE."

No no no Gr. It is a creationist misunderstanding. There is nothing fallacious about observing, repeating and testing. That has always been part of science. What is fallacious is the way you are trying to change the wording. The fallacy and or the confusion is yours Gr. We are observing evidence that is currently present in nature that has happened. We can make hypothesis about what we observed and test it and we can repeatedly test it. That hypotheis can become a theory over time. You can't do that for creationism. You can't test the idea that there is something there because it can't be nothing. Creationists confuse the terms hypothesis and theory, both of which are important in science. Theories such as evolutionary theory, atomic theory, or the theory of how gravity works or how electricity is transmitted along wires or how viruses affect the human body deal with elements in the scientific world which are not directly observable to the human eye. Nonetheless, the effects of such forces are both observable and measurable and can be tested. Theories about them are open to research and to modifications so that such theories can become an accurate representation of our world. as it really is. Creationism as a theory cannot be tested. You can't measure it. You can't make predictions with it. That is the "creationist fallacy" Gr.

"I believe we settled that."

We didn't settle anything and you know it. You changed the wording to try to appear we settled it but we didn't. Remember you said "the living mammals (I read animals) are NOT closely related to the extinct species of the same region?" and I said they ARE closely related to the exinct species of the same region. Does that sound like it is an agreement. No I didn't think so.....

0

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

"You have claimed in the past that the earth is 6000 years old and have cited the bible as valid scientific evidence. "

No matter what I believe or not, it's your turn to show where I have "cited the bible as valid scientific evidence" and especially that the earth is 6000 years old.

Why can't a more broader view include the Bible? And why isn't young earth, old earth, creation compatible with evolution? Please show me where it's not.

"It is observable, repeatable, and testable."

Please remember, that "We don't have to OBSERVE something to study the EVIDENCE that it DID HAPPEN." and "It's a creationist fallacy that it has to be "observable, repeatable" before we can say it's SCIENCE."

Are you using a creationist's fallacy?

"As far as your original point, I see that it has become irrelevant to the discussion. So much for your question..."

I believe we settled that. Then YOU started with the creation "myths" on December 26, 2006 at 1:44 p.m. and failed to address anything else in your above post. Is that a sidetrack or had we finished and you were ready to move on?

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I was talking specifically about the creation myth beliefs of YEC (young earth creationist) and the ID crowd. This is what you are or at least you have admitted as much on earlier threads. You have claimed in the past that the earth is 6000 years old and have cited the bible as valid scientific evidence. These are NOT compatible with evolution. So now you are telling me you have dropped these rigid narrow literal interpretations in favor of a broader theistic approach that does not take the bible or any other religious document literally? Please excuse my skeptism, but I don't think you have and I think you are trying to slide around certain terms by changing them to fit your own worldview.

I suspect that YOU are in conflict because you cannot reconcile your own belief system with science. So you attempting to try to redefine science so that it doesn't. You can't even get past the word "belief". It isn't a matter of belief Gr. You don't have to believe it. It is observable, repeatable, and testable.

As far as your original point, I see that it has become irrelevant to the discussion. So much for your question...

0

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

"because in almost all cases you DO FIND closely related contemporary species close geographically, "

"which are EXCEPTIONS to the above observations,"

"almost", "exceptions" - which was not mentioned in the quote.

"since you do accept evolution on the other threads, "

What I believe or don't believe has nothing to do with whether I can recognize whether a sentence logic structure is accurate or not.

"drop your creation myth beliefs" Why would I need to drop them even if they were myths? As gr8dane says, "2) these facts don't clash with my faith,". I have a much more wider view rather than a limiting view. Creation is fully compatible with evolution. Tell me where there is a conflict?

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

The talk origins comment is relevant because in almost all cases you DO FIND closely related contemporary species close geographically, regardless of their habitat or specific adaptations and you DO FIND the present biogeographical distribution of species reflecting the history of their origination.

When you do not find this, which are EXCEPTIONS to the above observations, there are very valid and demonstrable reasons for why this particular organism is present, not present in the different places.

Of course since you do accept evolution on the other threads, then your pseudo arguments are moot points that have no basis in this discussion anyway. So I am glad we were able to change your mind and get you to drop your creation myth beliefs and help you recognize the reality of evolution.

0

BrianR 7 years, 3 months ago

Clearly, it was Atum, Iusaas or Ogdoad.

0

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

"It is confusing to me because of your habit of leaving out the context of these statements and/or your habit of changing them slightly by adding or leaving words out."

Sorry I confuse you. I pick a short phrase out of the part where I'm addressing. I figure there's no point repeating everything that's already been said besides with the limit on each post. I figure you remember the context you said it in or can go back and look.

Now that you're with what I was trying to say, do you see why I'm saying the talk origins comment really has no meaning as there may be such reasons as you mentioned as to why: the living mammals (I read animals) are NOT closely related to the extinct species of the same region?

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Ah I am beginning to see what you are trying to ask but let me help clear it up for you.

It is confusing to me because of your habit of leaving out the context of these statements and/or your habit of changing them slightly by adding or leaving words out.

Your original post was this....

"In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region."

Talk Origins "Potential Falsification":

"We do not expect to ever find any Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus fossils in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa. Any such findings would be catastrophically problematic for the theory of common descent."

One may ask, of what types of fossils do we find in the Artic and Antartica? Are the living species closely related to the extinct species?" --- Gr

So given the statements above...closely related contemporary species should be close geographically, regardless of their habitat or specific adaptations and the present biogeographical distribution of species should reflect the history of their origination.

However, if they are not, there are explanations, such as extreme mobility (cases like sea animals, birds, human mediated distribution, etc.), continental drift, or extensive time since their divergence. And to complicate things further, even if you find species with wide dispersal, you have other things occuring such as climate change that change habitats sometime severely (as with the Arctic or Antarctic) where many species would not survive. In other words Gr, the answer to your original question would be yes unless of course there are reasons such as those mentioned above in which case it becomes dependent on those specific cases.

0

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

"Also I did not say anything about something being "NOT true"."

Sigh. Kodiac, did I say, you "said" is not true. I said, as you pointed out. You won't find the exact words.

"If you think they are relevant, please explain how it is relevant."

Ok, I didn't make a big deal of "mammals". I took it for meaning in general.

Do you suggest that with non-mammals, In each great region of the world the living non-mammals are NOT closely related to the extinct species of the same region.

I'd be surprised.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

Maybe it would help if you have some specific example in mind. When you say the phrase "probably not always true", obviously you are thinking of some specific example. Please tell us where that statement is not true specifically?

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Ah but Gr the statement "In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region" has never been shown to be false. If it has please show us. Also I did not say anything about something being "NOT true". All I said was that there were different climates existing at the poles then there are now. The question though is WHEN? Right now the estimates are greater than 55 million years and the change (tropical to ice age) actually may have already been happenning 100 million years ago. Currently there are no fossils of the order mammalia older than 160 million years (about the same time the dinosaurs die out). Therefore, I think your statements is irrelevant. If you think they are relevant, please explain how it is relevant.

0

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

Pollen?

Are we just confusing each other?

Going to have to show me.

My post of December 11, 2006 at 8:59 a.m. should explain how I see a conflict. You said yourself the climate was different at the poles. I'm not saying it's true or not, just the logic is flawed. If A=B, we know nothing of the relationship of B to C. Africa's climate could be different, and relating to the logic, other area's past climate could be different.

Therefore, "In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region", is probably not always true and, as you pointed out at the poles, is NOT true. Unless you have a specific issue for the word, "mammals".

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

Well now you have me puzzled? What ARE you talking about with your question to white mountain.

You asked....."One may ask, of what types of fossils do we find in the Artic and Antartica? Are the living species closely related to the extinct species?"

Then you cited an article about pollen found near Antarctica.

What does that have to do with White Mountain's post? What mountain's post is about biogeography. Do you not understand the principles behind it? Do you think there is a problem here? Please be specific about what you think is the problem Gr. I think you are trying to be vague and misleading. Maybe you can clear it up for me.

0

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

"just a note to you that you are citing one paper from 1978 and then another paper from 1998."

Why did you say that? What are you trying to say, here? Especially since you go on and talk about different climates existing at the poles in the past. Isn't that what I just said?

"So I am not sure why you are asking your original question. Most species that existed at the poles are extinct and not many species could live there mainly because of the current climatic conditions."

I believe I was saying that in response to white_mountain's link of what Talk Origins said. If you missed that, what ARE you talking about?

0

Kodiac 7 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

Ah well first off before we deal with your question, just a note to you that you are citing one paper from 1978 and then another paper from 1998. You should look at the more recent reasearch which has found a large amount of evidence for different climates existing at the poles especially before 45 million years ago. There is of course still more evidence coming to light but everything is pointing at different climates existing on the poles.

So I am not sure why you are asking your original question. Most species that existed at the poles are extinct and not many species could live there mainly because of the current climatic conditions. It also makes it hard for scientists to actually look at possible relationships between extinct species and living species. It is quite a feat just to drill down and actually be able to excavate any actual land mass because of the sheer size of the current ice mass. Of course we may not have long to wait due to our love for fossil burning fuels : - )

So your question doesn't become a smoking gun must have been God and creation so we can now stop? Is that what you are trying to do? I don't know. You always pose these questions like they are going to somehow just provide some magical proof or something. I will say it again Gr, those questions you raise are actual questions that have provided massive amounts of evidence for evolutionary theory (common descent of contemporary organisms.....just so we are clear on the matter).

Meanwhile oh Gr there is so much to read and so little time.....tsk tsk

0

gr 7 years, 3 months ago

Why one extant species exist at one pole and not the other wasn't quite what I had in mind. I was looking more at: Are living species closely related to extinct species.

For example: http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF1/188.html

Either the former or the "latter view", but if the latter, then how does that relate to the Talk Origins comment?

But then, there's: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/282/5397/2241.pdf

0

Kodiac 7 years, 4 months ago

"One may ask, of what types of fossils do we find in the Artic and Antartica? Are the living species closely related to the extinct species?" -- Gr

Sounds like a good research project for you Gr. Of course such questions fascinated Darwin and Wallace 150 years ago. Why are there polar bears in the Arctic but not in the Antarctic? Why is it reversed for the penguins? Such questions that looked specifically at what you just asked Gr provided excellent evidence for evolutionary theory in the way of biogeography. Very fascinating and an excellent opportunity to educate yourself Gr....

0

gr 7 years, 4 months ago

From the above link attributed to Darwin:

"In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region."

Talk Origins "Potential Falsification":

"We do not expect to ever find any Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus fossils in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa. Any such findings would be catastrophically problematic for the theory of common descent."

One may ask, of what types of fossils do we find in the Artic and Antartica? Are the living species closely related to the extinct species?

0

jonas 7 years, 4 months ago

man, life sucks right now! Froggin finals!!!

0

white_mountain 7 years, 4 months ago

devobrun wrote:

I didn't find a test for the statement: "all humans decend from a common ape-like ancestor".


Look closely at this section, you'll find a test for that statement.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#past_biogeography_ex3

0

jonas 7 years, 4 months ago

That's an. . . err. . . rather cynical viewpoint. I, personally, like to think that, in terms of science, most people don't do what they are doing, in whatever field, solely for their own benefit, but in an attempt to bring greater understanding to our existence. The point of evolutionary science is not truly to explain where we were, and how we got to this point, but to predict, if we can, where we are going to go from here in the future, in terms of the physical world in which we live. I'm sure there are scientists who take advantage of what they do to personally benefit from it, but I don't believe that it is a representative sample of the whole population. I also think the same thing about people who believe in ID. I admit that I still like the idea of an intelligent designer, at some fundamental level of reality, but I don't think there is any room in a scientific argument in which to express it, other than as an afterthought.

At any rate, if you're not worried about where we came from, why are you talking about it?

0

devobrun 7 years, 4 months ago

Jonas, the point of evolution theory is to pontificate about that which cannot be known, at least scientifically.

The ID guys can come up with explanations all they want, if they do not claim science.
Ditto evolution.

white_mountain: Ok, I looked it over. Didn't memorize it, because I didn't find a test for the statement: "all humans decend from a common ape-like ancestor". I found lots of complicated evidence that e.g.,our DNA shares common traits. This is a necessary but insufficient argument.

What is sufficient? Do it. Next week, please. Too complicated? Well then it is also too complicated for me to put any credence in. It's meaningless. It's just a story without any use to me other than to give me comfort in the face of death, kinda like Jesus. It's religion.

Oh, how 'bout you reading QED by Richard Feynman. Its shorter than your link and gives the basis for quantum electromagnetics. I can show that to you right now. If you are using a CRT screen, a space charge is created by the filament at the back of the tube. This charge is accelerated toward the front of the tube where phosphors collect the energy and reemit this energy as light. The intensity and color of the light, the emission of the electrons at the cathode, and the electric and magnetic fields used to send a beam of electrons at the screen are all governed by quantum electrodynamics.

Transistors, microwave ovens, cell phones,etc. all serve to give science a good name. The average Joe thinks that evolutionary science is the same thing. It is not!

Every new electronic gadget, transportation system, or communication device serves to boost the good name of science. Evolutionists claim to be scientists and benefit from the term.

They break out the Greek and Latin books, snow the scientific proletariat, and turn stamp collecting into science.

I don't buy it 'cause I don't have to. I don't have to give up a thing.

0

jonas 7 years, 4 months ago

"Posted by calvin (anonymous) on December 8, 2006 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't say we'll never know. We will all know after we die."

Yes, except that, since no one here ever talks to dead people, then it doesn't make any difference to us currently living here, which makes it, as a belief, useless for this plain of existence. And since either way it is ultimately unprovable, there is no point in considering it as a viable option.

"I'm pretty confident in my belief and ready to meet the Intelligent designer."

That's nice, except that I'm not confident in your beliefs at all as truth, so I'd really need to see some evidence. Or, if you could tell me where you go, so I could find a way to get there BEFORE I die, so I can get the information and come back here and let everybody know, that would probably be sufficient.

Thank you for proving my point, though, that ID seeks to shut off questioning, rather than furthering true understanding.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 4 months ago

continued from above....

Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness: Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003). Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002). Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002). Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999). Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).

Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including: enzymes (Arnold 2001) pigments (Arnold 2001) antibiotics flavors biopolymers bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials. Directed evolution"

Of course you wouldn't know about any of this since you are not a biologist nor do you do any research in these fields. Your idea of what is testable and what is not would eliminate every scientific theory in existence. Evolutionary theory is no different that Maxwel's or Shannon's theory and it is a theory that is tested constantly as well. As far as all of us being all here and saying I don't know, there is that creationist in you coming out again. Evolution isn't about abiogenesis no matter how many times you try to make that false connection Devo. And finally, because of our good friend Gr and out of respect for her, I have decided to stop calling people "liars". It is counterproductive and doesn't get us anywhere.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 4 months ago

Hey Devo,

Long time no see. I see that you are back with your useless theory claims. Sorry you can't seem to shake me but I figure I will eventually get you to get off of your creationist views and open your mind a little. Maybe that is a pipe dream it is worth a try...

From the talkorigins site we have...

"Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example: Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions. Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001). Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002). Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping. Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003). Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.

0

calvin 7 years, 4 months ago

I didn't say we'll never know. We will all know after we die. I'm pretty confident in my belief and ready to meet the Intelligent designer.

0

jonas 7 years, 4 months ago

Calvin: I'll stop asking the same questions when someone answers them with something other than: "well, we'll never really know, will we?" The whole freak'n point of science is to find out what there is to know about what we don't know.

0

white_mountain 7 years, 4 months ago

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

For those who believe evolution cannot be tested, it might be worth taking some time to read through this article before making up your mind.

0

calvin 7 years, 4 months ago

Devobrun- I agree with you 100%. I believe in ID and I believe there is evidence to support it. But you can also see evolution has occured. But I agree with you, neither can be tested, it just comes down to which one you want to put your faith in, and as I said earlier does it really matter? I don't know that it does. I am a Christian and that does influence my belief, but I hope you can tell I am not of the right wing nut job variety!! Good post.

0

devobrun 7 years, 4 months ago

calvin, there are many theories that make sense. ID makes sense if you are religious. Evo makes sense if you are an evolutionist.

Here is another one. All the world is chaos. A Mandelbrot space. Anything that can happen has, is, or will. What can happen? Anything that exists within the boundary of physics. Conservation of energy, mass, momentum, etc.

Proteins can exist in an uncountable number of energy states. Thus, there are a lot of them. How is it that a flu virus mutates every year. Because it can.

Sounds scientific, doesn't it? My theory above can be supported by evidence. It is not science because it cannot be tested. Nor can ID nor evolution.

Oh, little parts and pieces can be. But when an IDer claims that an intelligence is responsible, I say test it.

When an evolutioner says that Angelina Jolie shares a common ancestor with Bonzo, the chimp, I say fine, give us another one.

Can't do that which you theorize? Then you are engaged in story telling. Not science, which requires the test.

Claude Shannon's theory of information is being used to encode this message. Maxwell's theory is used to design the hardware that relays the message to your eye as you read this. These are theories that are tested billions of times a day by stuff that people create and use.
There is no question that we are all here. How it is that we are all here is a great big dunno. Anyone who invokes science to tell you the answer to that question is a lier. And chances are that the first lie they told was to themselves.

0

calvin 7 years, 4 months ago

Kodiac - thank you for picking up on the sarcasm!! I am glad someone got it. I don't usually make comments at all, and actually enjoy reading the local news since I live so far away.

0

kestrel 7 years, 4 months ago

calvin wrote: "It is always fun to see the same people making the same old worn out arguments everytime the LJW has a 'newsworthy' article about this subject of ID vs Macro-evolution. Only one of the theories makes sense and is what I believe, but honestly who cares? But kudos to the LJW crew for trying to keep the topic alive!"

We'll stop making our 'old worn out arguments' when the IDC crowd quits taking the same 'old worn out arguments' out of the creationist literature and does something genuinely useful. Like something scientific.

There's no point in making up shiny new refutations of the IDC claims when the 'old worn out arguments' make mincemeat out of them perfectly well.

0

white_mountain 7 years, 4 months ago

ID does not seem to be testable, able to be negated, or able to make predictions about data.

The ID'ers call for a redefinition of "science" because they know ID does not fall within it.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 4 months ago

Kudos to Calvin for his usual post complaining about having to read something he didn't have to read or even respond to. But hey honestly who cares? Right Calvin?

0

calvin 7 years, 4 months ago

It is always fun to see the same people making the same old worn out arguments everytime the LJW has a 'newsworthy' article about this subject of ID vs Macro-evolution. Only one of the theories makes sense and is what I believe, but honestly who cares? But kudos to the LJW crew for trying to keep the topic alive!

0

logicsound04 7 years, 4 months ago

"¢ The intelligent design argument is "not a mystical conclusion." He said the design argument is a recognition there is a "purposeful arrangement" of the parts that make up an organism."


Sorry, Mr. Behe, but if you are including "purpose" in ANY discussion of the arrangement of the Universe, you have just introduced "mysticism".

You might as well say, "I'm not saying God caused the Universe, just that some all-knowing, all-powerful being intentionally created the Universe."

========================================

"¢ He said "everyone agrees" that aspects of biology include the appearance of design. Cells appear to be arranged as a collection of complex molecular machines, he said."


Even IF everyone agrees on that fact, the "apperance of design" as the basis for a scientific theory is, at best, misguided, and at worst, a complete departure from scientific standards and practices. The Sun "appears" to rotate around the Earth without further inspection and analysis.

========================================

"¢ He said he recognizes evolution has occurred but it doesn't explain everything."


Most scientifc theories don't "explain everything", because it is not the goal of science to find a final, all-encompassing explanation to everything, but rather to find explanations that will most likely change as new evidence is discovered. One of the problems with ID is that it is impossible to find evidence that would disprove the theory, making it unable to pass scientific muster.

At any rate, I thought finding a final, all-encompassing explanation for everything was a goal of religion--oh wait, I guess ID is the religious extremist's "science" of choice.

"A professor of biology at Lehigh University, Behe's main argument was that..."


More than anything else, this article is a warning to those interested in science to AVOID Lehigh University.

0

jonas 7 years, 4 months ago

Or at least let me know about further developments in these areas by the many people who already accept ID as truth.

0

jonas 7 years, 4 months ago

The problem with ID is that it stops the questioning. Once you settle on the idea that everything that can't be explained is the product of some intelligent creator then the search for understanding goes no further. The questions I never see being asked afterwards are where we go from the premise that it was created with design.

Who created them, where are they now, and how do we get in contact with them?

What is the method that they used to create complex systems and forms of life, and how do we duplicate it?

What knowledge or benefit is gained from understanding of the presence of a designer?

In other words, what's the POINT of believing that there was an intelligent designer? Even acceptance would make is seem like either an afterthought, or even worse a cut-off of ideas coming from our current inability to understand what makes some things work.

Can any of the ID proponents answer any of these questions?

0

kestrel 7 years, 4 months ago

don_burgess:

Yes, he's smart, he's just foolish and stubborn. And he has a bit of a problem in the area of honesty.

Not really. He acknowledges the existence of what creationists call 'micro-evolution', but most creationists do as well. Just as creationists do, he denies the possibility of speciation and the development of novel features (called 'macro-evolution' by creationists)

I disagree. I am a Catholic and what some people would describe as a 'theistic evolutionist', but I see no intrinsic need on the part of biology for spirituality, any more than I see a need for it in plate tectonics or beer brewing. I may CHOOSE to view the biological world in a spiritual light, but that does not make biology as a science dependant on spiritual belief.

Well, I certainly agree with you there. I also would not be worried about seeing it in a comparitive religion class, but I think it would be irrellevant in such a setting: it depends on evolutionary theory to act as a foil against: it has no utility otherwise. Perhaps in a Philosophy of Science class.

0

optimist 7 years, 4 months ago

The question to ask is: what came before that?

0

fossilhunter 7 years, 4 months ago

Don -

"Unlike some other hard-core, religious, neo-christian fundamentalist wackos, he at least accepts the obvious truth that evolution exists on some level..."

From what I understand, this is a new development, and I imagine has more to do with the audience than his actual opinions.

0

don_burgess 7 years, 4 months ago

I havent read this guys book, but he seems like a smart person.

Unlike some other hard-core, religious, neo-christian fundamentalist wackos, he at least accepts the obvious truth that evolution exists on some level...

Like global warming, this topic has been so polarized that both sides have grown completely blind to eachother's view.

A realistic person must view the natural world from a scientific perspective dispite their religious beliefs.
JUST LIKE every good scientist must have a bit of recognition in the complexity of biology on a spiritual level.

As far a public schools are concerned - keep intellignet design where it belongs - in a theology class or at sunday school.

0

kestrel 7 years, 4 months ago

craigers wrote:

It starts out as a duplicate. Through further variations and, as I mentioned co-option, it is utilized for another function. For in-depth explanation, I'd suggest reading "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carrol or search the TalkOrigin archives.

0

craigers 7 years, 4 months ago

Thanks for the information MyName.

0

MyName 7 years, 4 months ago

craigers: To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_dup...

"Gene duplication occurs when an error in homologous recombination, a retrotransposition event, or duplication of an entire chromosome leads to the duplication of a region of DNA containing a gene [1]. The significance of this process for evolutionary biology is that, unlike a single functional gene, which is usually subject to purifying selection and thus has a slowed mutation rate, one copy of a duplicate set of genes is often freed from selective pressure, allowing it to freely mutate. This is because with two copies of a gene present, mutations in just one copy of the gene often have no deleterious effect on the organism; thus, the second copy is free to "explore" the sequence space by mutating randomly. The duplicate gene may either (a) acquire mutations that lead to a gene with a novel function or (b) acquire deleterious mutations and become a pseudogene."

Basically, what it's saying is that duplication is usually the first step towards in increased mutation rate which can eventually lead to new proteins.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 4 months ago

Stalking? Hmmm. Not sure what you mean there 75. Oh and nice sidestep there on the issue without really offering anything with substance. Pretty much your MO.

However if you feel threatened by me then please let me know and I will leave you alone. I will not make any references to your specific replies anymore.

0

craigers 7 years, 4 months ago

kestrel, how does gene duplication create anything but a replica of the other gene, not a gene with a completely different function?

0

75x55 7 years, 4 months ago

Stalking me again, eh, Kodiac? That seems to be the more 'troll'-like behavior. I'm so flattered.

0

BOE 7 years, 4 months ago

Posted by craigers on December 8, 2006 at 8:21 a.m.

" The premise of his complex machine argument is saying that if parts A, B, C, and D are needed to make the machine function and A, B, C, and D provide no advantage apart from each other or in any other combination than ABCD, then how could evolution be the reason that this complex machine came to be? "

====

The premise of Behe's arguement is rhetorical.

He's isn't searching (or researching) for an answer.

Which begs the question: Where does all that talent for the rhetorical disappear to when Behe is sitting in the tub, contemplating his nipples?

0

kestrel 7 years, 4 months ago

craigers wrote:

Brush up on the concepts of co-option & gene duplication. One can go from A, to AE, to AEF, to ACE, to ABCE, to ABCDE, to ABCD, retaining and improving function at each step and arriving at an apparently "irreducably complex" result. This has been made painfully clear to Behe on numerous occasions. He prefers to maintain his fantasy and ignore logic.

0

Kodiac 7 years, 4 months ago

Cute but worthless comment 75. Do you anything to say that actually has substance to it or are you just a troll. Have you been to any flat earth meetings lately? What no.....hmmm not very open-minded are you 75.....

0

MyName 7 years, 4 months ago

I'm glad Behe came to Lawrence, but ID is as accurate and scientific as astrology.

The premise of his complex machine argument is saying that if parts A, B, C, and D are needed to make the machine function and A, B, C, and D provide no advantage apart from each other or in any other combination than ABCD, then how could evolution be the reason that this complex machine came to be?

First of all, I don't think that's how ID works, as I understand it anywas. Secondly, I can't think of any example of this actually occuring in nature. Name one instance where having an arm that kind of works is less advantagous than having no arm. Finally, it is not the things that are an evolutionary non-issue that are selected out, but rather things that are advantageous or disadvantageous.

Take ear lobes, for example, some people's are attached, others are not. This difference is unimportant now, which is why it doesn't effect selection, but what if a mutation occurs that improves hearing, but it only occurs in people who have attached ear lobes. Suddenly, attached lobes are important, and detached are selected out. Suddenly, you have A and B occuring, but not being an issue until C is added. Some things in nature could have occured in exactly the same way, as something that was evolutionary unimportant, until the final piece was added which made it advantageous.

0

75x55 7 years, 4 months ago

AH, the harmonious melody of the open-minded... LOL!

0

pilch 7 years, 4 months ago

Guy was a real whiner, nothing more than a festering open sore on the a$$ of society.

0

dirkleisure 7 years, 4 months ago

craigers - how, then, would you explain those occurances in nature where ABC occurs in a situation where ABCD was both expected and preferable?

Because it happens. We refer to it as, generally, as a "birth defect."

0

kestrel 7 years, 4 months ago

It should be pointed out that Behe is NOT a professor of biology and has no significant training or research background in evoloutionary biology. He is a professor of biochemistry, a significantly different dicipline. It was due to that shallowness of knowledge concerning biology that his arguments were completely and embarrassingly dismantled in Dover.

0

compmd 7 years, 4 months ago

ControlFreak, you and your reason. :)

If you give up the law of gravity, you give up basic mechanics, which means you give up calculus and other forms of simple mathematics. Have fun with that.

0

ControlFreak 7 years, 4 months ago

craigers,

That is not how natural selection works. This is a common mistake among people who do not understand the mechanism.

0

ControlFreak 7 years, 4 months ago

Behe is making an either/or argument which is inherently false. By saying that one option does not explain something DOES NOT automatically mean that the other option is the answer.

A good but simple example is this:

You see a girl in the morning drinking something. You know that it is too light to be coffee so you say, she must be drinking tea. Is the girl really drinking tea? Without asking her, or tasting the drink yourself, there is no way to know for sure. She could be drinking a light coffee (heavily creamed) or a juice. Eliminating coffee as a possibility does not mean she is drinking tea. She could be, or she could not.

0

fossilhunter 7 years, 4 months ago

Devo - what you'll have to give up is: updated vaccines -- after all, it viruses don't evolve, there's no need to update anything. They'll still work.

You'll have to pay more for food. Genetic engineering, using the basis of evolution, has created disease and insect-resistant corn and wheat....

0

craigers 7 years, 4 months ago

ID is true and I am glad Behe isn't discouraged to come to Lawrence. The premise of his complex machine argument is saying that if parts A, B, C, and D are needed to make the machine function and A, B, C, and D provide no advantage apart from each other or in any other combination than ABCD, then how could evolution be the reason that this complex machine came to be? The combination of ABCD provides a complex machine that works better than anything we have put together, but A is useless, B is usless, C is useless, ABC is useless. How can we have A, then gradually adapt to having AB and so on until ABCD occurs when evolution says we change in order to be better suited for our environment and the individual parts are useless until we have the end product ABCD.

0

prioress 7 years, 4 months ago

Take the magical mystery tour........ I.D. is cute when it smiles, but there's nothing behind the facade.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 4 months ago

"He said "everyone agrees" that aspects of biology include the appearance of design."

The sun appears to "rise" in the east, too. Flat-earthers and ID'ers are of the same cloth.

0

ksmattfish 7 years, 4 months ago

Quote: ""For example, random mutation and natural selection can't explain how complex mechanisms, such as the whiplike flagella "motors" that propel bacteria, developed, he said. So that leads to one controversial conclusion: They were designed that way, he said."

So God created those irreducibly complex motors for bacteria to help them be more efficient in infecting us? Maybe Phred is right about God after all?

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

0

overthemoon 7 years, 4 months ago

devo...hold onto that flannel shirt, here's an answer for you:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807

Sometimes satirical fiction is just as believable as the real news.

I do allow for the mysterious side of the debate...that's what fuels science. To say that the mystery replaces or negates the science is to limit the very nature of human intelligence. To suggest that decuction without experiment validifies the ID proposition is to confuse science with philosophy. Both are completely valid disciplines that can inform one another as they have throughout history. The philosphs of the ID camp have allowed semantics to define their position and have turned the work "theory" into a pegoritive that is thrown out to suggest that a theory is a static notion has no proof.

God or no God? Maybe we can just keep calling it Mother Nature and leave it at that.

0

BOE 7 years, 4 months ago

If I reject the Gravitational theory or the Theory of Relativity , what will I have to give up?

Bottled water? Flannel shirts? Air travel? Watching the Simpsons? Nope.

0

devobrun 7 years, 4 months ago

The scientists is often confronted with the question "why?". The scientist breaks this up into who, what, when, where, how, etc. These questions can often be answered while the why question cannot.

There is another question that is avoided by lazy university scientists. It is "So what?".

I'm askin': So what?

If I reject evolution and ID, what will I have to give up?

Bottled water? Flannel shirts? Air travel? Watching the Simpsons? Nope.

ID vs evo is an utterly philosophical argument without any material fecundity.

Id? So what. Evolution? So what.

What a waste of resources by a lot of people on something that cannot be changed, nor used for any material purpose.

This is an argument over the primacy of ideas. Politics.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.