ID is not really that interesting. It’s primarily a coalition of anti-evolutionists hoping to force their views into the educational system.
It had it’s moment in the sun with the publication of Darwin’s Black Box and The Design Inference but neither really contributed much to the debate. That’s one of the reasons that ID has largely faded.
The kiwi’s wings seem to be a fairly clear example of a vestigial structure, which IDists tend not to like.
quote:The fault with this argument is that it is predicated on the assumption that the soundness of an argument is based on it's acceptance. Logically that would be an indirect argument which doesn't address the direct arguments from ID.
No, it’s based on the fact that they didn’t really offer much. Either lead to sound arguments against evolution, or even a real prospect of sound arguments against evolution.
quote:Intelligent design might not be interesting to those that don't understand it very well but that won't change that we find the usual features of intelligent design in organisms.
It is also a fact that there are features which are not easily explained by design and many that are better explained by evolution. Significantly there is no design-based theory to replace evolution.
quote:Not really. This is a fallacy of irrelevance because being interested in teaching ID doesn't really pertain to anything to do with evolution. No offence but perhaps evolutionists just need to get over themselves. It's about whether ID is a real thing in life or not.
It’s a fact and it is relevant. ID began with the schoolbook Of Pandas and People, itself a lightly rewritten creationist text. This text was central to the Dover trial.
It is why ID is not interesting. ID can never challenge evolution while it remains so vague. It can never be a genuine alternative.
quote:This is just circular reasoning where you conclude your proposal. Your proposal is that such features exist because they are leftovers of evolution then you find evidence P which fits with that notion and conclude the proposal.
Of course it is not circular reasoning at all. Unless you wish to claim that your designer created features which appear to be vestigial organs - and provide more than ad hoc reasons why we should expect the designer to do so - vestigial organs are best explained as the result of evolution from fully working versions.
quote:But logically a leftover vestigial of evolution would depend on an evolution. So then for all things that fly, have we found their evolution stage by stage? Like with the insect wing for example? Or bats, birds, pterosaurs, etc....so in actual fact all you can really conclude is that we might expect vestigials from evolution but we can clearly expect them from design too because if God creates something with wings to fly and eventually they lose their use then selection may yeild such a result on it's own even if macro evolution is not true because losing genetic information from the selection cull logically doesn't depend on any need for macro evolution to be true. (the creation of new organs and genetic info).
Of course this is a straw-man which doesn’t touch the real argument. The fallacy is yours.
quote:Why if a designed feature loses it's use through selection would that be a problem for ID unless we were arguing that God designed the feature to be that way? That is like arguing that we have to answer for why God made mad-cow disease.
And there you concede the point. If vestigial organs were not designed as such, why do they exist ?
And the problem with your argument about your drone is that we know your drone is designed for independent reasons. None of which apply to life. We don’t see a designer, we don ‘t see blueprints, we don’t see manufacture. And there are no plausible ancestors or relatives because drones are manufactured rather than reproducing,
quote:EASY to explain from the viewpoint of creation/ID despite your smear-campaign.
And yet you can’t offer similar explanations for actual vestigial structures in life. You admit as much. Your “example” is just a distraction, and the “smear campaign” is neither a smear nor a campaign.
quote:This is why Sarah should listen to those that know what they are talking about instead of people that only exist to DISS on non-evolutionists. (propaganda is all you could be bothered with this time)
But Mike you don’t know what you are talking about. You just want to suppress valid criticism with your dishonesty and deceit.
quote:The truth is we don't deny the science facts
Sure you do. The Earth is billions of years old. There are many transitional fossils, The fossil record was not produced by a global flood. Those are all science facts.
I will also point out that the fact that creationists accept some evolution - even macro-evolution - does not mean that it is not evolution. Thus the evidence for the evolutionary changes that creationists accept is still evidence for evolution.
quote:We obviously don't accept those are science-facts.
So you only reject the science facts you reject.
quote:I regard facts as things which are indisputably provable. For example the earth is a factual thing. Fossils are factual things. The fossil record is a factual thing.
Unless you are going to weasel on “indisputably proven” I would suggest that all three of my examples qualify.
quote:Sadly at this forum it is now common place that ASSERTIONS that X is fact is considered some sort of intellectual offerinG
In that case I hope you will manage better than assertions in reply.
quote:So naturally I would dispute these are really facts. A fact for example is the soft dinosaur tissue we find. A fact is for example the C14 we find in diamonds and coal. A fact for example, is that 99.99% of the transitionals of evolution are missing by definition, as you would need that many to exist if there really was an evolution.
We do not find soft dinosaur tissue. The C14 found in diamonds is only in trace amounts, and the “missing” transitionals are overwhelmingly at the speciation level - the sort of evolution you accept. As Stephen Jay Gould noted transitional sat higher levels are abundant.
[quote@] But if the changes we accept are macro-evolution then that would mean we would be evolutionists and because we are not evolutionists then those changes cannot be examples of macro evolution. (modus tollens).
quote:But if the changes we accept are macro-evolution then that would mean we would be evolutionists and because we are not evolutionists then those changes cannot be examples of macro evolution. (modus tollens).
Since Kinds are often equated to the Family level of taxonomy they must involve the evolution of new Genera - which is certainly macro-evolution.