Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 81 of 1197 (891527)
02-01-2022 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Tanypteryx
02-01-2022 4:33 PM


Re: How to tell?
Tanypteryx writes:
Well, that was the Old Intelligent Design this is the New Intelligent design, completely different design.
Old Intelligent Design + More Cowbell = New Intelligent Design

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-01-2022 4:33 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-01-2022 4:43 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 84 of 1197 (891531)
02-01-2022 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-01-2022 4:26 AM


Re: How to tell?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
I will be submitting to Nature Journal a science article titled, "Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Its Replacement".
After skimming through your response to AronRa's Phylogenetic Challenge, I think we can safely expect that the rant will be rejected. If you can't even explain the most basic observation in biology, that of a phylogenetic tree, then you have neither falsified the theory of evolution nor have you created a replacement. All you have done is ignored the facts.
If you want to even have a hope of tackling the field of biology you need an explanation for why we see a phylogenetic tree. I suspect that your first task would be to learn what a phylogenetic tree is and how cladistics works.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-01-2022 4:26 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 98 of 1197 (891597)
02-04-2022 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-04-2022 3:03 AM


Re: How to tell?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
why are you bothering me if I had already given you the FREE link for your study?
It's hard to take someone seriously when they take a Phylogenetic Challenge and don't even mention phylogenetics, nor show any evidence that they know what phylogenetics is.
Phylogenetics is the most basic foundation of biology. If you don't understand phylogenetics you don't understand biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-04-2022 3:03 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 109 of 1197 (891747)
02-10-2022 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-10-2022 3:46 AM


Re: What do the Reviews of MrID's Book Say?
MrID writes:
What I care so much is if I am right or wrong in science
Fist step: learn the basics of phylogenetics.
I think that I am right. I think I nailed it.
Why would you think that if you don't even understand the most basic concepts in biology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-10-2022 3:46 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-10-2022 7:32 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 193 of 1197 (891923)
02-17-2022 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-16-2022 10:12 PM


Re: Got No ID
MrID writes:
If you believe that ToE is falsifiable, then, I can falsify ToE.
The theory of evolution predicts that you should be able to measure a statistically significant phylogenetic signal in the genetic data for vertebrates. A lack of this phylogenetic signal would go a long ways towards falsifying the theory.
Can you show us that this phylogenetic signal does not exist in the genetic data?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-16-2022 10:12 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by AZPaul3, posted 02-17-2022 6:23 PM Taq has replied
 Message 195 by dwise1, posted 02-17-2022 7:46 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 213 of 1197 (891953)
02-18-2022 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by AZPaul3
02-17-2022 6:23 PM


Re: Got No ID
AZPaul3 writes:
What is that and how would it be noticed?
Curious minds want to know.
There are several methods for measuring phylogenetic signal:
Phylogenetic signal - Wikipedia
It is a quantification of how tree-like the data is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by AZPaul3, posted 02-17-2022 6:23 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 214 of 1197 (891954)
02-18-2022 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by MrIntelligentDesign
02-17-2022 11:16 PM


Re: Got No ID
MrID writes:
My goodness, I had given you FREE link of my discoveries.
Name one of your discoveries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-17-2022 11:16 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 02-19-2022 1:31 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 488 of 1197 (901308)
11-08-2022 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Dredge
11-08-2022 7:25 AM


Dredge writes:
If you ask me, the explanatory power of the theory of evolution is seriously overrated. For example, no Darwinist has ever offered me a sensible explanation for how venomous snakes evolved.
There will always be specific adaptations that we don't have a specific answer for. That's just the nature of science in general. No scientist is claiming they are omniscient, or that any theory can explain everything. That's why scientists continue to do research. Perhaps this is why you prefer religious explanations where people claim complete and dogmatic knowledge without needing to do things like have evidence or do the research.
What you ignore is what evolution does explain. For example, it explains why we see more transitions than transversions when we compare the human and chimp genome. It explains why there is more sequence conservation in exons than in introns. It explains why we see a nested hierarchy. It explains the distribution of species across the globe. It explains the patterns found in the fossil record. It explains why we can find the same ERV's at the same bases in the genomes of multiple species. It can explain why the LTR's of those same ERV's diverge and produce a phylogeny. Evolution explains massive mountains of observations, most of which I suspect you aren't even aware of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Dredge, posted 11-08-2022 7:25 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Dredge, posted 11-09-2022 2:12 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 494 of 1197 (901423)
11-09-2022 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Dredge
11-09-2022 2:12 PM


Dredge writes:
Well, until their research provides a sensible explanation of how venomous snakes evolved, for example, I will continue to consider ToE to be inadequate.
So even though there is mountains of evidence, you won't accept the theory because it doesn't have a very narrow explanation for one adaptation in one set of species. Got it.
Oh, you mean like the pattern evident in the Cambrian explosion, for example ... dozens of novel Phyla appearing relatively suddenly without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors?
How do you determine that a fossil has no evolutionary ancestors?
The theory of evolution predicts that we should find the earliest branches in the tree of life in the earliest fossil bearing strata. Wouldn't you know it, that's exactly what we see.
What Darwinists ignore is what ToE doesn't explain.
What evidence are we ignoring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Dredge, posted 11-09-2022 2:12 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 499 of 1197 (901488)
11-10-2022 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-10-2022 3:00 AM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
The Intelligent Design had formulated Biological Interrelation, a better theory than evolution, since Interrelation uses intelligence and included the whole part/scope of reality.
Well, since it is a better theory then it should give better explanations for these observations:
1. The nested hierarchy
2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns.
3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons.
4. Transitional hominid fossils.
5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates.
That should be a good start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-10-2022 3:00 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-10-2022 8:58 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 514 of 1197 (901777)
11-14-2022 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-10-2022 8:58 PM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
You really do not know how to start...
I do know where to start. Here are 5 good starting points.
1. The nested hierarchy

2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns.

3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons.

4. Transitional hominid fossils.

5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates.

Please demonstrate how your theory explains the patterns seen in these 5 examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-10-2022 8:58 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-17-2022 4:13 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 518 of 1197 (902059)
11-17-2022 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 515 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-17-2022 4:13 AM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Below are the invented explanations in biology, that have no part in reality:


1. The nested hierarchy
2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns.
3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons.
4. Transitional hominid fossils.
5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates.
Those aren't explanations. Those are observations. Those are facts. If ID can't explain why those facts exist then it is a failed scientific theory in biology.
Evolution is wrong for Evolution cannot explain if the change is really natural or not...
The theory of evolution absolutely can explain why the changes are due to natural mechanisms. That's exactly what I do in this thread:
Mutations Confirm Common Descent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-17-2022 4:13 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-17-2022 8:17 PM Taq has replied
 Message 543 by Dredge, posted 01-07-2023 11:50 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 524 of 1197 (902137)
11-18-2022 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 520 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-17-2022 8:17 PM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
You observed them since you had already concluded that the change is non intelligence...
That's ridiculous. If you looked at biology you would observe the very same things because its reality.
If you have to ignore reality in order to support your theory of ID then it isn't a theory. It is a fantasy.
Once again, I would like to reiterate that Evolution = change of freq alleles... The topic of Evolution is change. The scope of "change" must be studied, whether the change is limited/narrow or broad/wide. Because, every explanation in science must be correct and the falsification too must be correct AND all explanations must be real.
Why doesn't ID have to explain these things? Doesn't it have to be correct as well?
So where are the ID explanations for these observations?
1. The nested hierarchy
2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns.
3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons.
4. Transitional hominid fossils.
5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates.
Darwin and supporters of Evolution had chosen and concluded, that the change of freq alleles never uses intelligence, and the major mechanism is natural selection, and not intelligence nor intelligence selection.
What they found is that observations were consistent with natural processes. You don't have to rule out intelligence if you have evidence for natural processes. It's called parsimony.
quote:
For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.
--George Romanes, "The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.
Worse still, you have no ID explanation for these observations. Why do we see a nested hierarchy instead of some different pattern of diversity? You can't say. Evolution explains this pattern perfectly using known and observed natural processes.
Thus, if you are supporters of Evolution, you either deluded, or fooled by supporters of Evolution or deliberately deny reality, and uphold Evolution as a religion.
You are the one denying the reality of these observations:
1. The nested hierarchy
2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns.
3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons.
4. Transitional hominid fossils.
5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates.
ID is the Flat Earth theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-17-2022 8:17 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-18-2022 9:02 PM Taq has replied
 Message 549 by Dredge, posted 01-07-2023 12:32 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 525 of 1197 (902144)
11-18-2022 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-17-2022 8:19 PM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Evolution should be doing that before Evolution could conclude natural selection or intelligence has no part in biology.
Parsimony rules out intelligence. If science has evidence for a natural process it has no need to rule out a supernatural cause. We don't have to rule out invisible pink gravity fairies when a planetary orbit perfectly matches the orbit calculated from Newton's and Einstein's formulas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-17-2022 8:19 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by Dredge, posted 01-07-2023 12:36 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 527 of 1197 (902273)
11-21-2022 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 526 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-18-2022 9:02 PM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
1. ID is concern mainly in the topic of the kind or type of "change" since Darwin and supporters of Evolution had messed this difficult topic. So that Darwin and Evolutionists could continue their science explanations, they neglected the topic of intelligence and quickly concluded non-intelligence, or natural. To support their conclusion, they concluded Natural Selection, and not Intelligent Selection. By doing this, those ignorant supporters of Evolution really dismissed the topic of intelligence, concluding further that the change of frequency alleles are always non-intelligence or natural.
That's false. They discovered a natural process that explained the observations.
quote:
Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.
Once you discover a natural cause that is supported by mountains of evidence you accept the natural cause as the best explanation. You don't have to rule out the supernatural.
2. ID had discovered the actual topic of intelligence and non-intelligence, (it should be done first by Evolutionist) which means, any topic in Biology, like the topic of change, could now be categorized if the change is directed by intelligence or not. The conclusion was that the change of freq alleles is guided by intelligence, since life, is part or product of intelligence. To falsify this, critics must redefine intelligence with experiment, and fight side by side with ID.
That's as circular as it gets. Life is designed because life is designed? Really? That's all you have?
3. Then, ID has new model to compete with Biol Evolu. The new theory is Biological Interrelation, BiTs. The differences are very simple:
a. Evolution is dead on intelligence, thus, wrong, while BiTs knows about intelligence and is correct.
b. The change is intelligently guided change, since intelligence and its variant words are part of reality.

4. Now, Biological Interrelation had refuted almost all explanations from erroneous Evolution. Thus, any topic from Evolution are based on non-intelligence change a stupid conclusion from Evolutionists.
If ID is an actual scientific explanation, then it needs to explain these things, just to start:
1. The nested hierarchy
2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns.
3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons.
4. Transitional hominid fossils.
5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates.
You should also visit my other thread where I demonstrate that natural causes are behind the evolutionary changes:
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-18-2022 9:02 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-23-2022 3:05 AM Taq has replied
 Message 552 by Dredge, posted 01-07-2023 1:06 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024