Intelligent Design

[Joods]

Apparently ID is a farce. Someone in this house is NOT intelligent at all. At least not for today.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled postings.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Evolution does happen...so.......not exactly an assumption.  You have been describing the manner in which you take issue with the theory of evolution...not the fact of evolution.  What degree did you claim to be seeking, again?

Change is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. Neo-Darwinian evolution is far from fact.  Saying it is a fact does not make it a fact. And biology

You'll never prove that, all you can do is throw shit at those who doubt your design assertions.

If natural selection happened the way you say it did, then it would not have been through the top-down approach by which a human would design anything. Why do you think anyone would take such a backward approach, and take as much time as it would likely take for everything to happen on it's own? (according to the laws of physics and chemistry), to design and execute it all, and then do such a shitty job at it? Your position makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[The Grand Nudger]

Change is a fact. Natural selection is a fact.

..then QED.....

Neo-Darwinian evolution is far from fact.  Saying it is a fact does not make it a fact.

I thought that we were discussing the theory of evolution? I think that "neo-darwinian evolution" is a term for some cretinous non-science you've dreamt up as an effigy of straw.

And biology

...and biology..........what?

[Mystic]

I don't get why it's either keeping of good genes over bad mutations or good mutations can't have any role. Obviously, for good mutations to work, they have to get kept over time, and since majority of mutations are bad, of course, it's mostly natural selection working for to keep the good genes there. However that is not to say good mutations don't happen.

[JuliaL]

Evolution does happen...so.......not exactly an assumption.  You have been describing the manner in which you take issue with the theory of evolution...not the fact of evolution.  What degree did you claim to be seeking, again?

Change is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. Neo-Darwinian evolution is far from fact.  Saying it is a fact does not make it a fact. And biology

If in fact, humans, the designers you are using to infer design elsewhere, are the products of natural selection rather than ID, then their designs are also the products of natural selection once removed and you should infer the absence of ID in favor of natural selection.
How are you not question begging?

Was the fusion of ancestral chromosomes into the human chromosome 2 between the last common ancestor of chimps and humans also designed?
Was the GLO gene damage that necessitates vitamin C in the diet for (uniquely) humans also designed?

[robvalue]

He didn't count on running into people who know their shit.

I'm no scientist, but even I know when someone doesn't understand science/evolution.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

He didn't count on running into people who know their shit.

I'm no scientist, but even I know when someone doesn't understand science/evolution.

Yeah, maybe next he'll try starting a gunfight at a shooting range, where maybe nobody will know guns.

[JuliaL]

I don't get why it's either keeping of good genes over bad mutations or good mutations can't have any role. Obviously, for good mutations to work, they have to get kept over time, and since majority of mutations are bad, of course, it's mostly natural selection working for to keep the good genes there. However that is not to say good mutations don't happen.

In what sense are you calling mutations "good" or "bad?"
The only use of these terms in the context of evolution by natural selection is that "better" genes result in more offspring.
This is what is seen universally. 
The products of "worse" genes are less represented in future populations so we don't see them.
By saying "the majority of mutations are bad" you invert the inference to be made from these observations.  Mutations are not eliminated because they are "bad."  We call mutations bad because they are eliminated or good because they are kept.

[Old Baby]

Yeah... no, actually.
Figures. If you did know what I was talking about then you'd know I am right.
Meh, I'm bored, there is no longer a challenge, bring back Aristo and Pyrrho, you guys go at it. *burp*

Typical ID proponent. 

"You guys don't understand.  If you did you would know ID is right.  I win."

[AAA]

No I can't prove they were designed, but they share features with things that we know only arise from intelligent designer, such as interacting parts that work together to achieve a goal, and a specific sequence that holds information. Therefore I think the default conclusion should be that it was designed.

Can you prove that a designer is required for interacting parts to work together? I don't think you can, therefore your answer should default to "I don't know". If you are going to be a scientist, it's guaranteed you will not get far in any respectable scientific circles when you can't be that honest regarding what you do and don't know.

Can you prove that they evolved? No, there is no observable evidence that can be presented to prove either side. We have to compare the thing that we are trying to explain (a chemical code that produces a desired effect) based on our experience of such a phenomenon.

Bullshit - the evidence is all over the fossil record and heavily evident in genetic studies! Fossil evidence proves that life has progressed over 4 billion years from ultra-simple to very complex, and genetic studies prove the degree to which genes of a given species are related to their most similar cousin species - take your head out of your ass and google it for yourself!

It is true that I don't know for sure, but I'm not claiming that I am 100% correct, I am just claiming that the appearance of design is best explained by an intelligent agent. I don't know for sure, but neither do you.

The fossil record represents more of a stasis of organisms than smooth transitions or change. Many organisms are alive today that are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. Also don't say that there has ever been an ultra-simple life form found. There is nothing simple about any living organism. Scientists estimate that the simplest organisms would need to have around 270 genes in order to survive, and these are the low estimates. Genetic evidence doesn't necessarily support evolution either. Yes some things are more similar to each other than other things. Any time you compare more than two things, some of them will be more similar than others. It is a far stretch to say that this means they descended from a common ancestor or that one descended from the other. You would expect organisms with similar phenotypes to have more similar genotypes. This does not prove common ancestor or neo-Darwinian evolution.

Also stromatalites, which are the earliest fossil evidence of life to my knowledge are the same structures that are produced by organisms still alive today. The microbes that produce them today are exceedingly complex, which again should lead to the conclusion that the first life was exceedingly complex.