Originally posted by RJHindsand it is a "may" with strong DNA evidence to support it. And it is not atheistic propaganda for it says nothing about a god and you can believe in both evolution and there being a god albeit not rationally in this day of science and reason. You are totally delusional for believing it is deliberate propaganda against your God -as if those intelligent researches even care about some stupid religions nuts belief in Creationism while doing there research.
More Propaganda. The article used the word [b]MAY, numbnuts.
The Instructor[/b]
Originally posted by humyO ye of little faith
and it is a "may" with strong DNA evidence to support it. And it is not atheistic propaganda for it says nothing about a god and you can believe in both evolution and there being a god albeit not rationally in this day of science and reason. You are totally delusional for believing it is deliberate propaganda against your God -as if those intelligent res ...[text shortened]... s even care about some stupid religions nuts belief in Creationism while doing there research.
The Instructor
Originally posted by humySorry, but any creationist worth their salt could make the obvious observation that an intelligent designer would be likely to use some segments of DNA in more than one species. The fact that it requires a believer of the evolutionary principle to point this out for them says something about the creationists around here, but there you go.
and it is a "may" with strong DNA evidence to support it. And it is not atheistic propaganda for it says nothing about a god and you can believe in both evolution and there being a god albeit not rationally in this day of science and reason. You are totally delusional for believing it is deliberate propaganda against your God -as if those intelligent res ...[text shortened]... s even care about some stupid religions nuts belief in Creationism while doing there research.
One of the features of the intelligent design principle is that any explanation for the presence of an adaptation in terms of evolutionary advantage is also explainable in terms of a designer. This is a bad feature since it makes intelligent design indistinguishable from evolution in terms of the predictions it makes. Worse they accept micro-evolution, so examples of "evolution in action", like the moth which changed from being black to white as a result of the passing of the Clean Air Act (1956), don't act as the crushing counter-examples we'd like them to be.
In general they reject the notion that new species can emerge through processes of natural selection. Abiogenesis being a separate issue. This is important to them since it's Darwin they are after and his theory was for "the Origin of Species". However, since speciation has been observed in drosophila, I don't feel that that position is tenable unless they intend to argue that the observed mating preferences do not constitute speciation.
Since the predictions of the two theories are to all intents and purposes identical, then we only have recourse to Occam's Razor. The theory of Intelligent Design requires a designer and this makes it the less parsimonious approach; the modern theory of Darwinian evolution does not require unobserved ingredients.
I'd regard this as meaning that the creationists are left arguing against abiogenisis since Darwin's theory is left standing. Really they should accept that any sane designer would just design the universe so natural selection produces species for them and take the rest of eternity off.
01 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtGood post. I agree with all of what you say there especially the bit about Occam's razor.
Sorry, but any creationist worth their salt could make the obvious observation that an intelligent designer would be likely to use some segments of DNA in more than one species. The fact that it requires a believer of the evolutionary principle to point this out for them says something about the creationists around here, but there you go.
One of the rse so natural selection produces species for them and take the rest of eternity off.
01 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyOkay, now can we all agree there is no proof for evilution (macroevolution) and we have not eliminated the need for an orignal designer to create the first species of each kind?
Good post. I agree with all of what you say there especially the bit about Occam's razor.
The Instructor
01 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyIt fits your religious beliefs! You can call it your worldview if it makes you feel better. I know how people like you hate being told that you actually have a 'religious belief'. You'll attack anyone who is willing to actually say it. lol
Good post. I agree with all of what you say there especially the bit about Occam's razor.
01 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNo. We rational people, that have no religion or faith, know evolution is scientifically proven by the physical evidence.
Okay, now can we all agree there is no proof for evilution (macroevolution) and we have not eliminated the need for an orignal designer to create the first species of each kind?
The Instructor
02 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNo you've missed my point. There is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution, including evidence straight from DNA analysis of genetic mechanisms for speciation. This does not rule out an intelligent designer, since they would presumably put such mechanisms in place. However your claim of "there is no proof" betrays your lack of understanding of science - we amass evidence and find a theory (which may or may not have anything to do with reality) which can then be disproved. If the theory cannot be disproved then it stands. Since you cannot provide proof that the theory of the Origin of Species through Natural Selection is wrong it stands. Although I am forced to admit that so does intelligent design. It is natural for scientists to prefer the more parsimonious theory and that one belongs to Darwin.
Okay, now can we all agree there is no proof for evilution (macroevolution) and we have not eliminated the need for an orignal designer to create the first species of each kind?
The Instructor
02 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtA society that is parsimonious in its personal charity (in terms of both time and money) will require more government welfare. —William J. Bennett, The Death of Outrage, 1998
No you've missed my point. There is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution, including evidence straight from DNA analysis of genetic mechanisms for speciation. This does not rule out an intelligent designer, since they would presumably put such mechanisms in place. However your claim of "there is no proof" betrays your lack of understanding of science ...[text shortened]... natural for scientists to prefer the more parsimonious theory and that one belongs to Darwin.
There is absolutly no evidence of macroevolution (EVIL_LUTION).
The Instructor
02 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsEven by your moronic standards, that has got to be one of your stupidest responses.
A society that is parsimonious in its personal charity (in terms of both time and money) will require more government welfare. —William J. Bennett, The Death of Outrage, 1998
There is absolutly no evidence of macroevolution (EVIL_LUTION).
The Instructor
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parsimony
“....
par·si·mo·ny
n.
1. Unusual or excessive frugality; extreme economy or stinginess.
2. Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor.
...”
Obviously the second meaning was meant in DeepThought post.
Originally posted by humyThen you are really referring to Occum's Razor and I already responded to that on another tread with the following:
Even by your moronic standards, that has got to be one of your stupidest responses.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parsimony
“....
par·si·mo·ny
n.
1. Unusual or excessive frugality; extreme economy or stinginess.
2. Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor.
...”
Obviously the second meaning was meant in DeepThought post.
You forget that Occam's razor is only a guide and not foolproof. It can mislead you into believing a lie.
http://www.yesiknowthat.com/uncanny-world-of-occams-razor/
The Instructor