What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by jaywill
Recognition of design is an imperical skill to be learned. Intelligent Design then can classify as a scientific discipline.

Originally posted by jaywill
Right now, I am probing if the assumption of relationships of descent is the only interpretation of the evidence. What do you think?

Originally posted by jaywill
Errelevant to my point.

I don't think you understand my point let alone have to right to call it a Strawman.

You recognize design period. That is why you are objecting to a suggestion that an appendix is optimally designed.

Did I say an appendix was optimally designed? Where?
Did I say any other physiological part of any creature was optim ...[text shortened]... imperical skill to be learned. Intelligent Design then can classify as a scientific discipline.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Strawman!

Pray tell, what is the "optimality" about the appendix? It has no functionality, and often leads to disease.

It is not necessary to know perfection to know what is not perfect.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]It is not necessary to know perfection to know what is not perfect.
I know you can think more clearly than this, Louis.[/b]

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]So, somethings are designed, but some not? Doesn't sound like a very omniscient creator to me!

I understand your "point" perfectly. I understand all about IDs arguments, and they are false. ID will NEVER be a science, because it is impossible to test whether something was designed or not. For ID to be considered science, one of the tennents, desi ...[text shortened]... e quote whatever I wrote which led you to put those words into my mouth.

I expect specifics.

Where did I say some things were designed and some were not?

Try to get your facts straight before you challenge an evolutionary biologist on evolutionary biology.


I didn't twist or misunderstand any facts.

I pointed out that Punctuated Equilibrium is a certain view about how Evolution took place. If I did think there was no gradualism involved at all I would not have called it the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of Evolution.

I is still a theory of evolution and therefore punctuated gradualism is the concept. But the concept was invented to explain certain facts about the absence of the evidence of classical Darwinian gradualism.

So you say "Punctuated Equilbrium" is still gradualism bud. Fine, and it was formulated to interpret the facts of the evidence of the fossils.

I still don't see where you've explained that this formulation is the only possible theory that fits the facts.

Other theories might explain the lack of evidence of gradual directional change in the fossil record. Similarity of design is one rather than relationships of descent.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]Try to get your facts straight before you challenge an evolutionary biologist on evolutionary biology.


I didn't twist or misunderstand any facts.

I pointed out that Punctuated Equilibrium is a certain view about how Evolution took place. If I did think there was no gradualism involved at all I would not have called it the Punctuated ...[text shortened]... nge in the fossil record. Similarity of design is one rather than relationships of descent.[/b]

Originally posted by jaywill
Where did I say some things were designed and some were not?

Originally posted by rwingett
There are a lot of ridiculous people in the world.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, other than Darwinian evolution, what other [b]scientific explanation is there for the diversity of life on earth? As I have explained, ID is not, and can never be, science.[/b]

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree saying something was done in by design isn't easy, just as
hard as it is to say it wasn't done by design.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
When there is a mechanism which can explain the phenomenon which does not require a designer it is more parsimonious to say it was not done by design. We have that mechanism.

New member wading in without having gone through the previous 100+ pages. Aplogies if I brake any forum rules or conventions.

You still cannot explain where matter and energy came from. Any law that exists has a lawgiver. The laws of Physics point towards a lawgiver.

2 points:

1 - Sure there may have been an entity at the beginning who decided how the universe would work and what physical laws would define it, but that does not answer any questions at all, it just shifts them to another subject: where did the 'lawgiver' come from?

2 - Evolution is not an attempt to explain the laws of physics, just how the current diversity of life came about. It does not even claim to address the initial starting point of life, only how it developed from that starting point. Can we restrict the discussion to the original question about evolution please?

Just so you know my background, I have minimal knowledge of biology, physics and evolution: I am simply an interested, atheist, layperson so I'm sure there are planty with more informed opinions than my own on this forum.

My personal position is very similar to the christians on the list: they think that all but one of the several hundred religioins on the planet are wrong and I would simply up that number by 1.

--- Penguin