Let's see some evidence
 

If you have links to resources which describe certifiable, physical evidence FOR creationism, please post it here.

Go on.

Not necessarily creationism but a site that argues for intelligent design.

http://www.arn.org/

hahahaha here we go.....welcome to the party

how did I know it was going to be about creationism just from the topic

There's a school district here in southern PA that has just decided to include this intelligent design nonsense as part of the school curriculum.

Enough with this "Evolution is just a theory" crap. Evolution is a scientific fact. That doesn't mean it's 100% right all of the time; rather that makes it available for changes as new evidence comes to light, but it's currently the best idea we have. Religion was a great working theory 2000 years ago when everybody was afraid of his/her own shadow, but it's nonsense now.

Science is a process that always changes over time as more evidence is collected.
Religion is dogmatic superstition that can never be verified and seldom changes.

Give it up.

Duck and Cover!

*dives behind the edit button*

INCOMING!!!!!

I believe the OP asked for actual evidence.

God of the Gaps arguments do not constitute evidence.

Anyone else hear the crickets chirping away?

What do you mean? Its right there in the bible! Then later on it says its ok to kill every man woman and child of another nation, take their virgins and posessions for yourself, and enslave any remaining survivors. (Numbers 31) Don't you people know anything? sheesh... :crazy:

So, you demand absolute evidence to believe in something? I hope you never get into a serious relationship. . .

Evidence is for n00bs.

yes. if I said I had 3 testicles you'd want a picture of it to see it to believe it, depending on which way you swing

Actually, I'd take your word for it. At that point, I figure if I was gay and was in a relationship with you I'd find out sooner or later. Since I'm straight I'd never really care to find out if you were lying or not.

But why would you lie about having three testicles? Most people lie about things like my penis is 10 inches long or I've screwed every girl I've met including all my babysitters.

Using that as a metaphor for religion, there are some religious claims that can be determined probably not true. But I believe that there is something beyond the physical in this world. I don't see why science can not be applied to all things metaphysical as well as physical.

This reminds me of the scene in the movie contact when Ellie tells Palmer that in order for her to believe in God, she needed some kind of verifiable proof.

Palmer - "Proof.. Did you love your father?"
Ellie - "Yes, very much so."
Palmer - "Prove it."

There are just some things in life that are beyond the realm of being rationally explainable.

I don't know if there's a God. I am not naive enough to believe that one day I'll be able to know for certain whether he is there or not.

In a related note, I've become more and more fascinated with the subject of ghosts. If they actually do exists, it would pretty much prove substance dualism is real and would therefore legitimize the idea that a higher power might just be at work!

:thumbsup:

Both the Porsche and the Volkswagen have a rear mounted air cooled engine, yadda yadda [many other similarities].
So why would a "car for the people" commissioned by the Nazis share so much in common with a sports car?

They have the same designer!

[much blather about genetic similarity, a smattering of corrupt information theory, and a little bit of thermodynamics for seasoning].

I don't really have the strength to do it right... the argument is archived on talkorigins.org, so you can look there for the relevant talking points (and rebuttal).

Mmmm....virgins....

If it contradicts consistent evidence to the contrary, yes.

Well, actually you can show someone you love them by actions. Additionally love can be measured as a biochemical response.

Finally, we've indirectly observed love.

Oh, and also, isn't this thread about ID and not 'God'? I thought that's how creationists were trying to sneak ID in the educational door by claiming that the 'designer' didn't have to be "God"??

I see that as a different question then the OP, actually.

Yes, it would legitimize dualism, but not necessarily the idea of a higher power.

Then again, I don't accept dualism or qualia, so, eh.

True.

Yeah, but the analogy between cars and people fails because cars don't give birth and thus couldn't participate in evolution.

True that.

Some of the ID claims and arguments are difficult to answer - most of them however stem from a failure to understand the processes and lengths of time involved.

For example, the (pre)Cambrian 'Explosion' is used by them as an example of an argument against traditional Darwinism. The same period is used by pro-evolutionists (like Dawkins for example) to demonstrate the way evolution works in flat fitness landscapes.

I'm suprised no-one has introduced the idea of a fitness landscape into any of these evolutionary discussions since it provides the tools required to understand the complicit migration of entities functioning within complex systems from less to more diverse states. However, I guess we're all pretty much preaching to the converted here.

Using this method explains some of the sticking points IDists have with evolutionary theory as they see it, including the similarities between creatures (the Porsche/Beetle argument) the no-intermediate-evidence argument and the gradualism/catastophism argument.

I thought the point of all that was that people (and all the other living things) don't participate in evolution in any significant way, either... and all the grand scale things attributed to evolution and common ancestry are instead due to a common intelligent designer. So the fact that cars can't participate in evolution is irrelevant, as the argument doesn't invoke evolution at any point (except to lampoon it).

Cars don't evolve, yet still demonstrate morphological similiarities based on a common intelligent designer. Ergo, morphological similarities in, say, mammals could also be taken as evidence of a common intelligent designer. Cars not being able to evolve is the point.

Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
Response:

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil which is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they couldn't be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil which shows a mosaic of features from an older and a more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

Fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa [Pearson et al. 1997]. O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature is added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay [1997].

3. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil.). [Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978]

4. Planktonic forminifera [Malmgren et al. 1984]. This is an example of "punctuated gradualism." A 10-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

5. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost 2 million years which includes a record of a speciation event. [Miller 1999, 44-45]

6. Lake Turkana mollusc species [Lewin 1981].

7. Cenozoic marine ostracodes [Cronin 1985].

8. The Eocene primate genus Cantius [Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983].

9. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change. [Ward and Blackwelder 1975; Pojeta and Springer 2001]

10. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior. [Stanley 1974]

11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic [Hallam 1968].

Fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking. [Richmond and Strait 2000]

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors [Tchernov et al. 2000]. Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs related to Haasiophis [Caldwell and Lee 1997].

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but, unlike snakes, they don't have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards. [Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000; Caldwell and Lee 1997]

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced [Domning 2001a, 2001b].

Fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features which connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement which is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusc's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusc's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive molluscs, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia. [Conway Morris 1998, 185-195]

2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found, intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes [Shu et al. 2004].

Of course god exists! He invented referer spoofing so that I'd have enough porn.

As Fibrosa dutifully pointed out, a lot of these responses seem to be drifting toward the question of the existance of God. This is, of course, not the question I asked. I originally started this thread in search of the fabled "loads of physical evidence" for the creation story in the christian bible that was cited by one or two of the participants in that thoroghly enjoyable thread, "creation vs evolution in schools".
Once or twice the claim was made that both 'thoeries' had evidence, and was then followed up with precisely no evidence. I'd like to give everyone a chance to present this physical evidence.
I'm not necessarily doing this because I believe there will be no positive responses (ie: i'm not trying to prove a flogged-to-death point), although I have to admit that a distinct lack of evidence is what I expected. However the main reason I started this is that I'm genuinely interested as to what physical evidence there is for the christian creation story, so come on guys, prove me wrong! I'm losing enthusiasm for your side of the argument very quickly.

Whats this got to do with anything anyway man?

If you wanted specifically that, then you should have asked for that, leaving out "fabled" and the quotes around "loads of physical evidence". And leaving out the taunt "Go on." at the end of your post would have helped too. You were asking for exactly what you got.

The scare quotes were appropriate due to the fact that what was being refferred to does not actually exist.

Can we stop fighting and address the question? Is there evidence for Creationism? I don't think there is as I have never seen it. I think Creationism is far too involved in faith to have physical evidence.

So if he put quotes around it because it dosen't exist, why is he asking for evidence that he has already decided didn't exist? If he was really "not necessarily doing this because [he] believe[s] there will be no positive responses" is sure dosen't sound like it.
I was basically saying that if Lak really wanted the serious replies he says he wanted, he needs to unload his questions. With the quotes and taunt he is just going to discourage those who might actually go look find some sources to link to. I know it discouraged me from looking around the net for some links to post.

Fair.
Addressing some stuff:
1) The taunt was trying to incite responses, clearly it had the opposite effect in at least one case. My bad.
2) The quotes around "loads of physical evidence" were there because its a quote! The phrase was used by another member in the Creation vs Evolution in School thread. to be fair the exact words may have been "lots of" as opposed to "loads of", but these are not scare quotes, they're actual quotes. I shall look it up presently.
3) Yes, I (almost) expect no evidence to surface. But I would really, REALLY like some to. So in closing
- Yes, I beleive there is no evidence BUT
- No, I'm not just trying to prove a point.
I hope that has clarified my motives and my question and I apologise for not being clear in the first instance.

- Lak

Neither ID nor creationism are viable scientific theories, as they do not address how the mechanism for change occurs.

All either of them do is point to 'supposed' gaps in evolution and then attempt to argue that because evolution doesn't *currently* explain the gap that it will never explain the gap, and therefore by way of non-sequitor, ID is required.

It's bad science and bad logic.

Here is a question for you. If you don't believe in God then why do you care what creationists believe? Why do you need to try to say they are wrong? I understand why relegious people try to spread their beleifs (they are trying to save others) but why would you even bother with your time? Do you have something to prove? Do you feel that as long as someone else is out there believing that maybe they are right and that scares you?

If you want proof of God open your eyes. You will not see what you do not want to see. I see God and his work almost daily because I let myself see it. I don't deny him every chance I get.

Example: 2 Days ago I started reading a book called "The Purpose Driven Life" It is a book about God's plan for you and how to life your life to his plan. This book works by reading 1 chapter a day for 40 days. Chapter 2 is where I was for the day. The chapter was about "You are not an accident" Later that day some friends gave me my Christmas gift and this gift was a new bible. The bible was in a sealed box. I opened up the box. This bible has a built in bookmark so I decided to open to that bookmark and see if there was a message. On this page that I opened to there was only 11 versus total on the page. But it just so happens that one of those 11 versus was the exact verse from the other book I was reading.

Now you tell me the odds of this happening. Open to a page in the bible marked by someone else randomly (Probably a machine somewhere). Has the exact verse out of 11 on the page that was in the same chapter that I was reading on that very day in another book. This other book only has about 4 versus in it per page. Now combine that with the fact that the verse talks about things not being accidents.

You want proof that there is proof for me. If you perfer to use science to say that is just silly then do it. It doesn't harm me. Science is just another relegion. Remember science is always being changed to be correct as we find out it is wrong. The earth WAS Flat, the earth WAS the center of the universe. Science is great but remember just like all things you need to take it with a grain of salt.

Yesterday, my wife bought me a book. I opened it to a random page, and everything about the words on the page were utterly unremarkable in respect to whatever else is happening in my life. I bought a book a couple weeks ago... again, utterly unremarkable- absolutely nothing coincidental. Also, when I was at the store a few days ago, I didn't run into someone I went to highschool with years ago. I've also telephoned a few people in the past and quite expectedly, they were not just about to call me when I called them.

Though here is something miraculous... the exact same sort of thing happened to me, too!
I was a reputed atheist in highschool (though it was not, and is not the case), and I'd occassionally get cornered for religious/science themed discussions by this one girl. She was incredibly smart and her parents were super-strict Church of Christ.
In my opinion, she was using me as a foil to poke holes in her faith because she wasn't comfortable doing it herself, but that's neither here nor there. Occassionally, she'd invite me to her church and ask me what I thought about it afterwards. So it was pretty friendly as far as adversarial framed relationships go.

I doubt the first book she gave me was "The Purpose Driven Life", but it sounds pretty similar as far as format is concerned. A few days later she also gave me a Bible and went through this little spiel about how she liked to open it at the bookmark or randomly, blah blah- which we did. Lo and behold, it was the same general topic as in the other book she'd given me. Amazing! Jesus at work? No, it was her, as she admitted when I called her on it.

Maybe they've honed the technique since then, or maybe in your instance it is truly a coincidence, but, if you don't mind, how did you acquire these two books? Who knew you had the first one? And why did you open a "christmas present" 20 days early?

The only reason you noticed though is because of the coincidence.10 000 people could of opened to the same page and read the same book and never noticed.

"I had the most remarkable experience this evening. While coming here, I saw licence plate ANZ 912. Calculate for me, please, the odds of all the licence plates in the sate of Washington I should happen to see ANZ 912" - Richard Feynman.

Because we think that Creationism is willful ignorance. Ignorance is everyone's enemy. Plus, you guys might be right so we would be stupid if we refused to listen. What's wrong with that?

It can be but it is not for most people.
The earth was never flat or the center of the universe, people just thought it was. Just because you belive a thing doesn't make it so.

Exactly so why does everyone believe science is the ultimate truth. Talk to scientists they will be the first to say that they are working with theories that constantly need to be revamped. They are trying to describe the world through observation but we are always observing different things many times we observe things that contradict what we found out then we revise our theories.

How do we know the speed of light? How do we know traveling at the speed of light is impossible? We don't. For the longest time the atom was the smallest possible building block but now we find out it is quarks. How long until we find something smaller than quarks?

If you are asking for concreate proof of anything you might want to stick to I think therefore I am because beyond that nothing is certain.

Most proof for creationism that I have seen has basically been along the lines of ruling out other possibilities, leaving intelligent design as the remaining possibility. Therefore, I would accept the original link the 'evidence' pile. The remaining evidence is indeed the Bible, which does not satisfy scientists as there is no known litmus test for its truth or falsehood.

Pure creationism is nearly impossible to defend, as a 7 day-long creation would not leave the fossil record as it is.

'Guided' evolution actually works better with current data than pure evolution, as it sidesteps problems from gaps and why would sexual animals ever come into existence when that mutation would require a creature of the same species and opposite gender (interesting mutation!) to reproduce.

I personally believe in a higher power who had a hand in creation, but from the fossil record it looks like He must have done it over a long period of time.

You're confusing sexual reproduction with sexual dimorphism. Two genders are not a prerequisite to sexual reproduction, merely a way by which to exchange/combine genetic material.

Ah, true, I suppose. The jump to multicellular organisms is another thing I always wondered about, since it seems to me that cells that do not separate after division would not have any natural advantage.

Who told you I don't beleive in God eh?

As I have tried to clarify in the previous n posts, I would GENUINELY LIKE TO SEE EVIDENCE FOR CREATION.
There is no other motive, in spite of what I think.

Evolution is a theory
Creationisim is a theory

both equally plausable in my book. I make my choice between the two as a choice of faith. When it comes down to it - what can you be 100% sure of?

Here's my view and it was adopted after what my former High School Biology teacher told the class. He said that there is both Creationism and Evolution. For example. Mitochondrian, our little power houses, have a different set of DNA. They are the reason we have so much energy. These little guys just didn't find their way into our cells. They were put there by someone. I am having a hard time expressing what i mean in words.

Sorry if what i wrote is a little hard to understand i am kind of tired.

Disagreed. This was covered quite well in the Evolutionism vs Creationism in Schools thread. I'm kinda off topic tho, sorry.

So when human geneticists step in and change the genetic makeup of a plant for whatever reason, do we label it as a 'creation' or an 'evolution'?

If it's so easy for a human, and we haven't disproven the existence of an intelligent superior being or alien race intervening in a similar fashion does that not open the possibility for it to have occurred?
By Creationism though, I assume you mean the world being created in 7 days and not an active involvement by an intelligent being that sets off or seeds the planet with its diversity of life. Right?
In that regard I am going to vote against it because of the inaccuracies and lack of understanding of those involved in the generation of the record. ('record' = Genesis or other creation myths)

Neither. I would label that 'fuckery', and maintain that it is something different entirely.

Both aren't equally plausable as creationism was actually falsified 150 years ago.

Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism can merely sound scientific.

That's the difference. If you want to believe in mythology, then pick one of the thousands of creation stories-just don't try to get it taught in public school as science.

Ah. A person with scientific credentials to match mine.

Without individuals there is no evolution. The argument fails because it doesn't take into consideration that such morphological changes could be due to random mutations that are naturally selected for.

It's premise is you look at a computer and it couldn't have arrived by chance-which is exactly what Paley's argument was almost 200 years ago.

It is actually intellectually dishonest to equate evolution with this because evolution is not a random process-it works off of random mutation, yes-but natural selection is the mechanism that increases the complexity of organisms over time.

That's why if you look at the fossil record things go from simple (such as algea) to complex (such as us) over billions of years.

With ID, there isn't any real reason why this should be.

Basically this argument assumes it's conclusion.

The problem with this is that animals can have children and therefore the morphological similarities can be attributed to descent with modification. Additional lines of evidence, such as DNA/Psuedogenes and retroviral inserts positively demonstrate descent with modification.

The ID response to these things? There isn't a good one.

Humans have evolved in the last 40 years. End of argument.

We label it evolution because the scientists are just artificially selecting what mutations will be passed on. They aren't pointing at a cellular structure, waving a magic wand and saying 'ah-ha, now it's irreducibly complex'!

Where are you getting this notion for it being easy??

Also, technically ID isn't falsifiable-so disproof is a moot point. You should realize this though, after all, every line of evidence that we could present for ID's falsifiability could be explained by 'the intelligent designer planned it that way' or some such nonsense.

What I can show you is some incidents of horrible design in the animal world, would that convince you?

Either one, really, as neither are science and both are trying to get pseudoscience in the classroom.

How about the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 give two completely different creation stories?

:)

Those energy sources evolved.

What your teacher was doing was arguing from ignorance-which is what ID thrives off of-it works like this:

Science is continually learning new things, because of which we do not have complete knowledge of biological systems and their evolution (after all, we've only been looking for 150 years, and things have been evolving for 3.5 billion!). So when an IDer does his/her research, which consists of scanning other people's actual research, they attempt to find something that science hasn't currently figured out yet. When an IDer does find something that fits the bill, they instantly say "ah-ha, ______ couldn't have evolved and it's irreducibly complex, therefore it was ID". When the structure's evolution is explained (as with what happened with blood-clotts) the IDer scrambles to find another similar structure.

It's an effort in dishonesty really.

Exactly.
Until we get someone from on high or with a grey skin popping up to claim responsibility, it's a nice story to appease those without the background to comprehend ALL the aspects of a scientific reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the DNA to create mitochondria reside within each human? I mean, everything we are comes from the sharing of two sets of DNA. Right?
It's not like wa all have to have a mitochondrial DNA injction at birth.

Mitochondrions are basically highly specialized bacteria with their own DNA and chromosomes living within every one of our cells. Our DNA is completely different from theirs. The current theory is that at some point in evolution, some aerobic bacteria were absorbed by a eukaryotic cell and ended up using it for its power source.

On the subject of humans "evolving" within the past 40 years, this is a different kind of evolution than the kind under question. Having certain genotypes (eg tall) prevail in a species because it is advantageous for one reason or another is *very* different than creating a new species. Creating a new species is a much much more complicated affair, and what Creationists have the hardest time accepting.

Oh yeah, well! Your argument fails because it doesn't take into account that such morphological changes could be due to the tinkering of an intelligent designer. So nyah!

Seriously, though. I really don't see how this comment responds to anything I've said, or really makes any kind of point at all. "Ah, your alternative to evolution fails because it doesn't include evolution."

Who implied that computers (or pocket watches, if you prefer) arrived by chance?

Agreed. Why did you bother to quote my post if you appear to make no response to it?

Algae aren't simple, nor are mammals terribly complex. That whole "golden ladder" misconcept has been out of vogue for a while, BTW. The reason pregressively new and more interesting things show up is because, just as we observe in manufacturing and technology, new information builds on previous information. "Lower" lifeforms had to be designed and tested and tweaked before "Higher" level designs could be presented and modified.

By "this argument" do you mean your own, or your other argument that you inexplicably try to ascribe to me?

Can be. Can also be attributed to common design. "Evolution! Evolution! Rah! Rah! Rah!" is not a convincing counterargument.

Tinkering ;)

Prior to birth, actually. All your mitochonrdia are descended from the original population present in the ovum that was fertilized (sperm do not generally carry any mitochondria) and eventually grew into you.

Mitochondria do indeed have their own DNA, seperate from the DNA present in the nucleus that deals with the rest of the cell. They pretty much go about their own lives within the specialized environment of the cytoplasm. Much the same can be said of chloroplasts.

that sounds like something i like to call a 'coincedence.' you know, where two things happen randomly but intersect in a way that makes you say 'whoah' <feel free to imagine it being said by keanu reeves>.

you see god everywhere because you choose to. not necessarily because he/she/it's there. i used to play dark age of camelot a lot... after a while, i was dreaming it, and if i was on a 3 day sleepless streak, i'd see it. and even when well rested, i'd hear things or see things and it'd make me think of the game...

the point is that since you spend so much time thinking about it anyways, you're going to see it everywhere you go. kinda like the 50 year old janitor that used to work in my building who saw racism wherever he went. i'd talk with him and he'd tell me all these stories and it always came down to the fact that he was being victimized because he was black. but there was no evidence in his stories to back that up. just conclusions.

you see what you want to see whether it's there or not.

people believe in science because it doesn't claim to have all the answers. it merely states that it is trying to find the answer that best fits the question. when a new answer is found that fits the question better, the old answer is discarded. as technology advances new information becomes available. this leads to the modification or complete change of theories. this allows us to explain things to best of our abilities based on observable falsifiable information.

creationism/ID doesn't allow that because it has the answer and will more often modify the question to fit the answer.

one is science, the other isn't.

I see. Maybe I'm missing an implied point here, but... what are your credentials?

Aside from such non-major classes as Microbiology at uni I have none. I was commenting on the obvious (to me) lack of scientific argument in the word 'fuckery'. ;)

Aha, yes. Indeed, it was meant to be more amusing than scientific :)
EDIT - oh and you're right - I have no credentials either. But hey, I'm first-year, I'm workin' on it ;)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ieving_atheist

I also agree, having learned much about biochemistry in my ongoing studies.

And by agree, I mean I agree with the part on how life is so amazingly complex at the molecular level that even over the amount of time that the earth was sitting around before life arose it probably would require an intelligent designer of some kinds.

The amount of genetic material that has to be *just right* in order for a cell to function at even the most basic level is mind boggling.

It means you assumed your conclusion.

No one; that's why the IDer's use it as an example. It's flawed though because watches/computers have no mechanisms for change, whereas naturalistic evolution does.

Because I thought I'd elaborate on it.

This is different from what I said in what fashion?

The ID argument.


How so?

Had I offered that argument you might have a point.


Via what mechanism?


Also, I guess that does away with an omniscient God as the designer then.

Really? Through what mechanism?

So pseudogenes serve a purpose?

Additionally there is nothing in evolution that denies complexity. The more a type of organism evolves the more complex it can become.

Here's what my father, a Ph. D. in Biology says - he was raised Catholic.

"ID has no place in science class, if, for no other reason alone than the fact that it is not science- it's theology. You don't teach the pathagorean theorum in english class."

What we have here is a classification error. Too many people, on both sides of the argument, are getting involved in the schematics of details and not getting anywhere. ID advocates have to calm down and realize that most of us arn't attacking whether it should be taught, but rather where it should be taught. That said, I see no harm in trying to get ID into part of our school's already existing theology curriculum. Append it to the classes that already teach about Bhuddism, Christianity, Native American Polytheism, etc...

On another note: ID is for losers.

"And by agree, I mean I agree with the part on how life is so amazingly complex at the molecular level that even over the amount of time that the earth was sitting around before life arose it probably would require an intelligent designer of some kinds." - originally posted by mo

I think you fail to grasp quite how much time we're dealing with. Life isn't so amazingly complex- especially on the molecular level. The simple structures that a cell is made of exist and occur naturally outside of life. The phospholipid bilayer (cell wall) for example, occurs naturally in aquatic environments without any foriegn influence. When you begin to understand the various modules that comprise a cell, you begin to understand that the development of life isn't quite so unnatural at all. It's rather quite natural. You could argue however, that this only is part of the grand 'design'. I could argue however, that this message is a banana.

So, would that mean that proponents of evolution also assume their conclusion by failing to include the actions of an intelligent designer or some all-powerful deity in their scenarios?

Of course not. I really am not following your reasoning on this point at all.

Ummm. Watches and computers have changed considerably since thier initial invention. From Babbage's initial designs or buckets with holes & full of sand, quite a few changes have occurred.

Oh, well. Don't let me stop you, begin whenever you're ready.

It doesn't invoke evolution.

Thus the question: If you're not responding to what I've said, why have you bothered to quote me?

By noting that designed objects of a given type share similarities in a way that can be viewed as equivalent to the genetic similarity of living things. The similarity in the case of known designed objects arrises from their common designer... If we see a similar pattern in other objects, we may posit that these objects are also designed.

If we remove your comments to "The ID Argument" fnord all that is left that could legitimately be crafted in response to my argument are fanboyish praise of evolution and the wonders it has wrought. If you offer some other response to my comments (and, note, not to "The ID Argument" fnord) feel free to point it out, because I've been having some trouble finding it.

Whatever mechanism was necessary. Presumably genetic engineering in the case of living things.

The identity of the designer is irrelevant.

Amino acids can be synthesized by a sparker and some ammonia and CO2 in a water bath. Phospholipids, I'm not so sure on existing in a primodial soup; they are VERY high energy compounds that are not thermodynamically favorable. Another major problem is ribose/deoxyribose, both of which are essential to any kind of nucleic acid chain, and are also non-occuring in a theoretical primordial soup. You simply can't create any form of life that we know of without them, and this is the greatest stumbling block for modern origin-of-life theorists.

Then you get into salt concentrations, probability of getting a ribosome or something that could sythesize proteins (ribosomes for simple prokaryotes are 1500 and 2900 nucleotides in length and are highly conserved sequences among all prokaryotes, indicating it's been like that for a looooong time) and that would require something to produce it, since it'd get hydrolyzed fairly easily. So it's really quite tricky to theorize how life could have originated evolutionarily.

Again, I think you fail to grasp the timeframe we're dealing with here. The compounds you describe are the final result of a gradual development. The use of ribose/deoxyribose, amino acids, phospholipids, etc. didn't have to happen at once or even at all.

yep... a good example would be virus' (virii?). they are not considered to be living, but they definatly aren't dead. they're almost animated, replicating proteins. i wouldn't be surprised if they are a link between the proteins formed in the primordial ooze and the first super-simple organism.

Since you bring it up, please tell us all how to test for ID, as opposed to assuming it.

Apparently.

Seriously, are you intentionally missing the point? Watches do not give birth to more watches, therefore there could be no naturalistic way for descent with modification. There are no mutations that could be naturally selected.

Therefore it's not a good analogy, because watches have to be designed and you can't just assume that nature does because that's the question that is attempting to be answered.

Unfortunately for the IDers evolution *does* explain the changes and does show us descent with modification.

There is no legitimate reason to invoke ID anymore, that reason ended with Darwin, who destroyed Paley's watchmaker argument.

I actually had to reread what you said. You are right, and I misread you initially.

It seems you perfer the magical creation of individual animals, instead of descent with modification and birth. After all, watches aren't born, nor is new technology. In fact, new technology doesn't come from old technology, as in you don't add the digital components to your hourglass, you update a design and create from totally new materials.

So in order to be a good analogy, you have to show this or, as I said from the beginning, the fact that watches can't have kids totally destroys your appealing to watches and designers.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were using the ID argument peddled by Behe, Dempski and Co. I wasn't aware that you had your own.

Since you do, please tell me the mechanism for change and all your current research into the subject.

Yeah, it can be viewed in any number of ways, my question is, is there any logical/rational reason for viewing it this way.

Also, if this were actually true, then why do we have retroviral inserts that we share with primates? Why do we have pseudogenes?

How does it show that we came from a common designer? According to your argument it would logically follow that there would be only one type of automotive manufacturer.

But alas, we have honda, ford, etc, etc.

Also, we have no reason to assume these objects were designed in the first place and many reasons to assume otherwise (including witnessing speciation and the twin nested heirarches).

What's ID got? God of the gaps and arguments from ignorance? That's not science.

Please present "your" ID argument.

(Fanboyish praise of evolution? It's just a respect for modern science. I wonder what other modern science you reject...)

And there you go, case closed, you have no mechanism. A weak appeal to genetic engineering, which doesn't actually constitute a mechanism.

Without a mechanism we can substitute the word 'magic' for design. I hope it is obvious to you that ID is just an empty appeal to ignorance and is not actual science.

Unless of course you don't think that science should be in the business of...you know, actually explaining things. I suppose it's much easier to point and say "God did it" or "aliens did it" or "an intelligent designer did it" then put in the sufficient elbow grease to actually figure out the phenomenon.

Additionally by your lack of a mechanism (and don't feel bad, no IDers have any) you implicitedly admit that evolution is more parsimonious then ID. Additionally the facade of ID being actual science is exposed as ID doesn't explain anything, it relies completely and utterly on an argument from ignorance-we don't (currently) know how this system was designed and therefore 'poof' it's magic brought to us via the common designer.

Yeah, keep believing that when the majority of IDers are Christians (or Raelians).

Viruses are not replicating proteins. They use either DNA or RNA, like every single other thing on this planet that can replicate given appropriate conditions.

Both DNA and RNA require a ribose or deoxyribose backbone; it's what holds the base pairs together. Furthermore, it requires a high concentration of divalent cations (eg Mg2+) to prevent the negatively charged phosphorus groups from tearing the molecule apart.

Ribose is not something that just shows up, in order to produce it requires at least five separate large enzyme complexes, which normally exist closely together within a cell. The fact that there are more proteins 100 amino acids in length (which is smaller than any of the enzymes which are required for ribose production) than there are protons in the universe (20^100) I think at least gives *some* weight to the idea that maybe there might be some kind of designing force in the universe.

maybe it's just me, but i'd call entering a cell and using it to reproduce itself reproduction. but now that i think about it a bit more, it isn't a good example because it does need the cell to reproduce. so if virii came before the cell, then they had to get the mechanism of reproduction from somewhere else and i'm really not sure where that could be. which would lead to the conclusion that cells came before the virus.

There is a simple mechanism, and can be provided by an intelligent force with only moderate power. What needs to be provided is a small amount of kinetic force, guiding specific molecules together. Moving molecules together in just the right fashion can lead to the beginnings of life, and also guide mutations, if the being desired it.

Unlikely, you say? Yes, I'll admit that. But the likelihood of things like ribose, any protein with any use, or deoxyribose looks even less likely to me. Even over the course of 3 billion years.

First you need an adequate supply of amino acids (and they are not very plentiful on our planet outside of current life forms; you'd be working with exceedingly low percentages), and then you'd need those amino acids to spontaneously join together in a chain (not particularly likely; water will degrade cleave a protein into its individual components over a relatively short amount of time) and this chain would have to fold into an enzyme capable of catalyzing ribose production. You would need other enzymes to continue the ribose creation process, using the products of the original enzyme complex. In order to get a protein with this function, a very specific protein would have to be formed from the amino acids.

Modern organisms require at least 8 enzymes for ribose production (just looked that one up again) from products that might exist in small quantities in the primoridal soup. These enzymes average to be about 300 amino acids in length. Even assuming there was somehow a better enzyme that existed in the soup that was only 50 amino acids long, the odds of that 50 amino acid chain being created is one in 20^50, which comes out to 11 with 64 zeroes after it. A billion has 9 zeroes after it. Odds are freaking low for the "random amino acids came together to make good proteins which made components for RNA and then RNA came together in useful chains that were capable of catalyzing replication which eventually graduated into DNA" theory.

The current theory is that free-floating RNA predated the cell, and eventually managed to end up inside of a phospholipid bilayer, and managed to replicate inside and have the bilayer split into multiple cells. In order for a cell to split, it would require centromeres (proteins that attach to polymer threads in the cell to make each DNA copy go to the daughter cells) on its genetic material, all sorts of structural proteins and polymers to facilitate division, and the capability to synthesize more of each of the respective proteins, and nucleotide chains.

Well, first you'd need to identify groups of designed objects.
One group would be objects designed for a common task.
Another group would be objects designed by a common designer.
From that you may develop of rigorous characterization of what gives an object the appearance of being designed.
Then you would look for those characteristics in living things.

[Steps out of character]
No one has done this, of course, because in all probability no rigorous characterization of design would arise. On the off chance that one could be formulated, though, I'd wager it's probable that no evidence of design would be detected in living things.

As it stands, ID is not a science and is not falsifiable. This is not because ID is inherently unscientific, but merely because no one has been bothered to do the legwork to establish a standard of evidence. This dismissive attitude of ID as the creationists' newest rhetoric is dangerous.[/character]

Pithy.Watchmakers do give birth to more watches, though. And watchbuyers can select those watches that most fit their needs and desires. If a watchmaker comes up with a new design that increases the usefulness or desireability of a timepiece, those watches will sell, and so the representation of that design of watch will increase in the population.

Thus we see in the design of watches (and other designed objects) an accumulation of new and interesting features over times... because the design process under market pressure is itself somewhat evolutionary in nature.

We don't, we're pointing out that the patterns we see in nature (genetic similarities, et al.) are similar to those patterns we may observe in certain lineages of designed objects. Thus is is reasonable to assume that these patterns known to arrise in designed objects, when found in living things, would also indicate that living things are designed.

Or so you claim, anyway. I've yet to see how you distinguish between an evolutionary design process and natural selection.

Paley's was essentially an argument from ignorance. What Paley failed to realize is, of course, that watches, though designed and created, do evolve.

Certainly there is the occassional cognitive leap in technology. But surely you're not claiming that the genetic and/or fossil record is complete and without shortcomings?

Of course, if watches could have baby watches, and had been having baby watches for a thousand million years, you'd merely assert that the watches evolved... despite the fact that they were designed.

I don't, really. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to make things interesting.

Not yet. There potentially could be, if, as noted above, someone did the legwork to establish a standard of evidence for design.

Why do we have computer viruses? Why do we have unnecessary includes? Why do we have buffer overruns?

Unless you're suddenly asserting that automobiles evolve (and not in the design process method outlined above) I think the observable fact that there are multiple car makers demonstrates you don't quite follow the logic.

And in all probability you would be able to identify an unbadged Honda, Ford, etc. etc. from model year to model year... Furthermore, you'd probably be able to identify that the same person that desined the VW Passat designed the new Ford 500... or the same person that designed the 94-98 Honda Accord line also worked on cars for Volvo and BMW. But still be able to identify these cars as Hondas, VWs, Volvos, or Fords... based on other design clues.

Unless those observations serve a design hypothesis equally as well or better. As it stands, we have no way of knowing if they do or not.

True. ID is not currently science. It is not inherently unscientific, though... which is pretty much the core message I'm trying to get across.

I believe it's been sketched out in this post, above.

I'm going to lapse completely out of character for a moment.
I'm not very impressed with the way you've been handling this. You remind me of a scholastic. You have respect for modern science, but knowledge is preferrable to respect. You jump to repeat what you've read from respected sources at the expense of actually paying attention to the argument being made by your opponent. Behe, Dembski, and the whole irreducible complexity and complex specific information snowjob are bankrupt, sure... but it doesn't make you (or me, when I'm not clowning at being Evil) look good to demolish those guys when you are the one that brings them up in the conversation. It looks like misdirection and grandstanding. Those are the tactics of the Creationists. Don't Do It. Stick to the conversation at hand, and constrain yourself to what's actually being said by your opponent. If it looks liek they're dancing the partyline or reciting some but of boilerplate, ask first, then tear them apart. Otherwise they can just ask you what the fuck you're talking about and you've spent your rhetoric on a straw man.
I now return you to your regulaly scheduled program.

How long did it take us to go from the beginning of the industrial revolution to our current clumsy attempts at genetic engineering? Imagine where a culture even of our skill wold be after 5 billion years. Why is genetic engineering a disallowed design process for a sufficiently advanced species?

Is not, yes. Cannot be, no.

Well, I'm certainly not going to be the one to put in the elbow grease to figure out if intelligent design has any merit, neither are you, in all probability.

Careful where you stand. How do we know humans and mushrooms and coelacanths and blue spruces have a common ancestor? "'poof' It's evolution!"

So the Fundies are right in claiming there's some sort of significance in many scientists being Atheists? They're just trying to promote their godless agenda?

This remainds me of something I read in another "lies, damned lies, and statistics" type discussions. I think the context of that discussion was the probability of evolving Cytochrome C. Anyway, it was estimated that 60% of the proteins in the search space would have at least some cytochrome functionality. So while it might be one out of 20^100 (or what have you) to assemble the specific sequence for a given protein... the chance to assemble a sequence that will function for a given task may be six out of 10.

Much of the protein does require specific amino acids, while some sections may be more flexible, this is true. However, assuming that only 5 amino acids are required specifically and that 20 of them can only be one of two amino acids (which is making it significantly more probable than is actually the case), only one of (20^5 * 10^20 = ) 3.2 x 10^26 proteins will give the correct effect, still a far larger number of proteins than could be reasonably expected to be synthesized in the lifetime of the earth.

The only "evidence" for creationism that I have ever heard is some story about carbon dating being flawed and dating some bones of a dog that had been dead for about four months as being "millions of years old". The person (this was on a morning radio program called Steve and DC, I think DC was the one telling the story) then said that since those bones were millions of years old, that meant that all carbon dating was wrong and that the world was only like 5k years old. This completely proved creationism in his mind.

I remain unconvinced.

I have heard of that. The only thing it proves to my mind is that carbon dating isn't perfect.

Some basic guidelines are that like R groups can be substituted for like R groups. Acid for acid, alkaline for alkaline, polar for polar, non-polar for non-polar. Even in very highly specific sections of the sequence (like the bit that actually makes up the active site), the protein may still exhibit the desired enzymatic function (though not necessarily under the same conditions or at the same reaction rates as the correct sequence) despite substitutions.

In any event, cells don't search sequence space by randomly dehydrating amino acids and seeing if the folded result does anything useful. Slight mutations alter the function of existing proteins, resulting in families of proteins with similar sequences (though not always similar functions). So you might say that some very specific activity is very rare... but the sequence that we find in living things is very similar to another protein with a generalized function. So we get the majority of the correct sequence through incrememental improvement in a different protein. And then the change from this final optimized sequence (for a different function) is only a small step from this other very specific function which appeared to be improbable.Carbon dating tops out at around 50K years ago. It's not that it becomes increasingly inaccurate past 50K (though it does get less accurate the older you go), but just that, analytically speaking, a sample that was "millions of years old" would be indistinguishable from one that was 60K. So the story is flawed on its facts... no lab would carbon date something at millions of years.
The TalkOrigins List of Creationist Claims contains a bunch of carbon dating stuff in the CD section.

The problem with this is that at the beginnings of life, you had no cells to synthesize proteins, and no "incremental improvement". This *is* a case where you'd be randomly hydrolyzing amino acids together, in order to possibly get something which can help get ribose to kickstart a possible way to start everything off from the primordial soup.

A specific protein would be required to synthesize ribose from formaldehyde or other sources, and to make sure it is synthesized to the correct epimer in order to possibly get some kind of RNA. Then you've got odds on random RNA being formed that is capable of catalyzing its own replication. And so forth.

Futhermore, the origins of multicellular life and specialization of cells for specific purposes (food absorption, movement, etc) is one monster of a jump for life to make. Amoebas to jellyfish... I'm having trouble imagining the steps involved in that jump. A couple of amoebas stuck together wouldn't really have a natural advantage. If the genetic material between them was somehow unevenly split, and one side was consequently better at something than the other side, they still wouldn't have the same genome, and replication of the 2-celled organism would be a doozy.

If it can be shown that at some points in evolutionary theory that natural evolution is unreasonable, it therefore follows that Intelligent Design theory *is* reasonable by process of elimination.

So what's the mechanism? Where's the actual science here? You say that a small amount of kinetic force can bring molecules together, so what's the mechanism of this action?

How can we tell that an intelligent being has done this? What sort of fashion and through what processes can this occur? Does the intelligent designer go in and tinker with all creature or just some? Why?

Where's the actual positive evidence of this occuring?


This isn't actually your argument, is it? I mean, you might have written it out yourself and what not, but you didn't actually come up with it did you?

I ask because I encountered a very similar argument a few weeks ago, on another board and I remember thinking at the time that these numbers would have been too astounding for the supporters of abiogenesis to ignore. I then realized that you are skipping a bunch of steps in assuming that you just jump from non-life to a more complex type of life required.

Then I went on to talkorigins and found this: which I think is very relevant to the discussion.

In any event, I have to agree with the author's conclusion:

Tell me what you think about the article.

Actually, I *did* come up with it myself. Well, not the ribose part, that I knew from my biochemistry classes. But figuring out how ribose could be synthesized, that I thought of myself.




The article does seem to poke holes in many of my large arguments, but it does make some exaggerated claims.

One thing I noticed was the self-replicating protein sequences that they mentioned were only marginally "self replicating". The Ghadiri protein is really only capable of catalyzing a reaction to bind together two 16 peptide chains that are already existant in a sequence that resembles itself, so it is not capable of real replication.

I do accept that as a way to increase the concentration of that kind of protein once it exists, since it'll just take the random 16-chains resembling itself and putting them together. However, the lack of calculations of how these amino acids are synthesized and the statements of "a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year" definitely raised my eyebrow, since synthesis of peptide bonds is not particularly favorable in an aqueous environment without catalysts.

This led me to search out other articles, and I came across this one:

http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/...k/default.html

Which brings up a variety of points that I had not previously considered.

Some of the major points it brings up include: the probably lack of a reducing atmosphere for the earth, which prevents the formation of amino acids and other organic compounds; the actual equilibrium constant for peptide bond formation under the conditions far more favorable than those thought to exist by evolutionary biologists in the primordial soup (it is so unfavorable that 100-amino acid chains would exist at a concentration of 10^-338; chains of length 32 would have a concentration of less than 1 molecule per universe); and the problems of L-amino and R-amino acids in a mix producing non-funtional proteins; and the debunking of various experiments.

Tell me what you think of the site that I found.

So how would you identify a group of designed lifeforms? I mean, according to you, it's not like there are any non-designed lifeforms, right?

Also, your 'test' wouldn't reveal a designer, as you'd have to assume the task and assume that the life form didn't just evolve inline with that task.

What's an appearance of being designed? How can we tell if something isn't designed?

Finally why do certain organisms get designed and others don't? What's the mechanism for all this design?


Can it even be done? I don't think so. The ID proponents aren't actually contributing to the body of scientific knowledge. I don't think they actually care, as all ID is, is a front for the 'wedge strategy'.

Only through disingenious rhetoric. They don't *actually* give birth to more watches which is precisely why the analogy fails.

This actually hurts ID's case, if this analogy held up to begin with. Check out some of the creatures on this page.

It doesn't matter though, that's not the flawed part of the analogy. The flawed part is that animals come from other animals, via birth. They do not get made in a factory. Additionally descent with modification via the mechanism of natural selection is a more parismonious explanation (and it has evidence in favor of it).

Actually we do. The fact of the matter is not that evolution is against an appearance of design, that's subjective anyway, it's against the claim that organisms actually needed a designer. That's why you can't just point to something and say it was designed.

The eye looks designed, but throughout nature we can see other organisms with less complex eyes and as a matter of fact, our retinas are upside down, which goes against the designer idea.

The point is that it's not just reasonable to assume design because we have a natural explanation for it, this is again why the watchmaker argument fails. Not to mention the fact that snowflakes are quite complex, yet you don't see IDers saying they were designed (they came about via natural forces, or do you think they are designed?).

Me and the majority of scientists (tens of thousands) claim this, yes. What is an 'evolutionary design process'?

The modern ID argument is an argument from ignorance. There isn't any positive evidence on ID's side, all they do, as I've said, is point to a place where biologists don't currently know the evolutionary history and say 'there's where design happened!'.

Watches don't evolve, unless you are using a non-biological definition for evolution-but if so, you are being disingenious.

No, it's not complete, nor does it need to be and nor is it realistic to expect it to be complete since fossilization is incredibly rare. Also, what do you mean by the genetic record?

Um.... How would they be designed then? You mean the original watch, perhaps? If so, then your argument isn't against evolution, it's against abiogenesis.

Meaning what, that you don't accept ID?

And how exactly would they do this?

Again you make a non analogious comparison. Additionally, computer virus are complete, retroviral inserts aren't. Furthermore, once again, computers don't give birth to computers.

I don't follow that logic, I'm following your logic. But again, your analogy starts from the knowledge that cars are designed. You apply this to organisms and you are assuming your conclusion.

So what design clues do we have for organisms? What mechanism is there?

Why would they? Basically what you are admitting to is that there is no way that design could be false. It just is.

If you are going to do that, why bother calling it scientific? Why bother with all the trying to discredit evolution?

Why not just say I believe because I believe?

I already knew that. It's 'magic' or 'goblins' or 'aliens' or 'God' or whatever other means to stop science from progressing.

Fair enough, I admit that I've been rushed and a tad frustrated.

Fair enough, I accept your criticism.

The problem is, with ID, where can we go? Seriously for a minute here; The problem with ID is that you can't use it, even if it's true. We use genetic engineering, sure, but that's not based on "ID".

You see, even if ID were true, I don't see how you'd ever get off the ground with it, what it's applications are or anything like that.

Does not compute. What do you mean?

Not right now, in any event. The problem is, ID 'scientists' aren't doing it either. What they are doing is combing the scientific research and then commenting on them. IIRC Behe just got a paper published-it still needs to be reviewed (IIRC), but it doesn't support ID. IIRC, it has a speculative sentence and that's about it.

DNA, fossils, shared retroviral inserts with our closest relatives, etc, etc. For instance, with mice, we have traded the gene for the eye with a flies gene for an eye and the transplant worked-ie, the mouse eye grew normally. Why would this be the case for ID?

Heh, no, not actually. Not all Christians are creationists-especially not world wide. It's only within the united states that they make up such a large group.

I'd say the majority of people who accept evolution are either christian or they are some other type of theist.

You would identify groups of designed lifeforms by nothing that they share the same telltales (not yet) discovered in groups of objects known to be designed. Basically the exact same process by which we identify groups of evolved lifeforms.Since its purpose isn't to reveal a designer, this is not a terribly valid point.To the first question, it hasn't been determined. We'd have to look at a lot of designed objects and see if there was anything characteristic about having been designed. To the second question, assuming we've accomplished the first task, a non-designed object would be one that did not have any of the telltale characteristics of design.Currently: Intelligent Design isn't science. It isn't falsifiable. It is impossible to say "This organism is designed" and "This organism is not designed"... so it's a bit premature to ask why one is and one isn't when you can't even tell which is which.

Also, the mechanism question is for later work... it's not actually relevant to whether or not there is design evident. It's kind of like the way you can look at genetic sequence data and trace out how the similarity shows that two organisms are related (dolphins and slime mold, for example), but have no mechanism for how a common ancestor can give rise to the two different organisms.It can certainly be done. I agree that it probably wouldn't succeed (both in establishing a rigorous standard of evidence for design and in identifying evidence for design in living things). However, it has not been attempted, to my knowledge. In part because real scientists dismiss ID as the next big steaming pile from the Creationists, and the Creationists know they have a good track record by not actually turning their doctrine into falsifiable science.What being pointed out is that even concious design processes often have evolutionary features. Inventions are not so much created of whole cloth as made from incremental improvements (and combinations) of existing technologies. Bell Labs could have come up with psychoacoustic audio compression (E.G. MP3) and P2P file sharing back in the 1950s... but what would have been the point without the technology (fast personal computers, widespread internet access) to make it useful?
We see the same sorts of things in the fossil record. What good is an oxygen consuming metabolism if you evolve it before photosynthetic algae fill the atmosphere with it?

Basically, how do you differentiate between a evolutionary design process and real no shit evolution?That page is a call for theosophy. Since the identity of the design is irrelevant, a page saying "Ah-ha! Why would your omnibenevolent god design THESE?" has no application. You might as well ask why we have QWERTY keyboards. They made good design sense at the time...On the other hand, if we suppose for a moment that a standard of evidence is established for design, and that living things do show evidence of design... Then the pure evolution explanation, though simpler, is incomplete... so Occam's Razor cuts both ways.You can't point to something and say it was not designed either, at that point. There is no standard of evidence for design. There is no rigorous test for design... jsut a fuzzy "i know it when i see it." This does not necessarily have to be the case.Well, no, if the eye is not designed, then the eye does not look designed. To claim the eye looks like it's designed, but assert that it is not, is merely continued illustration for the fuzzy state of how "design" is identified.Design wouldn't be assumed. It would be no different from noting that living things show evidence of having evolved... and leaving the conclusion open. If living things show evidence of being designed... what does that mean?A design process that mimics descent with modification. Where subsequent technologies and innovations are based on the success of prior invention.
There isn't any negative evidence against ID either... because there can be no evidence either way. ID is not science and is not falsifiable. It does not necessarily have to be that way."Evolution" as a scientific term has its roots in chemistry, not biology... and before that is used in alchemy. Of course they don't mean the same thing when they say "hydrogen gas evolves" in a reaction... but biology doesn't have a monopoly on the term. Evolutionary algorithms are applied all sorts of places outside living systems.The pattern of genetic similarity present in all life on earth that allows a so-called family tree to be constructed showing how we all share common ancestry.It would depend on what the evidence shows. If evidence for design only appears at the lowest levels,(I.E highly conserved "lynchpins of life" style proteins) then abiogenesis would be the target. If it shows up at higher levels of classification, then the case would be different. There is no evidence, so there's nothing really to be said about how it might impact evolution.I agree with you that the current state of ID is that it's the newest "thin end of the wedge" brought to us by Creationists. I also think that if someone did bother to try being scientific about "design theory" they'd either never succeed in developing a standard of evidence or if they succeeded there, would show that living things are not designed. I don't agree that "design theory" is inherently unscientific.Exactly the same way they did it with evolution. Look at a bunch of designed things and figure out what charactersitics they have in common... and then look for those characteristics in other things. Then you say "Ah-ha, this thing has characterstics of design".If you have virus code that propagates by infecting a legitimate executable, so that the virus code is only executed with the host program, then you've got a 1-to-1 analogy to retroviral infection and reproduction. The virus example was brought up to give an example of designed technology that DOES reproduce. Hell, there are viruses designed to mutate and avoid anti-virus software. It may not be a perfect analogy, but it's pretty damn good. Incidentally, life sustaining planets don't give birth to more life sustaining planets... so I'm not sure what the point of your comment about computers was supposed to be.The process is the same where we take known (or simulated) examples of evolution to develop and idea of what evolution looks like. So when we see the same patterns of similarity, we can assume those patterns also are the result of evolution. It's still an assumption. To establish an equivalent standard of evidence for design, we have to begin with designed objects, see if we can rigorously define what design looks like, and then see if we can find it elsewhere (I.E. in living things).It has yet to be established what "design clues" we can look for. At this point, we're only concerned with the design... not how, or who, or what did the designing."Design theory" is not science. It has not been expressed in a sufficiently rigorous manner so that it actually makes claims that can be validated. It is not falsifiable. Evolution, OTOH, is falsifiable... it simply hasn't been falsified yet- just like all good theories.I'm not sure that I have called ID scientific. I have said there's nothing preventing ID from becoming scientific... other than the prejudice of scientists and the religious agenda of the current batch of ID proponents. If someone did seek to treat ID to a proper scientific methodology, whatever impact it had on evolution would be secondary.Because I don't believe living things are designed? The best means to stop science from progressing is to stop doing science. ID could be treated scientifically, and it would probably disproven (IMO). Though it's pretty much a waste of time, that would still be good science. A developed body of evidence conclusively proving that living things are not designed? That's useful. To leave things in their current semantic state? That's useful to the creationists.Wherever it takes us. It would probably spawn a number of applications in the quality assurance industry. It would tend to blur the line between engineering (which is practical) and designing (which is currently fairly artistic) by providing a solid structure for design. Alternatively, design would be used to refer to aesthetics, and the rest would all get included under engineering. It really depends on how useful design theory turns out to be.It formalizes the design process. Ergo, people can then take the formal design process, look at their particular in-house design departments, and streamline their operations. As it is, it's viewed as a creative/artistic process... so an amount of screwing around is accepted.Intelligent design is not science? Yes. Intelligent design cannot be science? No.Well, it's not like Darwin devoted all of his time to evolutionary biology, or Newton spent all his time working on calculus (Newton wasted a fair amount of time on Alchemy, come to think of it). Even so, it's a slow process, and the current batch of proponents are probably more interested in sounding convincing than in actually saying anything important... it's an age old tactic of creationists.Ever heard the phrase "Don't re-invent the wheel"? Designers commonly adapt proven concepts to the current task, rather than design something from scratch. Whether this is a valid comparison has not been shown, of course, so I'm just talking out my ass.

To lapse back into computer analogies... Library functions spring to mind. Ideally, you can replace a standard library with another, and all your programs will function the same as they did before, even if the specific algorithms the new library uses are different from the original library's.