Intelligant design - Page 2

Aydzz12 · 08-17-2006, 12:32 PM

Your mean.

***Ace Mercury*** · 08-17-2006, 12:41 PM

His average?

Lord X · 08-17-2006, 01:43 PM

Axioms are statements that we take as true. We use mathematics to infer as many of their implications as we can. (We can't always get all of them!) Science is a process that strives to bring our axioms closer and closer to the "true axioms." We assume (take as an axiom itself) that there even exist such true axioms. That is, we assume in some form of absolute truth. (Watch out, for we assume many implicit axioms that we do not realize we are using.)

Choice of axioms is very important. One must not simply be “random” in selecting them, but instead strive to explain as much as possible with as little as possible, and do so in a way that is fruitful. Science demands that our axioms be demonstrable by experiment, i.e. that there is empirical evidence to support them. The best possible evidence is that of prediction. The theory that a given set of axioms produces is our approximation of how reality works and exists.

Now let’s compare!

1. Both intelligent design and evolution explain our being here.

2. Both intelligent design and evolution are very simple ideas. (Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise about evolution does not understand or know what evolution actually says so do not listen to them.)

3. Intelligent design has absolutely no empirical support. There is zero evidence for it. Evolution has mountains of evidence to support it. Everywhere one looks in modern biology one is confronted with evidence of evolution.

4. Intelligent design yields no predictive power. The theory goes nowhere. In other words, we are not able to use it to do anything or develop anything. Evolution is and has been one of the most powerful tools in modern science. It has succeeded time and time again in the prediction department. It is a theory that we can actually use to develop technology and more explanations.

Now check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVQoxrrMftA

***CaptHayfever*** · 08-17-2006, 07:37 PM

^^Personally, I find his mode much more interesting.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Aydzz12 · 08-17-2006, 09:35 PM

Yeah,his made more sense.
Finally someone out-smarted ace.

***Ace Mercury*** · 08-17-2006, 10:12 PM

Aydzz12 · 08-17-2006, 11:46 PM

Nope,I've never heard of that show.

***CaptHayfever*** · 08-18-2006, 12:03 AM

I hate to disappoint you (read: "I love to disappoint you"), but Ace & I were making the exact same joke. At your expense.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Aydzz12 · 08-18-2006, 12:06 AM

All come on,I was just starting to have fun.

Bomby · 08-18-2006, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace Mercury

This is the man that tried to rape my daughter's brain of all its common sense.

Swordmaster Link · 08-18-2006, 01:26 AM

"Fair and balanced"

shelty87 · 08-19-2006, 04:11 AM

being 1 that believes in creation, i have to comment on some of the things iv read. in no way am i starting an "im right and u all are completely wrong" arguement, just pointing out a couple things. if u want, go ahead and criticize creation as much as u want.

Quote:

You can witness the micro-evolution of pepper moths, and show that a population under stress does adapt within a few decades.

adaptation is different from evolution. if evolution says that as humans we evolved from apes, and humans and apes have seperate (even tho they r similar) DNA, that would imply evolution involves a change in DNA. in the case of something or some1 adapting, there is no DNA change taking place. so, at least to me, that point is void. i felt the need to point that out.

Koga · 08-19-2006, 04:57 AM

Micro evolution is just an example. Over the course of millions of years DNA can change with evolution.

Also, humans did not evolve from apes; they just have a common ancestor.

Legion · 08-19-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shelty87

adaptation is different from evolution. if evolution says that as humans we evolved from apes, and humans and apes have seperate (even tho they r similar) DNA, that would imply evolution involves a change in DNA. in the case of something or some1 adapting, there is no DNA change taking place. so, at least to me, that point is void. i felt the need to point that out.

What on earth are you on about?

Adaptation is a change in DNA. Adaptation is brought about by a combination of random DNA mutation and natural selection. Adaptation is evolution. Micro or macro, it's all evolution. What people call 'macro-evolution' is merely 'micro-evolution' viewed over a very long period wherin a variety of smaller DNA mutations add up until the new organism is sufficiently different from what it originated from to be considered a new species.

In the case of pepper moths, the sooty colouration was the result of a random DNA mutation. There may have only been one or two in the whole of Britain at the time, but that colouration made them less visible to predators, so that they survived to pass on their specific mutation while the lighter pepper moths were eaten by predators.

shelty87 · 08-19-2006, 06:08 AM

adaptation is not a change in DNA.

Quote:

Adaptation is a characteristic of an organism that makes it better able to survive and reproduce in its environment. No two organisms of the same species are exactly alike. Every trait, such as size, color, and personality, shows some variation. Additionally, in nature, organisms produce more offspring than can survive. The offspring most likely to survive and reproduce are those with adaptations best suited to the environment.

mutation is a change in DNA.

Edit: that quote is from an unnamed source

Legion · 08-19-2006, 06:27 AM

Adaptation is brought about by DNA mutations, which are a change in DNA. There is of course some variation in personality or upbringing which is independant of genetics, but that cannot explain the 'adaptation' of the pepper moth to an industrial environment.

The black colouration of some species of pepper moth is a genetic mutation.

***Ace Mercury*** · 08-19-2006, 12:00 PM

It's not necessarily a mutation in DNA, I believe it's the result of a (recessive?) allele that had already existed within the species, which determined the colour. White moths were less noticable against the white birch bark, and thus were able to survive and reproduce better than the black-coloured moths. When the industrial revolution came around and turned the white birch bark to black, the allele for dark pigmentation became best suited for life/reproduction, and the black-coloured pepper moth became the majority.

This is not so much an example of evolution as such; it is, though, an example of natural selection at work. Natural selection is a key part of the evolutionary theory.

**Perrin Aybara** · 08-27-2006, 12:28 AM

People who believe ID should be taught in science class are morons.-jay

Princess Zelda of Hyrule · 08-28-2006, 10:26 PM

I am a theistic evolutionist, and I think the size of the debate between fundamentalism and scientism is making donkeys of both.

08-17-2006, 12:41 PM	#22
*Ace Mercury* Marshmallow Knight ☆ Supermod Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Southern Ontario Gender: Posts: 19,111 Thanks: 370 Thanked 1,576 Times in 815 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 109,804.40 Bank: 22,995,259.87 Total Points: 23,105,064.27 Donate	You've been Punn'd! His average?

08-17-2006, 10:12 PM	#26
*Ace Mercury* Marshmallow Knight ☆ Supermod Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Southern Ontario Gender: Posts: 19,111 Thanks: 370 Thanked 1,576 Times in 815 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 109,804.40 Bank: 22,995,259.87 Total Points: 23,105,064.27 Donate	Have you seen this show?

08-17-2006, 12:32 PM	#21
Aydzz12 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: I'm Bartman, ya fool Gender: Posts: 6,035 Thanks: 433 Thanked 133 Times in 108 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 4,056.22 Bank: 86,277.03 Total Points: 90,333.25 Donate	Your mean.

08-17-2006, 01:43 PM	#23
Lord X Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Gender: Posts: 990 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 989.14 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 1,489.14 Donate	Axioms are statements that we take as true. We use mathematics to infer as many of their implications as we can. (We can't always get all of them!) Science is a process that strives to bring our axioms closer and closer to the "true axioms." We assume (take as an axiom itself) that there even exist such true axioms. That is, we assume in some form of absolute truth. (Watch out, for we assume many implicit axioms that we do not realize we are using.) Choice of axioms is very important. One must not simply be “random” in selecting them, but instead strive to explain as much as possible with as little as possible, and do so in a way that is fruitful. Science demands that our axioms be demonstrable by experiment, i.e. that there is empirical evidence to support them. The best possible evidence is that of prediction. The theory that a given set of axioms produces is our approximation of how reality works and exists. Now let’s compare! 1. Both intelligent design and evolution explain our being here. 2. Both intelligent design and evolution are very simple ideas. (Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise about evolution does not understand or know what evolution actually says so do not listen to them.) 3. Intelligent design has absolutely no empirical support. There is zero evidence for it. Evolution has mountains of evidence to support it. Everywhere one looks in modern biology one is confronted with evidence of evolution. 4. Intelligent design yields no predictive power. The theory goes nowhere. In other words, we are not able to use it to do anything or develop anything. Evolution is and has been one of the most powerful tools in modern science. It has succeeded time and time again in the prediction department. It is a theory that we can actually use to develop technology and more explanations. Now check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVQoxrrMftA

08-17-2006, 07:37 PM	#24
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,799 Thanks: 240 Thanked 943 Times in 574 Posts Points: 117,946.27 Bank: 1,884.44 Total Points: 119,830.71 Donate	^^Personally, I find his mode much more interesting. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

08-17-2006, 09:35 PM	#25
Aydzz12 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: I'm Bartman, ya fool Gender: Posts: 6,035 Thanks: 433 Thanked 133 Times in 108 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 4,056.22 Bank: 86,277.03 Total Points: 90,333.25 Donate	Yeah,his made more sense. Finally someone out-smarted ace.

08-17-2006, 11:46 PM	#27
Aydzz12 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: I'm Bartman, ya fool Gender: Posts: 6,035 Thanks: 433 Thanked 133 Times in 108 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 4,056.22 Bank: 86,277.03 Total Points: 90,333.25 Donate	Nope,I've never heard of that show.

08-18-2006, 12:03 AM	#28
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,799 Thanks: 240 Thanked 943 Times in 574 Posts Points: 117,946.27 Bank: 1,884.44 Total Points: 119,830.71 Donate	I hate to disappoint you (read: "I love to disappoint you"), but Ace & I were making the exact same joke. At your expense. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

08-18-2006, 12:06 AM	#29
Aydzz12 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: I'm Bartman, ya fool Gender: Posts: 6,035 Thanks: 433 Thanked 133 Times in 108 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 4,056.22 Bank: 86,277.03 Total Points: 90,333.25 Donate	All come on,I was just starting to have fun.

08-18-2006, 01:26 AM	#31
Swordmaster Link Super Bodyguard & King of the Arcade Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Wherever you want me to be Gender: Posts: 30,881 Thanks: 234 Thanked 769 Times in 544 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 1,085.76 Bank: 2,078,289.05 Total Points: 2,079,374.81 Donate	"Fair and balanced"

08-19-2006, 04:57 AM	#33
Koga Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: The Netherlands Gender: Posts: 17,095 Thanks: 104 Thanked 182 Times in 117 Posts Points: 107,802.07 Bank: 21,640.09 Total Points: 129,442.16 Donate	Micro evolution is just an example. Over the course of millions of years DNA can change with evolution. Also, humans did not evolve from apes; they just have a common ancestor.

08-19-2006, 06:27 AM	#36
Legion Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Greater Mancester, UK Gender: Posts: 1,860 Thanks: 10 Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts Points: 8,252.29 Bank: 6,647.77 Total Points: 14,900.06 Donate	Adaptation is brought about by DNA mutations, which are a change in DNA. There is of course some variation in personality or upbringing which is independant of genetics, but that cannot explain the 'adaptation' of the pepper moth to an industrial environment. The black colouration of some species of pepper moth is a genetic mutation.

08-27-2006, 12:28 AM	#38
Perrin Aybara LLLUUUCCCCCCAAA!!! Ban HotD Join Date: Apr 1999 Location: Alone....so terribly alone... Some... where... out... there... dies Gender: Posts: 11,840 Thanks: 187 Thanked 375 Times in 183 Posts Points: 42,683.49 Bank: 207,731.19 Total Points: 250,414.68 Donate	People who believe ID should be taught in science class are morons.-jay

08-19-2006, 12:00 PM	#37
*Ace Mercury* Marshmallow Knight ☆ Supermod Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Southern Ontario Gender: Posts: 19,111 Thanks: 370 Thanked 1,576 Times in 815 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 109,804.40 Bank: 22,995,259.87 Total Points: 23,105,064.27 Donate	It's not necessarily a mutation in DNA, I believe it's the result of a (recessive?) allele that had already existed within the species, which determined the colour. White moths were less noticable against the white birch bark, and thus were able to survive and reproduce better than the black-coloured moths. When the industrial revolution came around and turned the white birch bark to black, the allele for dark pigmentation became best suited for life/reproduction, and the black-coloured pepper moth became the majority. This is not so much an example of evolution as such; it is, though, an example of natural selection at work. Natural selection is a key part of the evolutionary theory.

08-28-2006, 10:26 PM	#39
Princess Zelda of Hyrule Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Hyrule Castle Gender: Posts: 6,128 Thanks: 35 Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts Points: 8,133.36 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 8,633.36 Donate	I am a theistic evolutionist, and I think the size of the debate between fundamentalism and scientism is making donkeys of both.