Ben Stein Expelled

[Schatze]

Don't you see? Because people demolish a stupid ass idea that has religious connotations, it's because they're radical atheists. In fact, everyone who does not have some bug on their shoulder over evolution or is a critical thinker is a radical atheist!

Fun note; evolution does not "disprove" theism. Only theists think it does. That's why there are huge, concerted attacks on the theory by theists, for theists. There are not pamphlets being passed around that tell people to forsake their faith in favor of evolution. But are there pamphlets being passed around by religious groups attacking evolution? Oh my yes, and so much more.

Why the hate for the Discovery Institute? Because it represents everything wrong with the motivations behind pushing ID. It is a political organization that is trying to push religion into schools in the guise of science and to roll back secular society.

So when you post them as a "source" or "alternative" view point, you point out one of the very organization that epitomizes why people very much dislike the "ID" movement (politicization, religion into secular schools and government, anti-scientific agenda, etc.) and why it is not a theory (no scientific research or empirical evidence to back the idea up). I like that, in the article on the Discovery Institute, one of the people quoted compares the Discovery Institute as a cargo cult of science (if you don't know what a cargo cult is, look it up).

Now, I'm waiting on the massive "holes" in evolutionary theory, the ones people keep referring to. What holes? And by holes I do not mean gaps of knowledge on specific things, but problems or flaws in the theory itself. Anyone?

[aychamo_aycono]

Millie and Schatze are right on the money here. I've got nothing really to add

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by aychamo_aycono

Millie and Schatze are right on the money here. I've got nothing really to add

wtf aychamo?!?!?!

[Schatze]

Oh boy I missed this gem;

You continually say that irreductable complexity has been debunked. If that is the case than why does anyone still give it credence? Because it hasn't been debunked I say, it is continually argued against because there arte many systems that are IC.

The reason why it still persists is that even though it has been debunked, it's the only branch in reach when the "scientific" ground they're standing upon collapses. Yeah, mixing metaphors is bad, but anyways. It's the same reason why creationists still claim Darwin recanted evolution on his death bed, that dinosaur and human foot prints have been found side by side, and that radioactive decay dating is flawed. Because unless they cling to these previously falsified idea, they literally have nothing other than their inculcated beliefs and the bible. Again, I've argued with creationists/ID's in many different places, and whenever you present definitive proof that none of their claims are true, they'll come back the next day and keep on spouting them.

Care to give examples of irreducible complexity? Note; the eye (all the many times it's developed independently), the flagellum, blood clotting, immune system, have all been demonstrated not to be irreducibly complex, that is that the component parts themselves exist in precursor systems and have functions of their own outside of the system they represent. Note; exaptation is a firmly established in evolutionary theory and is in fact one of the key components of the theory itself and dates all the way back to the D man himself.

Here is a quote from Wiki that outlines the problems with both the examples given by Behe, and the whole idea of IC, etc. These are snippets taken from the Kitzmiller judgement.

* "Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73)
* "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74)
* "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75)
* "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID [Intelligent Design], by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." (Page 76)
* "...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))." (Page 78)
* "We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)). We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6- 7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller))." (Pages 79-80)

If you need any help interpreting that, I'll be more than happy to help. But in short, put up or shut up. Give some irreducibly complex biological systems as an example.

P.S. I know Answers in Genesis and the sister sites from back to front from arguing with all the creationists/ID'rs and have all the responses lined up. So good luck, young Padawan.

[Samflam]

The only school "Intelligent Design" should be taught in is kindergarten, right alongside all the other fairy tales.
When do we get to evolve past the point of believing in this tribal, superstitious bullshit?

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

OK Millie, but people tend to get nasty when opposing viewpoints to their own are presented, and when a forum mod gets nasty people get bant. If you can handle people treating you like any other poster on here it will say a lot for your character.

I'm a big girl; I can handle criticism or debates. I would think my track record for not banning folks who's disagreed with me in debates would speak for itself. There are hundreds of people running around here who have argued with me about various political topics and lived to tell about it. It's only when honest argument crosses a line into antagonism or trolling that things become problematic.

Honestly, you've got nothing to worry about, and you can hold me to that so long as this debate maintains the same level of maturity it's currently maintaining.

You continually say that irreductable complexity has been debunked. If that is the case than why does anyone still give it credence? Because it hasn't been debunked I say, it is continually argued against because there are many systems that are IC.

AFAIK, the only people giving "irreducible complexity" credence are the Discovery Institute people (and Michael Behe, who works for/with them). They'll keep doing it, regardless of how many times and in how many different ways their logic has been shot down.

Just because an idea is still around after being debunked doesn't mean there's any merit to the idea. Hell, there are still people out there who believe the Earth is flat. Does that mean there's "something to" their theory, simply because it's survived thousands of years?

There is no such thing as a system that is "irreducibly complex." Even Behe and the "irreducible complexity" proponents have seen every single example they've proposed to date later proved not to be irreducibly complex. You act as if there are countless examples of irreducible complexity in biology, when in fact, at present count, there are none at all.

When Behe wrote that book of his, did legitimate scientists give him the time of day? Certainly. They read the book, analyzed his arguments, and proved them fallacious. It's not as if Behe was suppressed by the scientific community; his "theory" was given its due and summarily disproven. Only Behe was unable to move on after that; he kept persisting in supporting a misguided theory that had been discredited.

[Schatze]

I'd also like to point out that Behe busted out all his gold standard examples of irreducibly complex systems, and was refuted point by point, by several of the scientists who decided to give testimony.

Kitzmiller is the Cole's notes to the debunking of Behe and his ideas.

Fun fact; at least one of the prominent biologists (Kennith Miller, I believe) who testified and refuted Behe's claims was a devout theist. I saw a lecture given by him about the whole trial. While he does not descend to attacking Behe or the ID side, he notes that he came to the trial prepared with reams of peer reviewed papers that refuted Behe's claims. He indicated that the advocates of ID showed little interest in any of the scientific papers, the merits of their arguments, or the merits of the arguments against them, and this was reflected by the questions he was asked during the cross examination. He gave the impression that it was an ill-prepared dog and pony show, or that that they were hoping for less rigorous or get a biased jurist. Fortunately, the Republican, Bush appointed judge was incredibly rigorous. People don't seem to realize that most judges are extremely intelligent and thoroughly versed in logic and have a low tolerance for bullshit.

edit; fuck, here, NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS watch this if you're at all interested. The documentary is called Judgement Day. It features everyone involved, pretty much. Watch it. Seriously. Then come back and claim ID isn't just creationism rebranded, or that it isn't a religious idea rather than a scientific one. Even the individuals who instituted the requirement that ID be taught (the Dover school board members) all label themselves as creationists, some specifying they are in fact young earth creationists. Science 4sure, Lawlz.

[Arakkis]

Sorry for the delay in posting, busy weekend. You might want to grab a drink or a snack because this could get lengthy.

First off, I am going to stop responding to the trolls in this thread who add nothing of substance to the debate. Quite honestly, you people are a little out of your depth and if you just sit back and enjoy the show you might learn something. I am not doing this because your internet tough guy tactics are working and I have no defense, but because I don't want to spend energy on pointless bickering that will only serve to dumb down this debate.

Next, in his last few posts Schatze has put LOTS of words in my mouth that I have never said. Let's do some quoting!

Originally Posted by Schatze

Don't you see? Because people demolish a stupid ass idea that has religious connotations, it's because they're radical atheists. In fact, everyone who does not have some bug on their shoulder over evolution or is a critical thinker is a radical atheist!

No, I have identified you and several people in this thread as radical atheists because of your elitist disdain for ANYONE who has any faith whatsoever. Want some examples?

Originally Posted by Schatze

...Creationism itself, as in either old earth or especially young earth creationism, is laughable by anyone with any sort of education whatsoever....

...So it needed to be respun in a way that wasn't quite as ludicrous to people. Hence, ID....

...1.) To undermine evolution which theists perceive or claim is an attack on their beliefs. Few if no atheists will say anything like, "evolution therefore no God! HA!" because we never, ever believed in creationism in the first place and thought it a ridiculous idea that only a delusional person could believe in this day and age....

...theology (lol)...

And don't bring the fact that you were (p. > .95) essentially brainwashed by your parents as a child into believing certain things that you cannot reconcile with science as a problem with evolution.

Now that was only Schatze, but several of you are self admitted religion haters. For whatever your own personal reasons are, you people band together and attack ANYONE that presents any argument that are not 100% God-free. Even by someone as middle of the road as I am. Hell even Millie jumped on me when I posted that link with a BIG disclaimer right below it and she claimed to be somewhat agnostic earlier in this thread. Seriously people, admit your your bias and be done with it.

Fun note; evolution does not "disprove" theism. Only theists think it does.

I have never once claimed that evolution disproves theism. I accept decent with modification as a proven scientific fact. I am a theist. This is a bullshit statement.

Then come back and claim ID isn't just creationism rebranded, or that it isn't a religious idea rather than a scientific one.

I have never claimed that ID is a full on scientific theory. There are people out there doing science to try and prove it, but I have readily admitted that it is a religious viewpoint.

If you need any help interpreting that, I'll be more than happy to help. But in short, put up or shut up. Give some irreducibly complex biological systems as an example.

P.S. I know Answers in Genesis and the sister sites from back to front from arguing with all the creationists/ID'rs and have all the responses lined up. So good luck, young Padawan.

I am not quite so rabid as to memorize all the propagandized responses for my viewpoint. I have never claimed to be a expert on IC systems, so all I could do is present what others have done and honestly, I think that they could do it much better than I could. So I challenge you to go out and actually read Behe's book. Don't just read the shit posted on the internets, go and actually read the primary literature. Browse the DI website and read some of the shit people are doing to show irreductable complexity. Stop being so afraid of reading opinions that differ from your own.

Originally Posted by Schatze

Now, I'm waiting on the massive "holes" in evolutionary theory, the ones people keep referring to. What holes? And by holes I do not mean gaps of knowledge on specific things, but problems or flaws in the theory itself. Anyone?

OK now this I can do. I will give you three, and you can explain to me why my view is wrong. I just may learn something myself here.

1) Mutation. Darwin originally proposed that evolution is is done in a gradual, step by step manner. This means that a random mutation in a creature's genome allows it to survive and/or reproduce better than its competition and through this process called natural selection, modifications to organisms are made. We have direct evidence of this through the research done on the finches of the Galapagos Islands done by the Grants. The problems start with the fossil record. We have only one real example of an organism where this gradual modification can be seen (i.e. Archaeopteryx). Where are all the other ones? If this decent with modification is how all the organisms we see today came about, why don't we see any others? Even Archaeopteryx is a pretty big leap in terms of evolution. You go from featherless dinosaurs to a dino that is fully equipped with a set of feathers that allow for flight. What is the accepted scientific explanation for these holes in the fossil record? In 1972 Gould and Eldredge introduced punctuated equilibrium which is actually just a rehashing of the Hopeful Monster Theory proposed by Goldschmidt in 1940. Basically, it says that evolution is not gradual, it happens in huge leaps where organisms are born with multiple beneficial mutations that differentiate it enough from its parents that it can out survive/reproduce them. This goes against almost everything we know about modern molecular biology. There are multiple systems that identify and repair mutations. When a mutation does get past the proofreading systems, it then has to be in the germ line cells. That is, the sperm or ovum, which houses the DNA that is to be passed on. If the beneficial mutation happens within a skin cell, it doesn't do any good. Now we come to the problem of beneficial mutations. A vast majority of mutations are detrimental to an organism. Using modern cloning techniques, we can create beneficial mutations in organisms, but that is intelligent manipulation. Evolution acts on random mutations (and stop the whole evolution is not random bull crap, it is playing semantics and I think this debate is above that level), again all of which have to get past the proofreading systems and into the cells that will produce offspring. Since the mutation rate in eukaryotes is about 10-4 to 10-6 mutations per base pair per generation (from wiki) the rate at which beneficial mutations are produced becomes pretty small. Now you take into account the idea of punctuated equilibrium where a bunch of beneficial mutations happen all at once, the number becomes astronomical. I am not sure if these calculations are correct but one site said: "The probability of getting five mutations ("good" or bad) in the same nucleus has been estimated to be 1 in 10 to the 22 power! If there was a population of 100 million organisms with a reproductive cycle of 1 day, such an event (5 mutations in one nucleus) would be expected to occur ONCE in 274 BILLION YEARS!" Now I have suspended my disbelief a bit here and accepted that evolution is the means by which animals diversify, but how anyone can call evolution a flawless theory is beyond me.

2) The fossil record. I am sure Schatze, because he has stated that he is almost an expert on this subject, will say that the fossil record is flawed because only a minuscule fraction of the animals that roamed the Earth were fossilized. Well, we base most of the modern evolutionary theory on the fossil record. If the fossil record has large gaps in it, how can we say that evolutionary theory is completely sound? We look at the data we have and try and interpret it as best we can, but without the fossils of the "missing links" between organisms, all we can do is infer that they existed at one time. Punctuated equilibrium says that the intermediate stages in the evolution of organisms do not appear in the fossil record because they were transitional organisms that were short-lived, extremely unstable species that however, quickly evolved into stable species (plagiarized a bit here but meh). So again we have big leaps in evolution happening, even though the probability is close to nil that this actually happened.

3) Biogenesis. This is my favorite part of the evolutionary theory. Schatze claims that this is not part of it, but it is in actuality molecular evolution. I talked about this before and I will explain in a bit more detail. From wiki:
"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." "In physics, entropy, symbolized by S, is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work." Greatly simplified, this can be summed up by the statement: the universe moves toward disorder. Moving toward disorder constitutes an increase in entropy. We see order in the universe (e.g. spherical planets, elliptical orbits, spiral galaxies) because there are forces that funnel energy into work (e.g. gravity). With the advent of life, small molecules such as ammonia and methane came together to form huge complex molecules. These molecules aggregated and recruited other molecules to protect them from the entropic forces around them. This primitive cell then developed the ability to repair any damage done to it and the ability to replicate copies of itself. Now some of you are nodding your heads and saying, yes, this is exactly how it happened. I say that the probability of energy being funneled in such a way as to produce this cascade by mere chance is impossible. I am not talking about mutations happening within an organism, I am talking about molecules coming together and forming complex machines that perform complex processes all totally RANDOMLY. Beneficial mutations I can accept, but molecular machines being produced by random? No way. Now fast forward a bit, and you get to a single celled organism that have redundant systems in addition to the ability repair and replicate. All from random chance. Poof. Fucking magic. And all against some fundamental principles that we have observed about the natural world. This is the part I just can't swallow. This is what keeps me clinging to all the garbage that my parents apparently brainwashed me with.

Or maybe there is a shred of truth in all the bullshit.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

The problems start with the fossil record. We have only one real example of an organism where this gradual modification can be seen (i.e. Archaeopteryx). Where are all the other ones? If this decent with modification is how all the organisms we see today came about, why don't we see any others? Even Archaeopteryx is a pretty big leap in terms of evolution. You go from featherless dinosaurs to a dino that is fully equipped with a set of feathers that allow for flight. What is the accepted scientific explanation for these holes in the fossil record?

The direct reptilian ancestor of Archaeopteryx is unknown, but to make a statement that we don't "see any others" shows you have simply adopted the Duane Gish mindset of setting up what you think a transitional fossil is, placing Archaeopteryx in the middle of two classes (reptiles and birds) and decry that nothing to link these two classes has ever been found.

You could not be more wrong.

Coelophysis shows bird like characteristics not found in other similar types of Theropods.

Lisboasaurus estesi is a type of Troodontidae that shares some of the exact same bone features as Archaeopteryx.

In fact, the entire family of Troodontidae's is a great example on it's own.

Also is the entire Shuvuuia genus that showed direct evidence for feathers. This evidence includes hollow bones that have tested negative for any alpha-ceratine, something that only happens in modern bird feathers.

There are almost 20 different genera of animals that are classifed as theropods, yet have direct evidence of feathers, whether that is fossil imprints, or chemical analysis of the quill-nobs/skeletal structure.

The idea that Archaeopteryx stands alone was ended in about 1995.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

2) The fossil record. I am sure Schatze, because he has stated that he is almost an expert on this subject, will say that the fossil record is flawed because only a minuscule fraction of the animals that roamed the Earth were fossilized. Well, we base most of the modern evolutionary theory on the fossil record. If the fossil record has large gaps in it, how can we say that evolutionary theory is completely sound?

In a totally different thread on this board, I posted a reply with over 40 different transitional fossils that cover a straight line from Fish-->Amphibians-->Reptiles-->Mammals. If I had wanted to I could have used 60 examples but I ran out of room.

I can do the same thing if you would like. What happens is, once we find one, you would demand another and another and another until it is physically impossible to get a closer transition.

Just for fun, give me two different Classes (or even two different Orders) and I will be more than happy to give you a run down of every single known transitional fossil to date (could be in the hundreds). I will even use pictures.

[Kolle]

Sorry I didn't completely read the entire thread, but who actually believes in ID?

If you do, I'm just wondering what you base it on that isn't a religious text. Forget the theory of evolution for a second. What can you point to right now and say, "this is why ID is true."

[Pancreas]

The Cosmic and the atomic see to be mirrors of each other.
It is only in the range from microscopic to planetary that we see the most intricate interactions of matter. Our little world seems to be the focal point of some very remarkable forces.

All things in the universe are in transition. Everything is making a journey to somewhere or something else. We can see evidence of this change in our brief history. There are several different races of people. Even if we are all progeny from a single source how did such diversity occur? To dispute if biological organisms are capable of change is irrelevant. The only mystery is why does life change and what are the mechanisms that elicit such change.

I have faith that there is a God and that humans occupy a unique position that allows us to comprehend this. I however use my faith as a tool to help shape the way I think and act towards other people. This is the realm in which it is most effective for good. To try and force science to explain my faith, or to try and force my faith to explain the origins of the universe are incorrect uses of both.

There are several laws of science that only apply to specific spheres of influence. To try and apply findings from one line of questioning to another without direct correlation is fruitless. We can not use the principles of plate tectonics to explain the motion of the stars.

The aspects of faith that apply to human behavior are not a suitable substitute for a scientific fact. To try and force such beliefs into the scientific model without evidence is disrespectful and damaging to all involved including the God in whose name these beliefs reside.

There may come a day when a bridge is found linking the two realms of thought. Given the state and speed with which humanity is progressing, I doubt such a day is possible whether that bridge exists or not.

It is sad that this debate that has been waged for over a century and has prevented many intelligent people from making their full contributions to both science and religion because they were attempting to perform a great task using the wrong tools.

The basis of faith should be the benefits manifested in an individuals life. It should be private and personal and only shared if circumstance deems it beneficial. Much in the same way our DNA is guarded in the nucleus of a cell. If we project our faith outside of that realm it risks being damaged or mutated to the point where it hurts us instead of helps us.

When I see people taking up great 'crusades' to defend God from the godless, I feel ashamed. I understand what motivations these people might have but I am angered by the methods they use. Wielding God's name in such broad arcs risks pushing back those who might have earnestly listened, leaving room only for those who would accept without question.

I believe there to be avenues that are only open to a scientific mind and avenues that are only open to a spiritually guided mind and that both can reside within the same body. The 'one or the other' choice we seem to be faced with is akin to choosing which of our hands we wish to keep. I could not imagine volunteering to sacrifice either.

[Schatze]

edit:

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

Has obviously had experience arguing with creationists too.

I didn't read your post before typing mine, but it's clear you've argued with a lot of creationists too. I saw your caveat about him trying to pull a Zeno's paradox on the fossil record and started giggling, because I included the same disclaimer in my post. Did you also noticed he grossly distorted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in an attempt to debunk evolution? That too is a classic creationist tactic. The funny thing is, he mangled his understanding of what it means even more than your average creationist.

What's even funnier is he uses the same arguments used in the documentary I linked on Kitzmiller. Not because he saw it and thought they were really good arguments, but because creationists keep doing the same crap over and over again. He even tries to pull the, "I'm just trying to strike a middle ground by supporting ID!" which is basically a direct quote by one of the school board members from Dover.

You know, I'd swear there was a factory somewhere churning out identical creationist bots, if I didn't know any better. Oh wait I do, and sadly there are hundreds in North America alone.

BTW, thanks for giving a more thorough debunking on the "no transitional thing", as that's not really my area of interest.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Pot calls kettle black.
Next, in his last few posts Schatze has put LOTS of words in my mouth that I have never said. Let's do some quoting!

Pot calls kettle black, news at 11! You continuously claim me calling creationists idiots = me calling all religious people idiots. Never have I once done so. If you disbelieve the germ theory of disease, you are an idiot. If you disbelieve the theory of gravitation, you are an idiot. If you disbelieve the theory of evolution, you are an idiot.

Now that was only Schatze, but several of you are self admitted religion haters.

Again, for someone who bitches about people putting words into other's mouth, you put a ton of words into other people's mouths. People are criticizing ID and creationism. ID and creationism are not religion. All creationists and ID'rs are religious. Not all religious people are ID'rs or creationists. You are mistaking a sufficient condition for calling someone an idiot for a necessary condition. You may want to look up those terms, as you seem to be a bit behind in the logic department.

For whatever your own personal reasons are, you people band together and attack ANYONE that presents any argument that are not 100% God-free.

Ideas that incorporate God that claim to be scientific theories are not scientific theories. This is a thread about ID and whether it is a science or not. Go cry somewhere if you hate the fact that people on the internet have a better understanding of science than you.

Even by someone as middle of the road as I am. Hell even Millie jumped on me when I posted that link with a BIG disclaimer right below it and she claimed to be somewhat agnostic earlier in this thread. Seriously people, admit your your bias and be done with it.

Middle of the road you are not. You've advocated creationism and linked the discovery institute and merely labeled them "biased" when they are one of THE driving forces behind pushing creationism into schools and THE leading force behind the ID movement. You are full of shit.

I have never once claimed that evolution disproves theism. I accept decent with modification as a proven scientific fact. I am a theist. This is a bullshit statement.

I have never claimed that ID is a full on scientific theory. There are people out there doing science to try and prove it, but I have readily admitted that it is a religious viewpoint.

Care to point out where? You've continuously defended it throughout this thread. You even linked the discovery institute and immediately tried to downplay the fact that you did that merely because you put "biased" in front of the word. You either don't know what the term "biased" means or you are, again, being deceptive and are full of shit.

I am not quite so rabid as to memorize all the propagandized responses for my viewpoint. I have never claimed to be a expert on IC systems, so all I could do is present what others have done and honestly, I think that they could do it much better than I could. So I challenge you to go out and actually read Behe's book. Don't just read the shit posted on the internets, go and actually read the primary literature. Browse the DI website and read some of the shit people are doing to show irreductable complexity. Stop being so afraid of reading opinions that differ from your own.

You claimed there were legitimate examples of irreducible complexity. I'm still waiting for some examples. Oh wait, you won't be able to post any without being torn to shreds because the leading advocate of the idea, Behe, has had all his ideas torn to shreds.

So which is it, are there examples of irreducible complexity, or aren't there? If there are, please post them. If not, don't claim that there are.

OK now this I can do. I will give you three, and you can explain to me why my view is wrong. I just may learn something myself here.

1) Mutation. Darwin originally proposed that evolution is is done in a gradual, step by step manner. This means that a random mutation in a creature's genome allows it to survive and/or reproduce better than its competition and through this process called natural selection, modifications to organisms are made. We have direct evidence of this through the research done on the finches of the Galapagos Islands done by the Grants. The problems start with the fossil record. We have only one real example of an organism where this gradual modification can be seen (i.e. Archaeopteryx). Where are all the other ones? If this decent with modification is how all the organisms we see today came about, why don't we see any others?

Oh my lord. You mean a near complete example of the adaptation of the whale from a hooved animal into, well, a farking whale, with a long line of intermediate steps? Or perhaps you mean the evolution of horses. Or perhaps you mean the evolution of fish into amphibians. Or humans from apes. Or amphibians to reptiles.

I know what your next play here, and it's a modified form of Zeno's paradox. Where are the intermediate steps between the intermediate? Where is the intermediate step between those two intermediates? Where is the intermediate step between those two? etc. etc. Don't even try it. Just google transitional fossils for yourself, or go watch that handy documentary I linked which listed a number.

There are a TON of transitional fossils and it's common knowledge.

Even Archaeopteryx is a pretty big leap in terms of evolution. You go from featherless dinosaurs to a dino that is fully equipped with a set of feathers that allow for flight. What is the accepted scientific explanation for these holes in the fossil record? In 1972 Gould and Eldredge introduced punctuated equilibrium which is actually just a rehashing of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopeful_Monster]

Except that now we know that a number of therapods were feathered (such as the velociraptor), and there have been recent (4-5 years ago) discoveries of even more transitionals from therapod to bird like dinosaur.

Basically, it says that evolution is not gradual, it happens in huge leaps where organisms are born with multiple beneficial mutations that differentiate it enough from its parents that it can out survive/reproduce them.

Except punctuated equilibrium lost. Gould tried to introduce it as the primary causal agent in the evolutionary theory. Despite Gould's showmanship, neo-Darwinian synthesis (which was championed by, gasp, Dawkins et. al.) triumphed. Punctuated equilibrium does occur, but it is an aberration not a norm, and will not necessarily lead to shifts in alleles which is what evolution really handles. A chihuaha is still the same species as a wolf, even if it has changed much in a short period of time due to extreme selection forces. Given much, much more time, perhaps dogs will diverge into a different species genetically than wolves. But that won't happen for a while.

*caveat, species can also mean that animals do not normally interbreed, but are not necessarily so dissimilar that they cannot have offspring and that those offspring may indeed not be sterile. An example would be polar bears and grizzly bears, or several types of cats (ti-tigon for example).

This goes against almost everything we know about modern molecular biology. There are multiple systems that identify and repair mutations. When a mutation does get past the proofreading systems, it then has to be in the germ line cell. That is, the sperm or ovum, which houses the DNA that is to be passed on. If the beneficial mutation happens within a skin cell, it doesn't do any good. Now we come to the problem of beneficial mutations. A vast majority of mutations are detrimental to an organism. Using modern cloning techniques, we can create beneficial mutations in organisms, but that is intelligent manipulation.

Cloning, I don't think that word means what you think it means. And given the above, explain cancer precious? I agree that a mutation that does not effect the DNA of either the sperm, ovum, or during the fusion and blending of the chromosomes would not be passed on. Fortunately, this has almost absolutely nothing to do with evolution! I will continue my rebuttal after the next paragraph.

Evolution acts on random mutations (and stop the whole evolution is not random bull crap, it is playing semantics and I think this debate is above that level),

No it is not random. By definition evolution is not random. It's not a semantic game. You're just plain wrong. Evolution is not random. Period. End of story.

again all of which have to get past the proofreading systems and into the cells that will produce offspring.

Except you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and you seem to be mistaking Lamarckian evolution for Darwinian evolution. The mutations that take place that evolution is concerned with take place during gamete fusion. It is during the process of fusion of gametes and recombination of DNA through chromosomal exchange that mutations occur.

If that mutation then gives rise to a beneficial trait, then THAT animal will subsequently out-breed its competitors and pass on more genetic information therefore increasing the frequency with which that particular genetic configuration arises within the population as a whole.

Your conception of evolution is ludicrous. It's like you read a bunch of Hulk comics and tried to apply that formula to evolution.

Since the mutation rate in eukaryotes is about 10-4 to 10-6 mutations per base pair per generation (from wiki) the rate at which beneficial mutations are produced becomes pretty small.

Which is the problem with getting all your information from Wikipedia, because you obviously don't understand that evolution has nothing to do with mutation from parent to daughter cell(s), which is what you're referring to.

Now you take into account the idea of punctuated equilibrium where a bunch of beneficial mutations happen all at once,

Except punctuated equilibrium merely puts a strong selection pressure upon a subset of current characteristics within a given species, and does not characterize evolution. Again, think of wolf --> chihuaha (and it doesn't matter where that selection pressure comes from). And again, punctuated equilibrium, while understood, is not a primary driver of evolution but is a specific, exception which is a strong selective pressure over a short period of time for a specific trait (typically dwarfism in nature).

the number becomes astronomical.

No it doesn't, because you had no idea what you were talking about. You were talking about odds of a mutation given in mitosis per base pair from parent to daughter cell which has nothing to do with evolution. You then went on to describe punctuated equilibrium and try to apply the aforementioned formula for mitosis (in the belief that this is what people mean when they talk about mutations in an evolutionary sense) in the mistaken perception that punctuated equilibrium caused speciation in a short amount of time (it doesn't, it exerts extreme pressures over a short period of time which selects for normal individual variability within a population, but that does NOT give rise to a new species in a short time, as there's no real genetic drift), and concluded that therefore evolution doesn't work!

I am not sure if these calculations are correct but one site said: "The probability of getting five mutations ("good" or bad) in the same nucleus has been estimated to be 1 in 10 to the 22 power! If there was a population of 100 million organisms with a reproductive cycle of 1 day, such an event (5 mutations in one nucleus) would be expected to occur ONCE in 274 BILLION YEARS!" Now I have suspended my disbelief a bit here and accepted that evolution is the means by which animals diversify, but how anyone can call evolution a flawless theory is beyond me.

Except your understanding is incredibly flawed. Mutations occur in EVERY SINGLE FUSION OF GAMETES, SOMETIMES ON A GROSS SCALE, EVERY TIME ANY CREATURE REPRODUCES THROUGH SEXUAL MEANS.

The fossil record. I am sure Schatze, because he has stated that he is almost an expert on this subject, will say that the fossil record is flawed because only a minuscule fraction of the animals that roamed the Earth were fossilized.

Actually I pointed out that transitional fossils were quite common and you just haven't done any research or reading on the topic. Hell, in Judgement Day, the documentary I linked, they give many examples. And there are many more examples you can easily find through google [edit; or screamfeeder's post, but we all know you're not going to bother looking at his exampels]. But now that you mention it, yes this fact is true. Now, on to your further blabbering.

Well, we base most of the modern evolutionary theory on the fossil record. If the fossil record has large gaps in it, how can we say that evolutionary theory is completely sound?

Nothing is completely sound in science. However, evolution has 1.) Made testable predictions that turned out to be true (go watch the documentary I linked), 2.) has had no evidence that has given any indication that the notion is false. Here's a key term for you; falsifiability. You cannot prove anything is true. It is impossible. However, you can prove something is false. Scientific logic relies upon falsifiability.

We look at the data we have and try and interpret it as best we can, but without the fossils of the "missing links" between organisms, all we can do is infer that they existed at one time. Punctuated equilibrium

Stop with the PE shit. Every creationist loves to bring out PE, but I've already explained to you about PE. Just stop.

says that the intermediate stages in the evolution of organisms do not appear in the fossil record because they were transitional organisms that were short-lived, extremely unstable species that however, quickly evolved into stable species (plagiarized a bit here but meh). So again we have big leaps in evolution happening, even though the probability is close to nil that this actually happened.

Wrong, see above five or ten paragraphs.

3) Biogenesis. This is my favorite part of the evolutionary theory. Schatze claims that this is not part of it, but it is in actuality molecular evolution. I talked about this before and I will explain in a bit more

Socio-cultural evolution is how societies change over time, chemical evolution explains the origin of elements, galactic evolution the origin and development of galactic bodies, stellar evolution the way a star changes over time.

Except we're not talking about any of those, we're talking about Darwinian evolution, or, more correctly, the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

Just because it has "evolution" in the name doesn't mean it's the same as other things with "evolution" in the name. Durr.

"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." "In physics, entropy, symbolized by S, is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work." Greatly simplified, this can be summed up by the statement: the universe moves toward disorder. Moving toward disorder constitutes an increase in entropy. We see order in the universe (e.g. spherical planets, elliptical orbits, spiral galaxies) because there are forces that funnel energy into work (e.g. gravity). With the advent of life, small molecules such as ammonia and methane came together to form huge complex molecules. These molecules aggregated and recruited other molecules to protect them from the entropic forces around them.

What. The. Christ. You do NOT understand physics AT ALL. What the hell? This last paragraph, except for the bits in quotations, make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. Holy crap, I've seen creationists toss out this little tidbit, but never have they done so in such a wildly nonsensical manner.

[quoteThis primitive cell then developed the ability to repair any damage done to it and the ability to replicate copies of itself. Now some of you are nodding your heads and saying, yes, this is exactly how it happened. I say that the probability of energy being funneled in such a way as to produce this cascade by mere chance is impossible.[/quote]

And since you've already proven you don't even have a basic concept of elementary science principles, I'm going to take your opinion on the probability of an event occurring, with no evidence to back it up, and then have a hearty laugh at this massive paragraph of fucked up non-sequiturs you've created.

I am not talking about mutations happening within an organism, I am talking about molecules coming together and forming complex machines that perform complex processes all totally RANDOMLY.

Except if you knew anything about physics or chemistry, you'd know that it's not random at all. Electro-chemical properties of molecules, wut? I assure you, when you enzymatically cleave every base pair in a single strand of DNA, within a solution containing guanine, thyamine, adenine, cytosine, it is not random chance that causes you to end up with two strands of DNA that are exact copies of the original. Or that when an enzyme unzips a portion of DNA, the htRNA does not "randomly" form a mirror copy of the gene (except with uracil), nor do the enzymes randomly cleave out the introns, etc. etc.... all the way to the ribosomal translation of every 3 base pairs of the mRNA into amino acids, blah blah.

As to biogenesis? I don't know. But that's not part of evolution, despite having evolution in its name.

Beneficial mutations I can accept, but molecular machines being produced by random? No way. Now fast forward a bit, and you get to a single celled organism that have redundant systems in addition to the ability repair and replicate. All from random chance. Poof. Fucking magic. And all against some fundamental principles that we have observed about the natural world. This is the part I just can't swallow. This is what keeps me clinging to all the garbage that my parents apparently brainwashed me with.

Here's a hint, bub. The 2nd law of thermodynamics refers to a CLOSED system, that is, a system where no new energy is being input. Guess what, precious? The earth isn't a closed system. Go out during the day and look up. Don't look at that bright thing for too long, it'll burn out your eyes. That bright thing? Yeah, that's the sun. Guess what it does?

Or maybe there is a shred of truth in all the bullshit.

No everything you've said was bullshit.

[Indiana]

Schatze do you get some kick out of beating him in to the ground? I mean, I enjoy the show and all, but what is the point. You've shot down every point the guy thought he had about three pages ago, and he keeps coming back. Arakkis is obviously impervous to logic and so far out reason's reach, that you'll never ever get through to him. By definition it's almost impossible to argue with people who believe in creationism, because they cherish irrational beliefs over facts. They wear an indestructible shield of stupid, and no ammount of arguing will change that. The only hope for the future is to make sure kids are mentally vaccinated against these beliefs in school. The adult creationist are a lost cause.

[Pancreas]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The only hope for the future is to make sure kids are mentally vaccinated against these beliefs in school. The adult creationist are a lost cause.

The greatest triumph an idea or ideal can achieve is to transform a mind that was previously closed to it. By forsaking anyone currently embracing beliefs that seem intolerant of alternatives you deny your own views of such a victory and instead present a new belief that is intolerant of any alternative.