Evidence for evolution vs evidence for ID

Aight, y'all.

Evolution supporters pos evidence for evolution.

ID supporters post evidence for ID.

Let's go.

I'll start with 2 examples of homology, structural homology and conserved sequences.

Mammalian Forelimb Homologies

A nice moving image showing structural homology.

cytochrome C - molecular evidence of relationship between species.

www.turbulentplanet.com...

Nice lengthy article on flagellum.

www.talkdesign.org...

gonna be hard to compete with evolution,

there is no hard evidence of an "intelligent designer"

that does not mean evolution is automatically right.

for this debate to even have an oppposing side you would have to be willing to accept non-factual assumptions and beliefs by 'ID' supporters.

this thread isn't about non factual assumption's. It's about evidence. Both parties provide what ever evidence they may have concerning each theory.

If evolution were true, we would expect transitional Fossils...

www.talkorigins.org...

ok show me some evidence.... and i mean hard evidence of an Intelligent Designer. i know the evidence of evolution would greatly outweigh the evidence supporting ID.

i'm not supporting either just trying to make it an even fight.

ToE would expect a correlation between cladistics (morphological relationship) and statiography (where in fossil record)...

linky




(sorry mods I dunnie know how to shorten links )

edit: now I do

[edit on 4-3-2006 by melatonin]

Wish I could find some 'hard' evidence for an intelligent designer. I keep looking at all these website's and so far all I can find is just an attack on lack of knowledge. To sum it up, science can't explain this so that means there was a designer there.

I've yet to see any actual evidence.

fermat.nap.edu...
www.talkorigins.org...

Very good article about Dembski.

www.talkorigins.org...

Saw this reading about the trial behe was on... most goddamn funniest thing I've read so far.

www.talkreason.org...

Behe's next reply, to Judge Jones's observation that ID uses the same strategy of "contrived dualism" as scientific Creationism did in the 1980's, is equally logically muddled, so much so that it actually makes the Judge's point. I am going to quote it verbatim, since it's short:

The dualism is "contrived" and "illogical" only if one confuses ID with creationism, as the Court does. There are indeed more possible explanations for life than Darwinian evolution and young earth creation, so evidence against one doesn't count as evidence for the other. However, if one simply contrasts intelligent causes with unintelligent causes, as ID does, then those two categories do constitute a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of possible explanations. Thus evidence against the ability of unintelligent causes to explain a phenomenon does strengthen the case for an intelligent cause.

....

Behe clearly knows that contrived dualism, while useful for lay public consumption, is a losing proposition scientifically, because he later directly contradicts himself:

In the history of science no successful theory has ever demonstrated that all rival theories are impossible, and neither should intelligent design be held to such an unreasonable, inappropriate standard. Rather, a theory succeeds by explaining the data better than competing ideas.

[edit on 4-3-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 4-3-2006 by Produkt]

Social Evolution of Consciousnes

www.earley.org...

This article presents a model of the social evolution of consciousness that describes how human consciousness has changed during the span of human history. By "consciousness" I simply refer to the inner life of the individual, including thoughts, attitudes, emotions, motivations, and spiritual experience. This article deals with the social evolution of consciousness only. The biological evolution of consciousness has taken place over millions of years and will not be discussed here. Biologists tell us that in the last 35,000 years, our biological make-up has changed so little as to be irrelevant to the enormous changes we have seen in our consciousness (Glantz and Pearce, 1989), all of which are the result of the evolution of our social arrangements. This model is part of a more extensive model of social evolution developed by the author (Earley 1997) which also includes the evolution of technology and social structure. This model helps to explain both our many scientific, humanitarian and artistic advances as a species and the moral horrors that have occurred during our history.

What exactly is the point here guys? Still having trouble understanding the debate? Are we to post any and all evidence used to support evolution and any and all evidence used to support design... to what end? You do realize that just about everything posted thus far is irrelevant in the context of a design versus chance origins debate, yes? You guys have posted evidence that contradicts most creationist models, eg 'biological kind barrier' (YEC and OEC) but nothing (aside from the TO link about the flagellum) that contradicts a design inference/claim. This continued assertion that evolution and design are mutually exclusive is only evidence that you don't understand what's being argued; and most importantly what evidence is relevant to the debate.


You guys (unless the point is to debate biblical creationism) need to be putting up evidence that supports the theory that all life developed solely by the undirected forces of natural selection acting on random mutation. That's what the contradiction/debate between neo-Darwinian theory and intelligent design is all about.. just FYI. You could replace "intelligent design" with "intentional design" if that makes it any easier. To put it simply, "intelligent design is the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose." That's why it makes no mention of the designer, there's simply no current methodology with which to test for the designer...

Like any other thoery it doesn't have all the answers. Somethings may be forever outside of our scientific capabilities... seems i hear both those arguments from naturalists all the time. We just want a level playing field. ID will rise and fall on its' own merits or lack there-of, those of you who seem to think this has already been decided simply haven't been paying attention imho. Not that all the critics are wrong of course, just that the debate has not been settled and throwing up your hands and saying "nature did it"... somehow, we think, maybe... never mind guy quit asking question, just don't cut it. Hey looky there, i took the God did argument and flipped it; aint i clever (annoying having your position misrepresented ain't it), i never even had a class on strawman construction and demolition. Ain't no fun when the rabbit's go the gun, eh comrades.


Seeing as we're not debating here and only posting evidence used to support our interpretation of the available data (ie not a lack there-of) i'll post some stuff for posterities sake.


Evidence/Observations used to support Design in Cosmology (physics)

-The 'fine-tuning' of the universe (many ID advocates (except the ID/creationist types like me) don't get involved with cosmological design arguments; creationists have been advocating it for years though (eg OECist Hugh Ross, which is where i found alot of this info, his books are excellent too imo.) Most agnostic IDers only advocate biological design but it's relevant none-the-less imo. The fine tuning argument is AKA the Anthropic Principal.

a) Ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant. It cannot differ from its value by any more than one part in 10^40 (one part in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion) without eliminating the possibility for life. Robert H. Dicke, "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle," Nature 192 (1961), 440-41.

b) space energy density. Its value cannot vary by more than one part in 10^120 and still allow for the kinds of stars and planets physical life requires. Eli Michael. 1999. How physically plausible is the cosmological constant? from the University of Colorado, Boulder.

c) The following numbers represent maximum allowable deviation from currently accepted values. Anything beyond that deviation would result in either a)the universe's immediate collapse (ie no universe beyong plank time) b)matter unable to form in universe or c)universe unsuitable for life. For the record. The cosmological design inference is based on what we know... the opposite (chance) is argued from the what we do not know angle ie, we don't know how to explain how we got so "lucky" other than to say "nature did it." Getting it yet?

Ratio of Electrons to Protons - 1:10^37

Ratio of Electromagnetic Force to Gravity - 1:10^40

Expansion Rate of Universe - 1:10^55

Mass of Universe - 1:10^59

Cosmological Constant - 1:10^120

The anthropic principal argument is also used to describe our local cluster, galaxy, solar system etc... but i figure you guys get the point. Visit links provided below to see those arguments (and what is stated above with refs where neccessary) if interested.

Extreme Fine Tuning - Dark Energy or the Cosmological Constant and Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe Includes 34 examples of "Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe" which have to be 'just so' in order for life/matter/universe itself to exist. (OECism site)

reasons.org (see: "Tolman's Elegant Test" and "Anthropic principle: Precise Plan for Humanity") (OECism site)


Observation/Evidence/arguments used to support the design inference in life/biology

Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other M. Behe from arn.org

This next quote is relevant to produkt and truthseeker (an anybody else having trouble understanding what's being debated... ie, pro-ID does not make someone an anti-evolutionist.) FYI- there are ID advocates who have no issue with common ancestry.

Anybody here care to venture a guess as to what defines someone as an "anti-evolutionist"... i'd be interested in what that means to you and how many so called "loyal Darwinists" i could find whom would fit your criteria, making them anti-evolutionists instead. Might be interesting. *shrug*

Preliminary Remarks

In writing on the topic of naturalism and evolution the problem arises of what to call the contending camps. The difficulty comes from the fact that, although the term "evolutionist" is often used to refer to persons who demand the unrelenting application of physical laws to all phenomena in the universe, many other persons who are opposed to this view are perfectly willing to concede that a limited number of phenomena can be explained by Darwinistic principles. Similarly, although a term like "creationist" brings to mind champions of a young-earth theory, it is often applied to persons who do not defend that thesis but do contend that natural laws have at some points been superseded by a supernatural agency.

Since the focus of this symposium is the sufficiency of natural law, and in order to avoid the confusing terminology discussed above, in this essay I will use the term "believer" for those who believe in the universal application of natural law and the term "skeptic" for those who doubt it. This has the advantage of using terms for each side that the opposite side generally regards positively. Perhaps this will go a little way toward promoting the good will that this conference strives for.

My post is getting rather long so i won't put up any more quotes from that page. Still i'd recommend reading it in full, many issues re: the design inference in biology are covered.

What is Irreducible Complexity? An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced … by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional…. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. (Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution)

Can anybody think of a way to falsify the Darwinian claim of a "series of slight, successive modifications" outside of a concept like irreducible complexity? Best i can tell it fits Darwin's criteria re: falsification of his theory, assuming of course anything is actually IC in biology of course (again not settled - "debunked" or "proved.")

My point is; If not a series of succesive modifications then what? Not falsification of a specific pathway mind you, but the concept of a Darwinian pathway at all, just curious... opinions?

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference. M. Behe from arn.org

Trying to keep my quotes small, so just the conclusion (again alot of info... just trying to keep the post readable.) Interesting that many of the theological/supernatural arguments used against ID today (by some ) could have been and were used against Big Bang Theory. The theological implications of a "creation event" are the exact reason Einstein added his cosmological constant to favor a steady state (infinite) model of the universe (later retracted when Hubble made his red-shift measurements.)

Conclusion

It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality.

It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event--that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size. To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event--the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust with such a notion 8:

Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single windingup at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind.

Nonetheless, the Big Bang hypothesis was embraced by physics and over the years has proven to be a very fruitful paradigm. The point here is that physics followed the data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion. In the present day, as biochemistry multiplies examples of fantastically complex molecular systems, systems which discourage even an attempt to explain how they may have arisen, we should take a lesson from physics. The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace it and build on it.

In concluding, it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.

It was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.
This paper was originally presented in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting ofthe C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University.

I know i've posted this stuff around here before (i like to post material i've read/am familiar with) and didn't like the implication, in other threads, (by some) that we (ATS ID advocates) were scared or unable to answer this and other thread topics in O&C. It's not the case... i've been following this stuff for a few years now and the "God of the gaps" type arguments are very old (i'm an OECist so i've heard them from way back.)

Have you guys thought that maybe the reason some of us don't bother with your threads/posts is because, since you've been here, you've shown your complete unwillingness to objectively look at the [interpretations of] data or the design paradigm being argued; peppering your posts with terms like moron, retarted, etc don't help either? IOW maybe it's you and not that your arguments are so good we've run off crying and screaming... just a thought.

It's cool with me if i'm wrong... doesn't destroy my faith either (could just as easily be a theistic evolutionist - like most ID opponents/Darwinists are BTW.) I was a Christian before i knew any of this stuff and will continue to be after it's ultimatley rejected or accepted... IOW the "those of weak faith" theory doesn't apply to me, believe it or not i don't need a concept like IC to be shown valid in order for me to believe God is real or that Jesus is my saviour. I'm already there, was prior to any of this and will continue to after this has been settled, one way or the other. You may have to accept the fact that not every one is going to see it your way, it doesn't make them ignorant or stupid.

Although you guys may be happy to know that people like you have got me thinking about not posting in the O&C forum anymore. I mean what's the point? Your posting styles are to a debate what masterbation is to sex... just an observation.

*off to find something else to do*

Have fun guys... carefull, i'm not sure if there's any merit to the whole "too much can make you blind" theory... if you know what i mean. I'd advise caution.

The forum is all yours. Might not be much fun without any opponents... but that ain't stopped ya'll yet.

Enjoy.

I'll take the time to read through those link's. I was going to debate the so called evidence, till I got to the part where you said we're not debating ... pitty. But, roughly translated, no actual evidence nor none needed. We don't need no stinking filthy evidence.

without evidence their is little chance of convincing any one of your idea/theory therefore its not really a debate, is it?>
yeah its not all about if god exists or whether we grew outa monkeys or what have you.

Well, they keep proclaiming all this evidence ... yet if what Rren posted is the best there is (i.e not evidence) then I feel pitty for IDism and it's advocate's.

Evolution- Fossils, DNA/Genetics, studied in labs and priven.

ID- Because I said so!

Not really a debate is it?

Even if there were evidence of an intelligent designer whose to say it is a god entity?

I see it thus far, that there is no physical evidence of intelligent design. The arguement so far depends on what science cant prove, as I understand it.
Just because science cannot prove something at this moment in time doesnt mean it cant in the future...an arguement you could apply to both sides I suppose.

However, let ID produce the designers blueprints of the things science cant explain.

So at the moment the scales are on the side of evolution IMHO.

Science has some evidence on its side.

ID first needs to show that the designer exists, proof of patent, blueprint whatever, then would need to prove god (if a god exists) was that designer.

My 2 cents