Eureka! A silver bullet against creationists!

[PenguinWarrior]

Well, isn't it one thing to assume Satan has put bones in the ground and another to say that he has had success in manipulating the pinnacle of God's creation? That God didn't have complete control over the very thing that is His center of attention? Will theists concede this?

I think you may be taking a joke post somewhat too seriously. I cannot imagine anyone would use the word "tricksy" in a serious manner. Well, maybe Gollum, but I don't think he posts here.

This is a cool piece of footage, and it reinforces a point that I've been thinking about recently. Not only are IDers/Creationists losing the scientific argument, they are not even aware of the modern scientific argument in any meaningful sense. They are stuck arguing over the fossil record, transitional forms and going "What use is half an eye?", whilst real science notices how perfectly the science of genetics matches evolutionary theory. They are, in short, arguing against the 19th century case for evolution, over a hundred years too late. And they are still losing the argument, which has to sting a bit.

 

[joobz]

Well, isn't it one thing to assume Satan has put bones in the ground and another to say that he has had success in manipulating the pinnacle of God's creation? That God didn't have complete control over the very thing that is His center of attention? Will theists concede this?

THat's what happened when eve bit that apple given to her by the devil himself. IT was a clever little genefusing apple.
the more you know

 

[joobz]

I think you may be taking a joke post somewhat too seriously. I cannot imagine anyone would use the word "tricksy" in a serious manner. Well, maybe Gollum, but I don't think he posts here.

This is a cool piece of footage, and it reinforces a point that I've been thinking about recently. Not only are IDers/Creationists losing the scientific argument, they are not even aware of the modern scientific argument in any meaningful sense. They are stuck arguing over the fossil record, transitional forms and going "What use is half an eye?", whilst real science notices how perfectly the science of genetics matches evolutionary theory. They are, in short, arguing against the 19th century case for evolution, over a hundred years too late. And they are still losing the argument, which has to sting a bit.

Very true. and it has always impressed me how you can learn a lot about the function of some protein by running a genetic tree of it comparing the variations of that protein in similar species and non/similar species. A lot is learned by figuring out what is conserved and what isn't. A great way to pinpoint active sites.

 

[Meadmaker]

Why does it require a deceptive designer?

It leaves evidence of a mechanism. There was a chromosome combination. The question is could such an event happen in such a way that viable offspring were produced? Furthermore, could they have passed on the modified chromosome as an inherited characteristic? Furthermore, would that characteristic give the new population a survival advantage?"

The ID proponents will say that such a thing is very, very, unlikely. It is so unlikely they will say that it simply couldn't have happened without assistance. Unless you have a response available, then the Behes of the world will say that this actually confirms ID, instead of refuting it.

 

[RandFan]

Why does it require a deceptive designer?

Because, as miller (a theist) points out, it doesn't point to inteligent design. You can choose to believe in a designer as miller does but to argue that the evidence which clearly supports evolution was put there by a god who did not use evolution would necessitate deception.

It leaves evidence of a mechanism.

One that irrefutably supports evolution.

There was a chromosome combination. The question is could such an event happen in such a way that viable offspring were produced?

Furthermore, could they have passed on the modified chromosome as an inherited characteristic? Furthermore, would that characteristic give the new population a survival advantage?"

The ID proponents will say that such a thing is very, very, unlikely. It is so unlikely they will say that it simply couldn't have happened without assistance. Unless you have a response available, then the Behes of the world will say that this actually confirms ID, instead of refuting it.

All of which is nonsense and only if you argue from ignorance and or incredulity.

 

[Meadmaker]

One that irrefutably supports evolution.

Indeed, but since intelligent design and evolution are not contradictory, support for evolution is not evidence against intelligent design.

(Of course, I will grant you that ID supporters are generally also creationists, but they need not be.)

 

[RandFan]

Indeed, but since intelligent design and evolution are not contradictory, support for evolution is not evidence against intelligent design.

I would have to take exception. Watch the complete video (6 or 7 posts up) and you will see that ID is a direct result of a Supreme Court ruling that excluded creation from being taught in the class room. ID did not exist prior and the text books that used creation simply used a word proccessing search and replace function to replace creation with ID. Could there be some exceptions? Sure but that is the exception. Those who honestly endorse evolution and are also theistic like Miller take great pains to distance themselves from ID because of its very nature.

(Of course, I will grant you that ID supporters are generally also creationists, but they need not be.)

The point is only when one is arguing against evolution. If you follow this sub thread back to its inception you will see that it is a result of whether or not this gene is fundamental and the answer is a resounding yes. The fusion could only have happened via evolution or a god that made it appear that it was via evolution. It is a stark dichotomy. If you believe god used evolution as Miller does then there is no deception. If you don't accept evolution then there is.

 

[Zygar]

...the creation-evolution debate that's been raging the Internet probably since it was born (though I've only been involved the last few years).

Wait. How old are you? According to your profile you are older than me, and I'm pretty certain the internet wasn't arround when I was born.

 

[hodgy]

Not only are IDers/Creationists losing the scientific argument, they are not even aware of the modern scientific argument in any meaningful sense. They are stuck arguing over the fossil record, transitional forms and going "What use is half an eye?", whilst real science notices how perfectly the science of genetics matches evolutionary theory. They are, in short, arguing against the 19th century case for evolution, over a hundred years too late. And they are still losing the argument, which has to sting a bit.

They already lost the argument in 1850, everything since is just a triumph of faith and dogma over truth. That we have to bring ever more evidence to the argument is just an indication that evidence is irrelevant to believers.

 

[RandFan]

They already lost the argument in 1850, everything since is just a triumph of faith and dogma over truth. That we have to bring ever more evidence to the argument is just an indication that evidence is irrelevant to believers.

Exactly. It's such a rediculous argument we might as well argue whether the Earth is not flat.

It's not BTW.

 

[CapelDodger]

They might even cite Judge Jones to prove it. However, they aren't the same thing, and this argument doesn't address ID, although it claims to.

Agreed, ID doesn't rest on the human/ape divide or on any specific point in evolutionary history. It just claims, in its many forms, that there was intelligent intervention in the process.

The obvious question an ID proponent would ask has already been asked, in a different form, in this fledgling thread. What is the probability that two chromosomes would fuse in such a way that the resulting organism had a biological advantage?

Better to ask what disadvantage it would have. (The contribution to speciation is obvious, but that's not always advantageous.)

They would then describe how horribly unlikely the fusion was in the first place ...

The dividing nucleus is a scene of controlled chaos. Chromosomes aren't copied from end to end, they're copied in chunks which have to be marshalled and connected up, the opportunities for mistakes are legion. There's an extra step for germ-line cells. Chromosome fusion (or duplication, see Down's Syndrome as I recall) is not by any means horribly unlikely.

...and possibly say how incredibly unlikely it would be that the fused chromosomes would be functional at all ...

No genetic material has been lost. There's a buffer-zone of telomeres between the chromosomes so they shouldn't interact much. Where's the killer problem?

... and how amazingly astoundingly unlikely it would be that it would actually be passed between generations in such a way that there would be a biological advantage.

It could be passed along easily enough. During fertilisation the unfused chromosomes could align with the segments of the fused chromosome, which might prove the dominant form. That would be in the early days, of course, over time the fused version would become more conventional, less apt to the menage. By then speciation has occurred. No specific biological advantage required, just advantages that happened to be carried by the population involved.

They would then conclude that there must have been some supernatural assistance to make it work.

That's because they're working with the wrong figures.

And while you might think that's preposterous, I'm willing to bet you can't prove it.

I can kick it about a bit, though.

 

[cyborg]

Wait. How old are you? According to your profile you are older than me, and I'm pretty certain the internet wasn't arround when I was born.

The Internet has been around for some time - the fundamental technology being invented in the 60s. It's just that the vast majority of people never heard of it because it was limited to military and academic communication in the early days - only really reaching a critical mass a few years after the WWW protocol took off.

 

[CapelDodger]

Indeed, but since intelligent design and evolution are not contradictory, support for evolution is not evidence against intelligent design.

The primary aspect of ID is that there's no evidence for it. ID'ers pretend there is but it all comes down to hand-waving. "Evolution OK, but all the same ... " and "What about this? OK, but what about that? OK, but ..." hand-waving

(Of course, I will grant you that ID supporters are generally also creationists, but they need not be.)

At least creationists present a motive, which ID'ers don't. You'd have thought "motive" would be the first part of the ID case, but that would be religious according to US Law. That's why ID was developed, to get over the hurdle that Creationism couldn't - in the US. (There are no similar legal defences in the UK.)

Creationism has Motive - the god wanted people like them to join it in lording over everything else, including angels, Opportunity - when it built the whole thing, and Means - it's fricking omnipotent. ID has nothing, no why, no when, no how.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Indeed, but since intelligent design and evolution are not contradictory, support for evolution is not evidence against intelligent design.

An intelligent designer that set things up to use evolution from the get-go and then left everything alone is perhaps not incompatible with evolution. Of course, such a concept is compatible with anything in nature, so it's not all that exciting.

But that's not the sort of intelligent design people talk about. They talk about a designer who rigged up specific biological entities using some sort of unspecified finger-poking mechanism. But this designer's talents are inferred from human design and nothing else. In this case, it is fair to point out that the designer seems inept in many instances, with respect to the way good human design would be done. As soon as you patch up this problem with "god works in mysterious ways," you're leaving the inference from human design and throwing in a completely mysterious additional component for which you have no counterpart in human design. The analogy falls apart.

So some of the support for evolution is evidence against the analogy, and thus against the fundamental substance of intelligent design.

~~ Paul

 

[Dog Boots]

Indeed, but since intelligent design and evolution are not contradictory, support for evolution is not evidence against intelligent design.

Depends on the brand of ID. The ID that is interesting and on the move in the US is the not compatible with evolution. The Dover trial (which Miller is talking about) was evolution VS. ID - not evolution and ID living side by side.

But you're right, there are versions of ID that include evolution.

 

[Dog Boots]

Wait. How old are you? According to your profile you are older than me, and I'm pretty certain the internet wasn't arround when I was born.

Not sure if it's a joke of sorts, but clarification in any case: I've only been discussing creationism vs. evolution for 2-3 years on The Net, but I'm sure the discussion has been raging way longer than that - probably as long as The Net itself.

 

[joobz]

Not sure if it's a joke of sorts, but clarification in any case: I've only been discussing creationism vs. evolution for 2-3 years on The Net, but I'm sure the discussion has been raging way longer than that - probably as long as The Net itself.

Yup, since the dawn of the internet, people have been sending evolution vs. ID arguments and porn.

Sometimes both.

 

[Zygar]

The Internet has been around for some time - the fundamental technology being invented in the 60s. It's just that the vast majority of people never heard of it because it was limited to military and academic communication in the early days - only really reaching a critical mass a few years after the WWW protocol took off.

Agreed. I just didn't realize that the internet was a true entity prior to about 1983 when the Internet Activities Board was formed. Incidentally, I think ARPANET is considered the original internet and it was kicked off in October of 1969. But at the time the term "internet" wasn't applied.

Not sure if it's a joke of sorts, but clarification in any case: I've only been discussing creationism vs. evolution for 2-3 years on The Net, but I'm sure the discussion has been raging way longer than that - probably as long as The Net itself.

Yes, I was just throwing it out there for fun. And yes, I'm sure discussion of the subject is nearly as old as the net, since it was primarily used for scholars from the outset. But the discussion itself is much older:

They already lost the argument in 1850, everything since is just a triumph of faith and dogma over truth. That we have to bring ever more evidence to the argument is just an indication that evidence is irrelevant to believers.

 

[Meadmaker]

Depends on the brand of ID. The ID that is interesting and on the move in the US is the not compatible with evolution. The Dover trial (which Miller is talking about) was evolution VS. ID - not evolution and ID living side by side.

But you're right, there are versions of ID that include evolution.

Exactly. (Although the chief ID celebrity that believes in evolution is Michael Behe, an expert witness at the Dover trial. Judge Jones said he must be lying.)

 

[RandFan]

Exactly.

Some examples would be great. I think to the extent that there are any they ae few and far between. Since ID came into vogue only after the Supreme Court struck down creationism in schools it seems unlikely there are any but I concede that it is possible.

(Although the chief ID celebrity that believes in evolution is Michael Behe, an expert witness at the Dover trial. Judge Jones said he must be lying.)

For very good reason, did you watch the full length video?