Its not a hypothesis. To be a hypothesis you neen to have a testable cause-effect relationship with a probable mechanism.
Nothig about ID is testable. There is no probable mechanism. THere is no way to prtict results because its all "god's" arbitrary will.
Its pathetic atually. ID is a real sign of the times.
Yes, Alliance is right.
ID can - at the very best - be called a religious idea. Or we can just call it a culturally acceptable delusion...
Once again: All proponents of this idea have, are attacks directed at the scientific theory (which means it HAS been tested) of evolution. These attacks often show a poor understanding of science and the scientific method.
These proponents fail to see, that disproving A does NOT prove B. This has mystified me for years.
Proponents of ID have to supply ME with testable evidence in support of their OWN idea... or come up with a way of doing it so we can call ID a hypothesis.
Evolution is not the key to the answer that many ID supporters have. Rather the origin of the Universe, the formation of the elements and the subatomic particles, basically the origin of matter. What could have created it? In my eyes, these questions are better explained by ID. However, I understand that the question of the origin of God is also equally unanswerable. However, I personally find a creator a more feasible idea. Alas, we mere mortals cannot comprehend infinity and time.
Originally posted by Alliance
They are essentially one and the same. A transitional form does not have to be a new species.Take dogs. There is only one species of dog (C. domesticus). pit bull, greyhounds, shitzus are all the same species, but are so different they are referred to as breeds. In time, if they become so genetically different that a section becomes unable to breed with the new population, it will become new species.
The point with fossils is that they show general trends, trends like cephelization. These trends continue thorugh the fossil record, shoing that there is some mechanism at work. If that doesnt help, I am a bit confused on your question.
You say speciation results but you fail to refer as to why, I know that genetic drift combined with natural selection can result in a species barrier being erected between breeds. But this doesn't support evolution because there isn't any example of speciation occurring due to new traits being formed via mutations.
Originally posted by Nellinator
The fact that creatures do not breed does not breed does not mean that they cannot. Many species are capable of mating with each other by genotype but do not based on phenotype. Speciation is a difference in taste, not genetics.
You just described behavioral speciation, loss of traits can also prevent a species from breeding.
Originally posted by Nellinator
It can create problems with breeding, but the alleles still match up and the number of chromosomes remains the same.
That's what I just said, if a organism has a different number of traits. They cannot produce offspring or if they do it's sterile as is the case with most hybrids..
Originally posted by Nellinator
The fact that creatures do not breed does not breed does not mean that they cannot. Many species are capable of mating with each other by genotype but do not based on phenotype. Speciation is a difference in taste, not genetics.
Originally posted by Nellinator
It can create problems with breeding, but the alleles still match up and the number of chromosomes remains the same. In fact chromosome number changes are always bad, so it is nearly impossible to explain how a moth can have more chromosomes than a human and originate from the same species.
hmm Hi, it's me, the all-famous... well, infamous should I say, XYZ!
You know me, I hate religion, and ID really takes the biscuit, but I'm always open to ideas and being proved wrong, so I'm asking for whoever thinks they're the 'smartest' and the best debater to represent Intelligent Design. Hey, if you prove me wrong, I'll join your side and go against the ones who support evolution! So why not?
it is a FACT that evolution happens and happens often and that intelligent design is mostly crap. but its also true that the rate of evolution needed to reach the kind of precision and creativity needed to create our sense organs and multy purpose instinctual brain is sumwhat faster than the chance mutation and survival of the fittest process. its more likely that a secondary bilogical indirect system exists in all living things which sumwhat intelligently aids in the choice of genotypes and evolution over many generations.
Originally posted by lord xyz
hmm Hi, it's me, the all-famous... well, [b]infamous should I say, XYZ!You know me, I hate religion, and ID really takes the biscuit, but I'm always open to ideas and being proved wrong, so I'm asking for whoever thinks they're the 'smartest' and the best debater to represent Intelligent Design. Hey, if you prove me wrong, I'll join your side and go against the ones who support evolution! So why not? [/B]
Simple story: no one who defends ID is intelligent enough to actualyl understand what they are attacking.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
it is a FACT that evolution happens and happens often and that intelligent design is mostly crap. but its also true that the rate of evolution needed to reach the kind of precision and creativity needed to create our sense organs and multy purpose instinctual brain is sumwhat faster than the chance mutation and survival of the fittest process. its more likely that a secondary bilogical indirect system exists in all living things which sumwhat intelligently aids in the choice of genotypes and evolution over many generations.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
its more likely that a secondary bilogical indirect system exists in all living things which sumwhat intelligently aids in the choice of genotypes and evolution over many generations.
You used the word intelligence. Intelligence implies both consciousness and a bigger plan. That implies direct intervention in natural processes...which is unnatural. Now...to me..."intelligent Design" is called such because there is an intelligence guiding the process (of direct creation).
You just apply this to evolution. Its lika semi-rational Intelligent design.
A secondary, hidden system that is intelligent certainly seems to point to god.
Yet, you contradict yourself sayingt that an "indirect" mechanism directly "aids" the chice of genotypes beyond natural selection pressures.
let me explain, im pointing to anything BUT god. a large part of the dna code is hugwash and irrelevent, many believe. and that might be true, but as i was saying there MIGHT be in it a system which has SURVIVAL set as a means and end in itself{just a theory} we talk a lot about survival of the fittest but the dna does not have a brain and its sumwhat unlikely{not totally though} that unaided just through unchecked chance chemical changes an emperical form of life evolved into what we see now without completely dying out in the CHANCE mutations or changes. it can happen but the likelehood is very low though not non existant by any measure. it wud make more sense if there actually was a system which took more active part in CHOOSING the benefitial changes and mutations over the harmful. seeing as the human body DOES fight cancerous cells on its own which are harmful but lets better immunity mutated cells remain points vaguely towards this. its just a basic thoery, dont get so worked up.
u should also realize that NATURAL selection doest follow any philosophy of survival of the fittest just depends on random accidents and physical processes which shouldnt necessarily support the fittest as things are so dynamic in physics that a molecule or organism for that matter at the molecular might become fit or unfit in a matter of pioseconds. yet most life follows an almost traditional method in inheriting the types of genes and reproducing.
If you are pointing to things other than god, I would reccomend that you use words other than "intelligence." Intelligence clearly has direct references (which I've explained).
Actually the more we discover about the DNA code, the more we find actually is relevant. Most genetecists I know consider the "garbage" regions to play a huge part in translational regulation and other processes. DNA is a molecule, but the creaturest aht contain DNA are built to reproduce and survive. Its NATURAL.
The system that "chooses" good mutations over harmful ones IS natural selction. Mad mutations hurt your fitness, you cant reproduce as well or ouyr offspring cant reproduce as well, or you just die. There's your selection for you.
Natural selction IS survival of the fittest. The defintion of fittest always changes. Mutations are random, but the species that survive are clearly not. The environment is not often so dynamic that species can't survive a couple of generations. When the environment IS that dynamic...most everything dies (mass extinctions).
The reason life seems to "follow a pattern" is because the really good changes carry on and all the bad ones die. All the really bad ones are gon because the species that had them are dead.
You clearly don't understand Natural Selection, becuase you question all the things that it answers and then make up your own cockamanie "theory" that is basically Natural selction.
Choosing again implies intelligence. The dirve is survival and reproduction. The species that best does this is considered the fittest. THIS IS natural selection.