Intelligent Design - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Intelligent Design

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby WharfRat » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:51 pm

JTWood wrote:Fact - Scientifically, an organism (asexual) or organisms cannot be shown to be able to reproduce into anything more complicated than itself/themselves.


I think you need to define your notion of complexity.

It's a very interesting topic because it is a question that touches both scientific and philosophical ideas. I don't agree that the teaching of evolution necessitates the teaching of ID. I think that evolution is fundamentally unproven and shouldn't be taught in the first place.


There is an incredible body of evidence in favor of evolution. The act of proving a theory is science, no? Do lab experiments or field experiments that show speciation not count as science? It is unproven, yes, but jesus will you look at the body of work from folks who have sought out to prove and/or disprove it. Saying "that's not science" is like pointing at the sun and saying "that's not bright."

StlSluggers wrote:What I don't believe in is the idea that one thing can undergo a series of miniscule mutations over a long span of time and then suddenly become something 100% different.


Nothing becomes 100% different from its ancestors. A tree doesn't become a bird, keep that in mind. But new species are born out of old species, and this has been observed. In plants, insects, fish and mammals alike. Macroevolution is certainly harder to prove than microevolution, but it isn't all that different, just on a different scale.

I've heard the claim that ID isn't in contention with ToE, and to me this assertion makes perfect sense. But much of the ID literature I've read attacks evolution. The whole notion of irreducible complexity would seem to go against the possibility of evolution. So which is it??
1 3 4 6 7 8 8 9 10 15 16 23 32 37 42 44 49 51

8.14.07: "I guess heaven needed a shortstop."
WharfRat
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3056
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Walking my fish

Postby acsguitar » Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:58 pm

CubsFan7724 wrote:
acsguitar wrote:Again the Catholic church is trying to make everyone in the country follow their rules and beliefs. Far Conservative Catholics are supposed to try to convert people to Jesus. This is a problem when you have them in the whitehouse/governemnt.

This is purely a convention of the Consevative Right Wing trying to push their agenda onto everyone.

This "Intelligent Design" has merit I guess but shouldn't really be taught.

There really isn't anything to teach about it. I believe its ok to say "Something may have created the tinyiest atom and maybee someone like a "God" put it into play."

However, Just saying blindly that "GOD" created everything is wrong. God may have created evolution but to ignore all science fact and say that everything was put here in its right place is balony.

Catholics have nothing to do with Intelligent Design, so I really don't see where your loathing of them is coming from. And, which Catholic is in the White House again? John Kerry? Oh wait, he lost. Bush is a born-again Christian. If you are going to hate the administration because of their religious beliefs, at least get their religious beliefs correct instead of mindlessly blaming Catholics. :-t


I went to catholic school 12 years... So I'm not mindlessly blaming them...They do seem to cause a ton of problems though... And how come the Catholic church seems to be the leading "Authority" or "Push" toward 99% of the issues in todays socieyt.

Abortion, Death Penalty, Stem Cell research. The majority of the major voices damning these things are catholics. I don't ever here the Muslim or Jewish point of view. How come the catholic church has to get their way in everything?
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby da1chipo » Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:13 pm

StlSluggers wrote:
da1chipo wrote:I might be getting this wrong, but is a six-fingered hand more complicated than a five-fingered hand? I'm pretty sure it is.

No, it's not more complicated. It's simply an additional reproduction of a current part. More complicated would be creating a hand with an attachment that does something completely new. For instance, if your hand grew proboscis on top that allowed you to squirt stuff out of it. That's more complex because it's different.


Do webbed fingers and toes count? Or does it have to be something completely different from anything we've seen?
Image
da1chipo
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Award-Winning Graphics Expert
Posts: 1930
Joined: 17 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: NY

Postby StlSluggers » Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:27 pm

WharfRat wrote:
JTWood wrote:Fact - Scientifically, an organism (asexual) or organisms cannot be shown to be able to reproduce into anything more complicated than itself/themselves.


I think you need to define your notion of complexity.

It's a very interesting topic because it is a question that touches both scientific and philosophical ideas. I don't agree that the teaching of evolution necessitates the teaching of ID. I think that evolution is fundamentally unproven and shouldn't be taught in the first place.


There is an incredible body of evidence in favor of evolution. The act of proving a theory is science, no? Do lab experiments or field experiments that show speciation not count as science? It is unproven, yes, but jesus will you look at the body of work from folks who have sought out to prove and/or disprove it. Saying "that's not science" is like pointing at the sun and saying "that's not bright."

I think you hit my rather obvious lack of the grasp of the evolutionary and ID terminology. I understand the science/philosophies, but unfortunately, I often get the jargon mixed up.

Microevolution - Believe it. Seen the proof. Hell, the proof is in my back yard every day.
Macroevolution - It is my understanding that this means evolution above the species level, and it is my understanding that this has not been proven beyond theory.

So, I'm not dismissing the body of evidence. I'm simply embracing only what has been proven, and looking at other theories in the areas where theory is all there is to go on.

Nothing becomes 100% different from its ancestors.

And that's really one of the two problems I have with macroevolution. Aren't we supposed to have evolved from some protein that got hit by lightning and became a protozoan (or something like that)? If the argument is that we started at one single point, and, given the above, then how did different families/genuses/whatever they're called come into existence? Furthermore, if these changes are occuring in small doses over long periods of time, why don't we see a more diverse sample on the earth now? Why is it "left side, monkey; right side, human" and nothing in the middle?

Another popular point of ID is simply a philosophical point that I find interesting. The "clock in the field" theory is a nifty, unscientific idea. I assume that, in this theory, the earth is the clock and the rest of the universe is the field, right?
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Postby Amazinz » Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:32 pm

acsguitar wrote:Abortion, Death Penalty, Stem Cell research. The majority of the major voices damning these things are catholics. I don't ever here the Muslim or Jewish point of view. How come the catholic church has to get their way in everything?

I'm not sure this is the case but assuming that it is perhaps it's because we're exercising our right to be vocal about our beliefs more than others. We all have a right to be heard. You don't have to agree to what is said but you do have to put up with Catholics saying it. Also the Jewish lobby in the U.S. is extremely strong and extremely vocal so it's not just Christians. :-)
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby WharfRat » Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:33 pm

da1chipo wrote:
StlSluggers wrote:
da1chipo wrote:I might be getting this wrong, but is a six-fingered hand more complicated than a five-fingered hand? I'm pretty sure it is.

No, it's not more complicated. It's simply an additional reproduction of a current part. More complicated would be creating a hand with an attachment that does something completely new. For instance, if your hand grew proboscis on top that allowed you to squirt stuff out of it. That's more complex because it's different.


Do webbed fingers and toes count? Or does it have to be something completely different from anything we've seen?


An extra finger seems more complicated. An extra finger on your hand means and extra set of muscles, and the extra pathways to and from the brain to process sensory information and control those movements. The average person has to process and control 10 fingers. That would seem to indicate additional complexity.

Webbed fingers and toes, on the other hand, don't seem like they would be more complex - a simple outgrowth of flesh doesn't seem like complexity. But this is why we ought to define complexity.

I always thought complexity referred to the components of the whole. Humans are more complex entities than apes because we are able to process information faster, are self-aware, etc. Apes are more complex than dogs, because they process information faster, have opposable thumbs. Animals that see in color have more complex visual organs than animals that only process black-and-white. On the cellular level, I think it refers to number of proteins, etc, with more diverse protein composition meaning greater complexity.

And I'd also always thought mutations could lead to greater complexity.
1 3 4 6 7 8 8 9 10 15 16 23 32 37 42 44 49 51

8.14.07: "I guess heaven needed a shortstop."
WharfRat
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3056
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Walking my fish

Postby j_d_mcnugent » Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:48 pm

StlSluggers wrote:Furthermore, if these changes are occuring in small doses over long periods of time, why don't we see a more diverse sample on the earth now? Why is it "left side, monkey; right side, human" and nothing in the middle?


if i recall correctly, fossils have been found believed to be what you are describing but they died out a long time ago.
back from the dead
j_d_mcnugent
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe Ranker
Posts: 3766
Joined: 1 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: bored at work

Postby da1chipo » Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:55 pm

j_d_mcnugent wrote:
StlSluggers wrote:Furthermore, if these changes are occuring in small doses over long periods of time, why don't we see a more diverse sample on the earth now? Why is it "left side, monkey; right side, human" and nothing in the middle?


if i recall correctly, fossils have been found believed to be what you are describing but they died out a long time ago.


"What's in between" may not have been adequate to survive and pass on its genes -> natural selection. What you see today is the best of the best.
Image
da1chipo
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Award-Winning Graphics Expert
Posts: 1930
Joined: 17 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: NY

Postby Big Pimpin » Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:22 pm

da1chipo wrote:
j_d_mcnugent wrote:
StlSluggers wrote:Furthermore, if these changes are occuring in small doses over long periods of time, why don't we see a more diverse sample on the earth now? Why is it "left side, monkey; right side, human" and nothing in the middle?


if i recall correctly, fossils have been found believed to be what you are describing but they died out a long time ago.


"What's in between" may not have been adequate to survive and pass on its genes -> natural selection. What you see today is the best of the best.


I understand that there is a lot of fossil evidence for things out there, I just think we're missing a ton of evidence that might prove evolution as fact. For as much as we've uncovered, there are still a LOT of holes in the theory.
Big Pimpin
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13716
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Building a metric. And being ignorable and stupid.

Postby Amazinz » Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:32 pm

The study of fossils has a long way to go. They still can't age them "accurately" and raise your hand if you grew up being taught about the Brontosaurus (which never existed). :-D
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact