Intelligent Design - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Intelligent Design

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Tavish » Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:40 pm

Amazinz wrote: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


Sure they did, they were just calling it by the wrong name.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby WharfRat » Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:57 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.


Actually, two still survive....

Image
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 Amazinz » Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:12 pm

Tavish wrote:
Amazinz wrote: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


Sure they did, they were just calling it by the wrong name.

Wrong head. They had two dinosaurs skeletons combined. I looked it up: Apatosaurus and Camarasaurus. So no the Brontosaurus that I learned about and "saw" at the museum in NY never existed.
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 7:51 pm

StlSluggers wrote: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.


Understood. This stuff ain't easy. :-D I'm definitely no expert either.

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.


This is true and true. I'd have two answers to this. If you think of it in terms of scale, it doesn't seem quite so outlandish as a theory. Microevolution consists of minor genetic changes. Bacteria can adapt to antibiotics. Animals can adapt to scarce food sources. In both cases, these organisms are still the same species, but have developed some minor difference - be it a resistance to certain agents/antibiotics, or the ability to digest new food sources - that ensures survival.

These adaptations are in the genes. There are different ways that these changes can occur, but they all do occur, without doubt. Imagine you have some population of organism - say, squirrels - and over a period of years, their food options change, maybe from weak acorns to hard acorns. The squirrels with slightly tougher jaws/teeth/whatever, will gradually come to dominate the population. This is microevolution, you know about this. But then say the acorns are suddenly only located in harder to reach places. So the squirrels who are taller/longer/better climbers will win out again.

Now imagine these changes over millenia. You have periods in which the earth warms - perhaps the squirrels' fur becomes thinner and thinner over the millenia, until you have hairless squirrels. Perhaps the earth becomes more arid - you have squirrels who can travel long distances while storing water in an internal pouch who become dominant. Then a fox-sized predator is introduced - and gradually, the squirrels who are big enough to intimidate the fox win out. But now the squirrels are too big to climb trees and get acorns, so the squirrels with longer necks and legs rise to dominance, and get bigger and bigger, needing to store more and more water. Until suddenly, they're camels. :-D

But my point is, macroevolution really is a short distance from microevolution. No, it hasn't been proven as fact - but there is an enormous body of evidence to suggest this happens as such.

But to get back to the point of the thread: The question isn't "is macroevolution true?" It has been the "natural selection" of science that has rendered it in pretty high status as theories go. Sure, there are holes. Swiss cheese has holes too, but people still eat it. ;-D Science is what will close those holes, or open them wider, or completely obliterate the Darwinist school of thought. Now where is the science behind ID? Most of the time, it's rhetoric and hypotheses masquerading as science, benefiting from the public's misunderstanding of what science actually is. Either way, it shouldn't be taught in science class.

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.


See above. My theory is that aliens buried a Life Bomb on planet earth, and it then exploded like Noah's Ark hit by an RPG. How do I set about proving it? Well, I can't. Hence, I'm not a scientist just because I have a theory.

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?


Good point, I should have qualified that. Over the LONGEST time frames, everything is different. I'll save the lecture on how RNA and DNA came from Amino Acids, but it has been shown via the scientific method that your basic chemical cocktail, which existed on Earth pre-life, could have produced the proper amino acids that later would become life's building blocks.

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?


I'm not sure what this means - are you talking about William Paley's watch/watchmaker hypothesis from a hundred years ago? If so, this is basically the "irreducible complexity" argument, which is interesting (it impressed Darwin) but doesn't hold water upon scrutiny. This also sounds like something dealing with relativity though.
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 Tavish » Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:04 pm

Amazinz wrote:
Tavish wrote:
Amazinz wrote: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


Sure they did, they were just calling it by the wrong name.

Wrong head. They had two dinosaurs skeletons combined. I looked it up: Apatosaurus and Camarasaurus. So no the Brontosaurus that I learned about and "saw" at the museum in NY never existed.


The one you saw when you were 2 years old? It was corrected in 1975. Even before that the differences between the two are extremely minor, so much so that the two names, Brontosaurus is considered a synonym Aptasaurus. ;-)
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby CubsFan7724 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:14 pm

acsguitar wrote:
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?

Well, John Kerry is a catholic and is pro abortion and stem cell research. Really, you shouldn't make generalizations and sterotypes.
Image
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6426
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby CubsFan7724 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:18 pm

StlSluggers wrote:
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?

Well, there are apes in between monkeys and humans, and then all the other species we have fossils of that have since died out, possibly due to competition with homo sapiens.
Image
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6426
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby Amazinz » Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:19 pm

Tavish, I am fairly certain that the Natural Museum of History didn't fix the Brontosaurus until the early to mid-90s. I do not remember and cannot find the exact date. The books I was using in the 80s still showed the incorrect form of the dinosaur as well as using the incorrect name. I understand the hoax was discovered much earlier but it didn't become what you would call common knowledge until later on.

EDIT: I guess a head is minor. ;-) But really my point (if I even had one) was not to argue about the impact of an incorrect Brontosaurus. Only that established dogma is being challenged on a regular basis as our scientific knowledge grows. So everyone should be willing to keep an open mind and explore things themselves instead of succumbing to the herd mentality.
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 wrveres » Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:38 pm

I quit believeing in ID right about the time they started shoving that whole "Noahs Ark" thingee down my throat. I think I was 8.
I had a huge collection of National Geographic animal cards, must have been thousands of them. One of my relatives signed me up for them. One day I put two and two together and asked my uncle how God got all of these animals on the boat. All the different flys and bugs too?

He told me it wasn't true because somebody or something would have eaten the chickens, and that made sense.

so I quit believing. :-)


edit: this is one of the things I disagree with Dubbya on.
25                "Love the Padres"
Rafael

Dodgers FAIL|Mets FAIL|Canada FAIL
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31781
(Past Year: 734)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Tavish » Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:26 pm

Amazinz wrote:EDIT: I guess a head is minor. ;-) But really my point (if I even had one) was not to argue about the impact of an incorrect Brontosaurus. Only that established dogma is being challenged on a regular basis as our scientific knowledge grows. So everyone should be willing to keep an open mind and explore things themselves instead of succumbing to the herd mentality.


Right, I understand your point and I didn't mean to keep driving the topic off-subject. My point (in a somewhat oblique way) was that science like the study of dinosaurs or the Theory of Evolution is not a stagnant explanation, but it is a progressing science. It is constantly expanding and correcting the errors found. They don't simply say this is how it happened and there is no need to continue to investigate. There are scores of industry fields dedicated to finding new clues and new answers to make our knowledge as accurate as possible.

But with ID there is very little to research or expand on. I guess some might consider projects like SETI as research into ID, but the basic premise of ID is that ToE is wrong and here is our idea that we know is impossible to prove. I just don't see the benefit of teaching the Scientific Process side by side with a concept that completely ignores it.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Sep. 17
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

LA Dodgers at Colorado
(3:10 pm)
San Francisco at Arizona
(3:40 pm)
Toronto at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Boston at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Washington at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
Miami at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Cincinnati at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Cleveland at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Chi White Sox at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Detroit at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Milwaukee at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Seattle at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)
Texas at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
Philadelphia at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

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