Evolution questions from my creationist friend

[Gallstones]

Evolution, as a force, is not negated or diminished or made "not"-evolution just because humans meddle with DNA.
Whatever manipulation we do will either have beneficial or neutral consequences, given conditions, and the affected organisms will have a good run before going extinct. Or it will have detrimental consequences and the organisms will never get a chance.

Evolution is greater than humans and humans are not necessary nor are our manipulations greater or fitter than anything evolution can produce. Human manipulation of DNA is as much a "tool" of evolution as oxygen, water, sunlight, and sex.

True, but not particularly relevant. I do not challenge the theory of evolution except insofar as it suggests, or occasionally insists, that it is THE, and THE ONLY process by which organisms change or come into being.

It is THE ONLY process we have evidence for.

If I am understanding, your challenge is that evolution may have been initiated? caused? created? by an "intelligent" life form?

Correct me if I am mistaken.

[Animavore]

Intelligence exists, this is an observable fact.

Intelligence will be found to exist where organic data processing and memory structures substantially similar to the human brain are found.

Intelligence will be found to exist wherever data processing capacity, data, and memory storage exists in sufficient quantity, complexity and configuration.

Examine all other places in the universe(s) and fail to find intelligence.

Evidence of intelligence and/or intelligent manipulation of nature. Example: BT corn

So in other words look for alien life similar to our own and find out if they've been GMing their crops, animals, selves?

Not my problem, that's for the science wonks to figure out.

Evasion.

He says after evading.

Tell that to David Coppedge

The David Coppedge who writes this creationist blog?

http://crev.info/

That's not the point. The question is whether the proposition that organisms on this planet could have been intelligently designed is a "scientific" proposition or a "nonscientific" theistic proposition.

Yes. Your right. So why are you still arguing with people who think the same thing?
Even Dawkins said that if life was placed here by an intelligent life we should or may find a signature. Do you even know what you're arguing about any more or are you taking the piss?

I'm not claiming that it's possible to determine at this point whether or not intelligence manipulated DNA in the deep past, I'm simply saying that the issue is NOT inherently theistic or religious in nature, and that it IS a scientific proposition based on current knowledge about the ability of humans to manipulate DNA today, and a rational, logical inference that, because it has been demonstrated to be possible today, it is just as possible in the past, provided that intelligence at least as advanced as our own existed sometime in the 14 billion years preceding our era.

No one is saying otherwise except in your head.

Because this is an entirely scientific proposition, not a religious one, nothing in the laws of the United States should preclude any public school teacher or school board from pointing out to students that natural evolution may not be the only explanation for the existence of life on earth or it's forms today. Whether it is wise for schools to do so is a matter for the school board, not the courts.

Well we already know natural selection may not be the only explanation for existence of life on Earth. There's also horizontal gene transfer through viruses. And there is some evidence for this.

I am quite deliberately disconnecting theistic beliefs and dogma from the core question, which is a perfectly rational scientific one, to make a point about the blinders that science, and the courts, wear when it comes to the proposition.

Then why call it "intelligent design", a phrase coined deliberately and transparently by the Discovery Institute as an attempt to muddy the waters as to what they are peddling? Call it "extra-terrestrial intervention" or even "genetic modification" because that's all it amounts to.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If man is evolved from apes, why do we still have creationist?

[Tero]

My joke went badly, it was supposed to be the Little Prince
http://animediet.net/wp-content/uploads ... prince.jpg

[Seth]

Intelligence exists, this is an observable fact.

Intelligence will be found to exist where organic data processing and memory structures substantially similar to the human brain are found.

Intelligence will be found to exist wherever data processing capacity, data, and memory storage exists in sufficient quantity, complexity and configuration.

Examine all other places in the universe(s) and fail to find intelligence.

Evidence of intelligence and/or intelligent manipulation of nature. Example: BT corn

So in other words look for alien life similar to our own and find out if they've been GMing their crops, animals, selves?

That's a start.

Not my problem, that's for the science wonks to figure out.

Evasion.

He says after evading.

I'm not the researcher, I'm just the idea guy...

Tell that to David Coppedge

The David Coppedge who writes this creationist blog?

What does a person's opinions on creationism have to do with being an effective systems analyst for NASA, and therefore what would be the justification for firing him based on his religious beliefs?

That's not the point. The question is whether the proposition that organisms on this planet could have been intelligently designed is a "scientific" proposition or a "nonscientific" theistic proposition.

Yes. Your right. So why are you still arguing with people who think the same thing?

That's not the question. The question is why are they still arguing with me...

Even Dawkins said that if life was placed here by an intelligent life we should or may find a signature.

Or not.

Do you even know what you're arguing about any more or are you taking the piss?

I know what I'm arguing. Do you know what I'm arguing?

I'm not claiming that it's possible to determine at this point whether or not intelligence manipulated DNA in the deep past, I'm simply saying that the issue is NOT inherently theistic or religious in nature, and that it IS a scientific proposition based on current knowledge about the ability of humans to manipulate DNA today, and a rational, logical inference that, because it has been demonstrated to be possible today, it is just as possible in the past, provided that intelligence at least as advanced as our own existed sometime in the 14 billion years preceding our era.

No one is saying otherwise except in your head.

Strange, because I keep seeing words on the screen written by other people dismissing the idea.

Because this is an entirely scientific proposition, not a religious one, nothing in the laws of the United States should preclude any public school teacher or school board from pointing out to students that natural evolution may not be the only explanation for the existence of life on earth or it's forms today. Whether it is wise for schools to do so is a matter for the school board, not the courts.

Well we already know natural selection may not be the only explanation for existence of life on Earth. There's also horizontal gene transfer through viruses. And there is some evidence for this.

True, but not particularly germane at this point.

I am quite deliberately disconnecting theistic beliefs and dogma from the core question, which is a perfectly rational scientific one, to make a point about the blinders that science, and the courts, wear when it comes to the proposition.

Then why call it "intelligent design", a phrase coined deliberately and transparently by the Discovery Institute as an attempt to muddy the waters as to what they are peddling? Call it "extra-terrestrial intervention" or even "genetic modification" because that's all it amounts to.

Well, actually, I coined "the Origin of Life on Earth" (OLE) as a substitute, but it's a poor one. "Intelligent design" is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate, and accurate description of the claim, and I see no reason why I or anyone else should have to resort to semantic gymnastics merely because it discommodes atheists to have to disconnect their knee from their brain temporarily while engaging in some small measure of reason in understanding that words don't become unusable simply because someone misuses them. I would expect rational people to reject the misappropriation of the term by the Discovery Institute and use something like "Discovery Institute dogma" or suchlike to more specifically describe the particular beliefs involved, if for no other reason than to recover the legitimate use of the term "intelligent design" for reason and science.

[Thinking Aloud]

Because this is an entirely scientific proposition, not a religious one, nothing in the laws of the United States should preclude any public school teacher or school board from pointing out to students that gravity may not be the only explanation for why things fall to Earth today. Whether it is wise for schools to do so is a matter for the school board, not the courts.

^ My adjustment...

I'd much rather schools teach things for which there is actual evidence, and where other ideas are mooted, ensure that they are presented as pure speculation, until some evidence is found to back them up.

[Animavore]

Well, actually, I coined "the Origin of Life on Earth" (OLE) as a substitute, but it's a poor one. "Intelligent design" is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate, and accurate description of the claim, and I see no reason why I or anyone else should have to resort to semantic gymnastics merely because it discommodes atheists to have to disconnect their knee from their brain temporarily while engaging in some small measure of reason in understanding that words don't become unusable simply because someone misuses them. I would expect rational people to reject the misappropriation of the term by the Discovery Institute and use something like "Discovery Institute dogma" or suchlike to more specifically describe the particular beliefs involved, if for no other reason than to recover the legitimate use of the term "intelligent design" for reason and science.

But why use a term coined by people who coined it for a reason? This is not just about "knee-jerk" atheist reactions. It's about brevity. We need to all agree on what we are talking about and not changing be the definitions of, or hi-jacking, extant phrases to mean what we want them to mean. We can never un-couple 'intelligent design' from its creationist origins so it's better not to use them.

Well, I think anyway. But keep going on using the phrase and perpetuating confusion when you are, as far as I can make out, on the same hymn sheet as many here, or at least myself anyway. It's your individual right

[Seth]

Because this is an entirely scientific proposition, not a religious one, nothing in the laws of the United States should preclude any public school teacher or school board from pointing out to students that gravity may not be the only explanation for why things fall to Earth today. Whether it is wise for schools to do so is a matter for the school board, not the courts.

^ My adjustment...

I'd much rather schools teach things for which there is actual evidence, and where other ideas are mooted, ensure that they are presented as pure speculation, until some evidence is found to back them up.

So would I. But the point is that one cannot use the "inherently religious" claim against my "version" of intelligent design to exclude the idea from the schools. I'm pointing out that the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller is legally flawed, because only the Dover School Board's "version" of Intelligent Design is unlawful to be taught in public schools, and it's actually only unlawful because their express intent was to use a perfectly scientific proposition as "repackaging" of creationist religious dogma to get it into the schools. The judge was wrong to rule on the science involved, because even the argument about "irreducible complexity" is a valid scientific argument, not an inherently religious one, notwithstanding the fact that in THAT CASE, it was being misused by religionists.

[Seth]

Well, actually, I coined "the Origin of Life on Earth" (OLE) as a substitute, but it's a poor one. "Intelligent design" is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate, and accurate description of the claim, and I see no reason why I or anyone else should have to resort to semantic gymnastics merely because it discommodes atheists to have to disconnect their knee from their brain temporarily while engaging in some small measure of reason in understanding that words don't become unusable simply because someone misuses them. I would expect rational people to reject the misappropriation of the term by the Discovery Institute and use something like "Discovery Institute dogma" or suchlike to more specifically describe the particular beliefs involved, if for no other reason than to recover the legitimate use of the term "intelligent design" for reason and science.

But why use a term coined by people who coined it for a reason?

Because it's the best, and most accurate term that succinctly describes the phenomena, and because I do not wish to allow creationists to misappropriate a perfectly valid scientific idea and it's appropriate label to the point where the term cannot be used without lines automatically being drawn in the sand without the least bit of thinking or reason.

This is not just about "knee-jerk" atheist reactions.

Clearly it is.

It's about brevity. We need to all agree on what we are talking about and not changing be the definitions of, or hi-jacking, extant phrases to mean what we want them to mean. We can never un-couple 'intelligent design' from its creationist origins so it's better not to use them.

My point is that we SHOULD, and indeed MUST decouple the two because NOT to do so is to allow creationists a victory they are not entitled to enjoy. Creationist dogma should be called "creationism," which is the proper religious term for it. Intelligent design must be retaken as a valid scientific proposition in order to deny creationists the partial victory they gain when objectors to creationism conflate creationism with science.

I have pointed out why it is that "intelligent design" is a valid scientific hypothesis. The Discovery Institute's line of argumentation deliberately conflates creationism with valid science precisely in order to obfuscate the creationist, inherently religious core of their arguments. This cannot be permitted because the veneer of "science" they misuse by calling their creationism "intelligent design" provides them with street credibility that they are not entitled to and should not be allowed to enjoy. It also demeans science.

To me, the proposition of intelligent design is important enough to science that science should not permit the phrase to be co-opted by religionists to their benefit. Their dogma should be accurately labeled as Discovery Institute creationism masquerading as intelligent design. The scientific question of intelligent design should be freed from the shackles of religion so that it can be properly investigated by science and either confirmed or discredited without all the religious trappings.

Well, I think anyway. But keep going on using the phrase and perpetuating confusion when you are, as far as I can make out, on the same hymn sheet as many here, or at least myself anyway. It's your individual right

I expect rational people to be able to understand the distinction between the theory of intelligent design and creationism. The former is science, the latter is religion, and we should not allow religion to co-opt the former for it's own uses.

[Animavore]

Whatever.

[Azathoth]

Because this is an entirely scientific proposition, not a religious one, nothing in the laws of the United States should preclude any public school teacher or school board from pointing out to students that gravity may not be the only explanation for why things fall to Earth today. Whether it is wise for schools to do so is a matter for the school board, not the courts.

^ My adjustment...

I'd much rather schools teach things for which there is actual evidence, and where other ideas are mooted, ensure that they are presented as pure speculation, until some evidence is found to back them up.

So would I. But the point is that one cannot use the "inherently religious" claim against my "version" of intelligent design to exclude the idea from the schools. I'm pointing out that the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller is legally flawed, because only the Dover School Board's "version" of Intelligent Design is unlawful to be taught in public schools, and it's actually only unlawful because their express intent was to use a perfectly scientific proposition as "repackaging" of creationist religious dogma to get it into the schools. The judge was wrong to rule on the science involved, because even the argument about "irreducible complexity" is a valid scientific argument, not an inherently religious one, notwithstanding the fact that in THAT CASE, it was being misused by religionists.

How about the zero fucking evidence claim. You can't teach every little thing you pull out of your arse as science you need to be able to back it up with something

[Seth]

Because this is an entirely scientific proposition, not a religious one, nothing in the laws of the United States should preclude any public school teacher or school board from pointing out to students that gravity may not be the only explanation for why things fall to Earth today. Whether it is wise for schools to do so is a matter for the school board, not the courts.

^ My adjustment...

I'd much rather schools teach things for which there is actual evidence, and where other ideas are mooted, ensure that they are presented as pure speculation, until some evidence is found to back them up.

So would I. But the point is that one cannot use the "inherently religious" claim against my "version" of intelligent design to exclude the idea from the schools. I'm pointing out that the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller is legally flawed, because only the Dover School Board's "version" of Intelligent Design is unlawful to be taught in public schools, and it's actually only unlawful because their express intent was to use a perfectly scientific proposition as "repackaging" of creationist religious dogma to get it into the schools. The judge was wrong to rule on the science involved, because even the argument about "irreducible complexity" is a valid scientific argument, not an inherently religious one, notwithstanding the fact that in THAT CASE, it was being misused by religionists.

How about the zero fucking evidence claim. You can't teach every little thing you pull out of your arse as science you need to be able to back it up with something

The point, as I've explained several times, is that there is not "zero fucking evidence" for intelligent design, there is absolute, irrefutable proof of intelligent design in this universe. The remaining question is whether intelligent design has occurred BEFORE in this universe, not whether it can occur. We know absolutely that it can.

[Azathoth]

There is no evidence for it happening before recent human interventions. Therefore any musing about it is consigned to the pulling things out of your arse school of philosophy along with von daniken and the scientologists until such evidence is brought to light

[Thinking Aloud]

If anyone was going to seriously postulate a scientific ID, then I'd recommend they call it "Intelligent Intervention", or "Intervention By Intelligent Beings" - "II" or "IBIB". The phrase "Intelligent Design" is way too loaded.

[Gallstones]

Evolution, as a force, is not negated or diminished or made "not"-evolution just because humans meddle with DNA.
Whatever manipulation we do will either have beneficial or neutral consequences, given conditions, and the affected organisms will have a good run before going extinct. Or it will have detrimental consequences and the organisms will never get a chance.

Evolution is greater than humans and humans are not necessary nor are our manipulations greater or fitter than anything evolution can produce. Human manipulation of DNA is as much a "tool" of evolution as oxygen, water, sunlight, and sex.

True, but not particularly relevant. I do not challenge the theory of evolution except insofar as it suggests, or occasionally insists, that it is THE, and THE ONLY process by which organisms change or come into being.

What is relevant about the point I am making is that it doesn't matter what humans do. Evolution will occur with or without us until there are no more life forms to act on.

Just because humans have been able to manipulate DNA does not mean that there is a designer because we--very late in the game--can manipulate DNA.