The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[carlosMM]

but it's true . As I said it been pointed out the double standred in science.

nope, it is not true.

tough as it may be for you to face, there are a few hard truths out there. a rock is - can't debate it away if someone hurls it at your face.

and the fact that science uses the saem absic principles for centuries doesn't change either. There is no double standard.

Sadly, there are always people who abuse the word 'science' for their non-scientific methods. Creation science is such an example. It doesn't the time-honored and logically sound definition. Still people use it. But that doesn't mean that other, real sciences aren't science.


There is no double standard in evolution, unlike in theology

If you claim otherwise, show me some proof!

 

[Smidlee]

OTOH, treligious teaching is full of dogma and 'it's in the bible, so it's true'. Sounds like the thing that doesn't get questioned.

.

Yet bible believers didn't hinder science and actually promoted it here in the America. The freedom of religion (the was requested by the church ) also lead to freedom of science . Even before Darwin there was disagreements between christians about science and the bible yet noone at that time want to remove God and religious ideas totally out of science. It seem to work very well. If science is totally based on materialism ( Atheism)and is willingly blind itself from the possiblity of a creator (also intelligent design) and if reality is a Creator (which i have no doubt) then science would just be man made illusion. It would be the blind leading the blind.

As far as questioning Evolution ; there been many of those who admited they really never questioned it and assume someone else had the answers. At least Michael questioned the doctrine of Darwin.

 

[Smidlee]

There is no double standard in evolution, unlike in theology

I did. Michael Behe himself point out two double standards used againest him. First he was accused of being unscientific by using "intelligent design " into biology yet scienctist have no problem use the same method in SETI.
The fact is scientist can be just as bias and dogmatic as any religion can be.

P.S. As far as taking me serious, I admit I not a scientist myself and can only go by what I've read and studied. I can only tell how i feel and what I see. As the story goes I still see the emperor naked so maybe I not smart enough to see his clothes.

 

[carlosMM]

Yet bible believers didn't hinder science and actually promoted it here in the America. The freedom of religion (the was requested by the church ) also lead to freedom of science . Even before Darwin there was disagreements between christians about science and the bible yet noone at that time want to remove God and religious ideas totally out of science. It seem to work very well. If science is totally based on materialism ( Atheism)and is willingly blind itself from the possiblity of a creator (also intelligent design) and if reality is a Creator (which i have no doubt) then science would just be man made illusion. It would be the blind leading the blind.

As far as questioning Evolution ; there been many of those who admited they really never questioned it and assume someone else had the answers. At least Michael questioned the doctrine of Darwin.

hu?

sorry, Smidlee, but this post is so full of it, I can't believe it!

Yet bible believers didn't hinder science and actually promoted it here in the America

eh, yes. Some. Many, actually. But a significant number of them, especially influential ones, did and do hinder science, its work, teaching, funding etc.

The freedom of religion (the was requested by the church ) also lead to freedom of science .

false. No significant church in the United States ever demanded religious freedom when it wasn't anyways guaranteed.
To the contrary, the pilgrim fatehrs wanted to establish a deeply religious state that oppressed as harshly any but the pigrims version of Christianiy as they had been oppressed in Britain.

Even before Darwin there was disagreements between christians about science and the bible yet noone at that time want to remove God and religious ideas totally out of science.

yes, there was disagreement about science. Usually when science contradicted the church or bible.
Yes, lotsa people wanted to remove God. Sadly, many had to settle for a compromise. But do go and check out the many geniuses beheaded throughout the French Revolution. Lotsa atheists there.

It seem to work very well.

It does under one simple condition: if scinece says the bible is wrong, then youa ccept it is wrong.
The many Christians who are scicentists all oerate with this rule!

If science is totally based on materialism ( Atheism)and is willingly blind itself from the possiblity of a creator (also intelligent design) and if reality is a Creator (which i have no doubt) then science would just be man made illusion.

if, if, if!
If I had a million dollars I would be at the beach now.

sicence is not based on atheism. If there was any proper evidecne for the existence of a god, anyhting testable, reproduceable, then science would have to, by its own principles, include a god in its theories.

Sadly, as a certain thread (part 3 by now) in this very forum has shown, there is not a single tiny shred of evidence.

It would be the blind leading the blind.

that's why we don't do it, unlike the churches!

As far as questioning Evolution ; there been many of those who admited they really never questioned it and assume someone else had the answers. At least Michael questioned the doctrine of Darwin.

Yes, many do not question it as a whole, because they have seen enough evidence so that they believe what the experts say.

No man can know, se, measure and test everything. But if you are shown a lot of proof when you ask, then there comes the point where you should NOT doubt anymore or make it your area of expertise and look for yourself.


It is nice to doubt evolution, but why do the same people never doubt god, hu?

 

[Smidlee]

well I can only tell you what I see. I do see human nature working into science today. I don't doubt the existance of God because Of the change he made in my life.

P.S. I didn't want to named the churches which wanted the freedom of religion and realy don't want to go into here

 

[carlosMM]

I did. Michael Behe himself point out two double standards used againest him. First he was accused of being unscientific by using "intelligent design " into biology yet scienctist have no problem use the same method in SETI.
The fact is scientist can be just as bias and dogmatic as any religion can be.

P.S. As far as taking me serious, I admit I not a scientist myself and can only go by what I've read and studied. I can only tell how i feel and what I see. As the story goes I still see the emperor naked so maybe I not smart enough to see his clothes.

ahem, what makes you think SETI is scientific?

It is a shot in the dark, motivated by religious people who feel that 'we are not alone' - something based on superstition at most. Odds of contact are so low that the thing isn't worth a single Cent. They are down there with the probaility that God created earth and dug in dinosaurs to fool us!

What you see is what you should base your view on - quite right. So what can I show you? Maybe a university study of paleontology? I'll be happy to help you enroll. Or if you come visit Germany I am quite willing to show you all the fossils and excavations and rock formations, and explain and test it all with you.

I think you are quite smart enough to see the clothes - but people keep distracting you right and left from looking for them. Like Michael.

I think you are a case of 'back to the roots' - you should really go out and check the very basics of what people throw at you. Do go and check how rocks form. Do go and check how animals and plants interact. Do go and analyse the structure and composition of DNA in a lab.
Your constantly being wary of scientists claims is commendable. But now please do something to find out for yourself instead of relying on second hand stuff!

As said - I'd be happy to guide you along wherever and however I can. In RL or here!


So, what is the biggest thing about the ToE that bothers you?

 

[carlosMM]

well I can only tell you what I see. I do see human nature working into science today. I don't doubt the existance of God because Of the change he made in my life.

P.S. I didn't want to named the churches which wanted the freedom of religion and realy don't want to go into here

it is human nature to play into anything an human does. That's why things are always checked and rechecked in science.

Who tells you God is not just in your own head? A glitch in your brain, or, more probably, a system of how to deal with problems that came into existence by accident a few 100,000 years ago and has since been favored by selection?

 

[ybbor]

Okay, I have few arguments planned out, I’ll posts them individually so they're easier to read and respond to. Most of these arguments are adopted from a book called What's Darwin got to do with it?a friendly conversation about evolution. I do not thinkargue that some animals have changed a small amount over thier period of existance on this planet (any rational person would agree to that), but i do have a problem with the theory that these small evolutions produced macro-evolutions that created the thousands of speceis we have on this planet today. Most of what you'll see these posts do is try to take Darwinist’s claims, try to show a problem in their argument and attempt to turn into evolution for intelligent design. So, my first try *puts on anti-flaming helmet* a typical example of Darwin trying to analogize artificial selection into natural selection:

long ago men hunted animals for food, mostly animals like deer, boar, buffalo, bear, etc. When they got meat from a hunt they would camp, butcher the kill, eat the meat and throw scraps and bones out. One night a pack of wolves (or something similar) who were natural scavengers came to the camp and eat the scraps while everyone was asleep. This soon became a habit for those animals, and because these animals didn't taste as good as other game, and they cleaned up what otherwise be a rotting, smelly, disgusting mess, the humans didn't mess with them. Over time, those animals became bolder, finally they formed a friendship with the humans (and vice-versa). These became our modern dogs. In the centuries that followed some of the humans noticed that some dogs were good at running fast, some were good at following a scent, and some were good at climbing down holes. Dog owners would choose what dogs to breed together so their qualities would improve (i.e. breeding a fast dog with another fast dog). After several generations, the runners ran faster, the smellers sniffed better, and the diggers burrowed better. This type of breeding eventually produced the modern greyhound, bloodhound, and dachshund. As well as-quite literally- hundreds of other breeds and types of dogs. Darwin called this kind of breeding artificial selection. He reasoned that if man could create these in several generations, nature could create amazing things in millions of years. Or so Darwinists claim.

There are two problems with this kind of logic. Think of an archer shooting an arrow. If the arrow flies at 150mph. he can hit a target 75 miles away, in half an hour? Right? Of course not. Limiting forces like friction and gravity dramatically slow the arrow after the first hundred yards or so. There seems to be the same limits in variation in dogs. No matter how many times you breed 2 big dogs, you won't get dogs as big as elephants. Or much less dogs turning into elephants. Actually, what these experiments in breeding show is that variation is limited (you have to take existing genes to create similar genes). The gene pool only has so much capacity for variation. So you end up trying to prove a process that requires unlimited variations to achieve major innovations, with evidence showing that variation is limited.

The second problem (and the bigger one IMhO is the first word in "artificial selection." when Darwin says "artificial selection, does he mean, A) fake selection? B) Imaginary selection? C) Intelligent selection? Or D) unnatural selection. Obviously, in the sense of this story (and many others) he means 'C' intelligent selection, because the selections are purposeful and rational (Darwinism, by definition, has no purpose). The dog breeders made -intelligent- choices with a specific goal in mind- particularly, new types/breeds of dogs. You may even go so far as to say Darwin used the term artificial selection to cover up the term intelligent selection. When you think of "intelligent, purposeful selection" the similarity to natural selection goes right out the fourth story window of perfection's perfectoplis palace. Darwin says that a non-intelligent, non-derctioned process, is roughly equivalent to a process involving an intelligent agent; that a process requiring unlimited variations is about the same as a process we know has very limited variations; Darwin claims a process in which offspring are exposed to harsh environmental conditions, is almost the same in which the subjects are protected from the environment; he alleges a process in which the offspring can breed with wild populations, is almost the same as a process where breeding is carefully planned by an intelligent agent. clearly the idea of intelligent selection bieng a more advanced form of natural selection doesn't hold water.


EDITed after sending it through spell check

 

[Smidlee]

it is human nature to play into anything an human does. That's why things are always checked and rechecked in science.

Who tells you God is not just in your own head? A glitch in your brain, or, more probably, a system of how to deal with problems that came into existence by accident a few 100,000 years ago and has since been favored by selection?

Well, I don't know how to determine truth without using my head. Since I use my head a lot to understand the world around me, the only world I really know is in my head. even though I feel atheist has it's place in science and their views not to be lefted out yet the theist view should be addressed also. you gave me a good example what I mean.
I was watching Nova on PBS a few months ago about a scientist who has being studing the human brain for years. He made some very interesting discoveries about the brain. At the end of the show he gave three possiblities how the sense of God got "wired" into our brains. In all of them he kept saying " Evolution may have done this and that" Yet I was smiling because I knew he would never admit the possibility (which seem the most obvious to me) that God could have "wired" us that way that we may desire to know Him. Sure, noone can claim it's scientific impossible the a glitch could produce the sense of God in our brain but that could be true about everything we know. So IMHO the greatest evidence againest Darwin's TOE is the very tool that tries the prove it : the human brain

Even though we disagree , hopefully we both is in search of the same thing : the truth

 

[Perfection]

Well let go back to the first post:
I can't speak for all those who believe in creation but I don't know any who claims evolution has no evidence.

I've debated many who have claimed that.

In fact even creationists has to admit in some areas evolutionists has the stronger case. Yet I read some hard-core evolutionist ( even in christian forums) claiming that creationists has no evidence.

Well, I'd make that claim too as I've seen no convincing evidence for creationism.

Your claim reveal how much one-sided science has become. it's the science community itself that decides what is science and what isn't science . This sounds a lot like what happen to the church in the dark ages. The Catholics (those in power) felt that only priest should read and interpret scriptures and not for the common man to use. This make church teaching one-sided since the priests had a monopoly on church doctrine.

Evolution is only one sided because it has passed rigorous tests. There is no adequate competing theory, but why should this disparage the theory? I do not see you disparaging QED because there is no competition. Just because it is one sided doesn't mean it's dogmatic, usually it means there is no adequate competition, in other fields we can see massive amounts of competition, for example in physics there's a competition between Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory. Within evolution there is also a lot of competition between such ideas as the relative powers of the causes in variation or the relative power of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium.

True, creation is not a valid science since those in the science community are the one who makes the rules what is science and what isn't. Of course this doesn't make creationists wrong or doesn't have strong cases againest some of the science dogma. At least creationists do challenge and question a lot taught in the name of science instead of accepting evolution as truth and never questioning it.

Science has challanged evolution and it passed, for decades following the publishing of The Origin of the Species science has challanged it again and again, the result was a much more powerful theory that explains the data better than before. The challanges applied to evolution in the late 19th century as well as the turn of the century demonstrated a number of flaws in early evolutionary theory and allowed it to come out stronger. So let's not allege that science just blindly accepts it, even now evolution is still a hotly debated topic. Just because almost everyone feels that the central principles of natural selection are correct doesn't mean they are dogmatically accepting evolutionary thoery. The great internal debated within evolution is a testiment to the continuing modification and additions that make evolution so fascinating.

Of course, this is not to say that the correctness of the central tenants of evolution are debated, but it does dispell the myth that this is being taught dogmatically.

but it's true . As I said it been pointed out the double standred in science.

Incorrect, just because there is little support on your side doesn't mean the support on my side are using unfair tactics.

As far as questioning Evolution ; there been many of those who admited they really never questioned it and assume someone else had the answers. At least Michael questioned the doctrine of Darwin.

Yet there are many who have. And as for questioning the doctrine of Darwin, that has been done repeatedly, certain aspects of his arguements are now considered incorrect, like strictly organismic selectionism.

Yet bible believers didn't hinder science and actually promoted it here in the America. The freedom of religion (the was requested by the church ) also lead to freedom of science . Even before Darwin there was disagreements between christians about science and the bible yet noone at that time want to remove God and religious ideas totally out of science. It seem to work very well. If science is totally based on materialism ( Atheism)and is willingly blind itself from the possiblity of a creator (also intelligent design) and if reality is a Creator (which i have no doubt) then science would just be man made illusion. It would be the blind leading the blind.

Intelligent Design cannot be disproven and it makes no testible claims, those are requirements for science. Evolution can be disproven, however all tests for disproof have come up negative. If one were to make testible claims based on intelligent design then we could scientifically study it. However, those who have, like Paley, have had many of their central tenants falsified.

Might I add that science has done quite well without god.

I did. Michael Behe himself point out two double standards used againest him. First he was accused of being unscientific by using "intelligent design " into biology yet scienctist have no problem use the same method in SETI.

Actually SETI is scientific because it is not making claims that there is life out there, SETI is an expiriment based on a hypothesis that intelligent life is in the galaxy. This hypothesis is falsifiable by experimentation (allthough conclusive disproof would require experimentation on a much larger scale). By starting with assumed negation and looking positive signs it can still claim to be scientific.

 

[Smidlee]

Actually SETI is scientific because it is not making claims that there is life out there, SETI is an expiriment based on a hypothesis that intelligent life is in the galaxy. This hypothesis is falsifiable by experimentation (allthough conclusive disproof would require experimentation on a much larger scale). By starting with assumed negation and looking positive signs it can still claim to be scientific.

I saw this double standard for a long time even before I had the internet . So i was gald to read that someone in biology also saw this. I learn about Michael just recently. I know noone would even think about questioning intelligent design if they found a Wal-mart on Mars. Michael is a better at explaining this than I am.

www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=445

Contrary to Ruse’s argument, however, many scientists already appeal to design. I mentioned the SETI program above; clearly those scientists think they can detect design (and nonhuman design at that.) Forensic scientists routinely make decisions of whether a death was designed (murder) or an accident. Archaeologists decide whether a stone is a designed artifact or just a chance shape. Cryptologists try to distinguish a coded message from random noise. It seems unlikely that any of those scientists view their work as trying to make “metaphysical or theological sense of experience.” They are doing ordinary science.

 

[Perfection]

There are two problems with this kind of logic. Think of an archer shooting an arrow. If the arrow flies at 150mph. he can hit a target 75 miles away, in half an hour? Right? Of course not. Limiting forces like friction and gravity dramatically slow the arrow after the first hundred yards or so. There seems to be the same limits in variation in dogs. No matter how many times you breed 2 big dogs, you won't get dogs as big as elephants.

What facts do you base this on? Remember you can't argue from current dogs because they haven't been bred for this for millions of years.

Or much less dogs turning into elephants.

Evolutionists don't claim that species can evolve to allready existing species.

Actually, what these experiments in breeding show is that variation is limited (you have to take existing genes to create similar genes). The gene pool only has so much capacity for variation. So you end up trying to prove a process that requires unlimited variations to achieve major innovations, with evidence showing that variation is limited.

1. Evolution doesn't require unlimited variation to achieve major information.
2. That doesn't show that variation is limited to the degree that new species can't arise over millions of years

The second problem (and the bigger one IMhO is the first word in "artificial selection." when Darwin says "artificial selection, does he mean, A) fake selection? B) Imaginary selection? C) Intelligent selection? Or D) unnatural selection. Obviously, in the sense of this story (and many others) he means 'C' intelligent selection, because the selections are purposeful and rational (Darwinism, by definition, has no purpose). The dog breeders made -intelligent- choices with a specific goal in mind- particularly, new types/breeds of dogs. You may even go so far as to say Darwin used the term artificial selection to cover up the term intelligent selection. When you think of "intelligent, purposeful selection" the similarity to natural selection goes right out the fourth story window of perfection's perfectoplis palace. Darwin says that a non-intelligent, non-derctioned process, is roughly equivalent to a process involving an intelligent agent; that a process requiring unlimited variations is about the same as a process we know has very limited variations; Darwin claims a process in which offspring are exposed to harsh environmental conditions, is almost the same in which the subjects are protected from the environment; he alleges a process in which the offspring can breed with wild populations, is almost the same as a process where breeding is carefully planned by an intelligent agent. clearly the idea of intelligent selection bieng a more advanced form of natural selection doesn't hold water.

Actually Darwin argued that natural selection is more powerful then artificial. The reason is it is much more directed. It is directed soley toward survival. This allows every facet of the animal to be selected for and against. Artificial slection usually goes for one or two useful traits while natural selection works on all traits simultanously. If large size is advantagous to the animal's survival then it will be selected for just as a breeder would select for it. Also the harsh environmental circumstances provide a much more competetive world so natural selection is also faster. Not only is natural selection powerful but it is more powerful than artifical selection!

 

[Perfection]

I saw this double standard for a long time even before I had the internet . So i was gald to read that someone in biology also saw this. I learn about Michael just recently. I know noone would even think about questioning intelligent design if they found a Wal-mart on Mars. Michael is a better at explaining this than I am.

www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=445

Contrary to Ruse’s argument, however, many scientists already appeal to design. I mentioned the SETI program above; clearly those scientists think they can detect design (and nonhuman design at that.) Forensic scientists routinely make decisions of whether a death was designed (murder) or an accident. Archaeologists decide whether a stone is a designed artifact or just a chance shape. Cryptologists try to distinguish a coded message from random noise. It seems unlikely that any of those scientists view their work as trying to make “metaphysical or theological sense of experience.” They are doing ordinary science.

This is somewhat correct, but only if we are allowed to make assumptions about the behavior of god so we can make testible predictions on wheather or not it fits the data, however those who have done so, Like Paley have failed. Humans are of limited intelligence and limited power and behave (somewhat) predictably. If god doesn't have some of those properties then we cannot make testible predictions based of it.

 

[RedFusion]

The second problem (and the bigger one IMhO is the first word in "artificial selection." when Darwin says "artificial selection, does he mean, A) fake selection? B) Imaginary selection? C) Intelligent selection? Or D) unnatural selection. Obviously, in the sense of this story (and many others) he means 'C' intelligent selection, because the selections are purposeful and rational (Darwinism, by definition, has no purpose). The dog breeders made -intelligent- choices with a specific goal in mind- particularly, new types/breeds of dogs. You may even go so far as to say Darwin used the term artificial selection to cover up the term intelligent selection. When you think of "intelligent, purposeful selection" the similarity to natural selection goes right out the fourth story window of perfection's perfectoplis palace. Darwin says that a non-intelligent, non-derctioned process, is roughly equivalent to a process involving an intelligent agent; that a process requiring unlimited variations is about the same as a process we know has very limited variations; Darwin claims a process in which offspring are exposed to harsh environmental conditions, is almost the same in which the subjects are protected from the environment; he alleges a process in which the offspring can breed with wild populations, is almost the same as a process where breeding is carefully planned by an intelligent agent. clearly the idea of intelligent selection bieng a more advanced form of natural selection doesn't hold water.

Darwin does not mean intelligent selection by his use of the term artificial. He means exactly what he said, artificial, or made by human, rather than nature. Think of it the same way we use the term artificial intelligence, we don't mean intelligent intelligence, that just doesn't make a lot of sense. But 'made by humans, rather than nature' intelligence does. And for the wolf breeders (remember they are still wolves at the time), i don't think you can go as far as to say that they have the intention of creating new breeds/types. Intentionality is debatable.
Anyways, it remindes me of a study done by a Russian scientist years back, where he took silver foxes and breed for tamability. Here's a link if you want to read up on his experiment and it's findings http://home.wlu.edu/~blackmerh/jsk/canid.htm

 

[Perfection]

@RedFusion, thanks for posting that article, I found it to be fascinating.

 

[ybbor]

Darwin does not mean intelligent selection by his use of the term artificial. He means exactly what he said, artificial, or made by human, rather than nature. Think of it the same way we use the term artificial intelligence, we don't mean intelligent intelligence, that just doesn't make a lot of sense. But 'made by humans, rather than nature' intelligence does. And for the wolf breeders (remember they are still wolves at the time), i don't think you can go as far as to say that they have the intention of creating new breeds/types. Intentionality is debatable.
Anyways, it remindes me of a study done by a Russian scientist years back, where he took silver foxes and breed for tamability. Here's a link if you want to read up on his experiment and it's findings http://home.wlu.edu/~blackmerh/jsk/canid.htm

ahh, but in this case intelligent can be defined as bieng able to reason, and work toward a goal. which the case of artificial selction is.

What facts do you base this on? Remember you can't argue from current dogs because they haven't been bred for this for millions of years.

because, dogs have been bred for generations and generations, and some dogs are naturally bigger than other breeds of dogs, but they still aren't bigger than modern day wolves. where's the connection? i'm glad you asked. most Darwinists would argue that dogs and wolves descended from a common ancestor. the idea of darwinists' is that intelligent selection can do in a few generations what nature cn do in a few hundred/thousand years. wolves haven't been subject to intelligent selection, but to natural selection. therefore, compared to domesticated and intellegently selected dogs, they should remain relativly unchanged. however, people have been pure-breeeding dogs for centuries, and the dog breeds that are naturally big (the variable) haven't gotton any bigger compared to wolves (the constant).

Evolutionists don't claim that species can evolve to allready existing species

well, first yes some do, the example of apes/chimps/monkeys-->humans to mind. second, yeah, in hindsight that wasn't the best anolgy, maybe cats would have beena better example, but i definitly recognize that n sane evolutionist would propose dogs-->elephants

1. Evolution doesn't require unlimited variation to achieve major information.

well, to ultimitly it would, to produce every type of specis that ever existed/exists/will exist (in theory) unlimited variations are required to produce an unlimited amount of species. but as for the argument that i was actually using...maybe not unlimited, but a vast amount. evolving every species on the planet almost seems unlimited compared to the breeds of dogs out there, but the point remains the smae. using evidence that supports limited variation you end up trying to prove variation outside of that limit.

2. That doesn't show that variation is limited to the degree that new species can't arise over millions of years[/url]

no. your right. that evidence doesn't conclusivly prove it. but it does show something similar to the archer shooting an arrow anaology, past the current breeds of dogs, variation has rapidly decreased to the point that will eventuay result in non-movement/non-variation.

Actually Darwin argued that natural selection is more powerful then artificial. The reason is it is much more directed. It is directed soley toward survival. This allows every facet of the animal to be selected for and against. Artificial slection usually goes for one or two useful traits while natural selection works on all traits simultanously. If large size is advantagous to the animal's survival then it will be selected for just as a breeder would select for it. Also the harsh environmental circumstances provide a much more competetive world so natural selection is also faster. Not only is natural selection powerful but it is more powerful than artifical selection!

let's say a a dog has some kind of mutation/variation that makes it more fit for survival, thus more likely to survive to breed. in this case, let's say it can run at 60 mph, making it easier to run away from predators. now this dog is unique, there is none other like it. to breed it must breed with another dog. let's say all other dogs run at a speed somewhere between 10-25mph. to make it easy let's sa this dog breeds with a dog that can run 20mph. let's say they have a litte of 4 pups. thse pups will probably run somehwere between 30-50 mph. these dogs breed with other dogs that can run 10-25 mph. eventually this kind of breeding will 'water down' the positive mutation to the point where it is barely noticeable. for the original mutation to really be adventageous it must breed woth another dog with a similar mutation. thus howing the limitations in mutations and in the gene pool.

 

[ybbor]

Intelligent Design cannot be disproven and it makes no testible claims, those are requirements for science. Evolution can be disproven, however all tests for disproof have come up negative. If one were to make testible claims based on intelligent design then we could scientifically study it. However, those who have, like Paley, have had many of their central tenants falsified.

Actually SETI is scientific because it is not making claims that there is life out there, SETI is an expiriment based on a hypothesis that intelligent life is in the galaxy. This hypothesis is falsifiable by experimentation (allthough conclusive disproof would require experimentation on a much larger scale). By starting with assumed negation and looking positive signs it can still claim to be scientific.

i see a similaity between SETI bieng disproven and intelligent desgin bieng disproven. if we can go billions of years without any new species it would be similar to going to several galaxys and finding no life

 

[The Last Conformist]

dogs have been bred for generations and generations, and some dogs are naturally bigger than other breeds of dogs, but they still aren't bigger than modern day wolves.

Tell me you're joking! You've never seen a grand danois or a St Bernard?

 

[Perfection]

because, dogs have been bred for generations and generations, and some dogs are naturally bigger than other breeds of dogs, but they still aren't bigger than modern day wolves. where's the connection?

Wrong! Mastiffs are much larger than wolves!

i'm glad you asked. most Darwinists would argue that dogs and wolves descended from a common ancestor. the idea of darwinists' is that intelligent selection can do in a few generations what nature cn do in a few hundred/thousand years. wolves haven't been subject to intelligent selection, but to natural selection. therefore, compared to domesticated and intellegently selected dogs, they should remain relativly unchanged. however, people have been pure-breeeding dogs for centuries, and the dog breeds that are naturally big (the variable) haven't gotton any bigger compared to wolves (the constant).

Only because the dogs are bred for a completly different purpose than just survival, a look at this link for more info. http://home.wlu.edu/~blackmerh/jsk/canid.htm

Also I refer you to Mastiffs.

well, first yes some do, the example of apes/chimps/monkeys-->humans to mind. second, yeah, in hindsight that wasn't the best anolgy, maybe cats would have beena better example, but i definitly recognize that n sane evolutionist would propose dogs-->elephants

Any evolutionist who said that was mistaken

well, to ultimitly it would, to produce every type of specis that ever existed/exists/will exist (in theory) unlimited variations are required to produce an unlimited amount of species. but as for the argument that i was actually using...maybe not unlimited, but a vast amount. evolving every species on the planet almost seems unlimited compared to the breeds of dogs out there, but the point remains the smae. using evidence that supports limited variation you end up trying to prove variation outside of that limit.

It has shown that many variations of large magnitude can occur.

let's say a a dog has some kind of mutation/variation that makes it more fit for survival, thus more likely to survive to breed. in this case, let's say it can run at 60 mph, making it easier to run away from predators. now this dog is unique, there is none other like it. to breed it must breed with another dog. let's say all other dogs run at a speed somewhere between 10-25mph. to make it easy let's sa this dog breeds with a dog that can run 20mph. let's say they have a litte of 4 pups. thse pups will probably run somehwere between 30-50 mph. these dogs breed with other dogs that can run 10-25 mph. eventually this kind of breeding will 'water down' the positive mutation to the point where it is barely noticeable. for the original mutation to really be adventageous it must breed woth another dog with a similar mutation. thus howing the limitations in mutations and in the gene pool.

This is incorrect, heredity does not work like that. Beneficial mutations do not get "watered down". The reason is mendelism, if that was a single dominant gene, than each offspring has a 50% chance of getting it the traits would remain as strong as ever. Traits expressed by recessive and other means can be explained by similar reasoning but it's a tad more involved.

 

[ybbor]

Wrong! Mastiffs are much larger than wolves!

Tell me you're joking! You've never seen a grand danois or a St Bernard?

well, no i haven't seen them in person, but lookng at a picture in the encyclopedia of a St. Bernard ( i can't seem to find a picture of a grand donosis) it sems no larger than a wolf [EDIT: same with mastiffs]. my encylopedis says the Irish wolfhound is the talest breed of dog, bieng about 2 1/2 feet tall at the shoulders. my encyclopedia says in the entry under wolves that the average one is around 2 1/2 feet tall at the shoulder. so i see no problem in saying that dogs (the variable) seem to remain relativly unchanged compared to the wolf (the constant)

Only because the dogs are bred for a completly different purpose than just survival, a look at this link for more info. http://home.wlu.edu/~blackmerh/jsk/canid.htm

Also I refer you to Mastiffs.

see above coment

well, my point was people have been pure-breeding dogs, threrefore, bigger dogs should get bigger as they arebieng bred iwht other big dogs

Any evolutionist who said that was mistaken

that's what i said, that i doubht that any sane evolutionists would believe dogs-->elehants

it has shown that many variations of large magnitude can occur.

i wouldn't call those kind of changes "large magnitude", humans simply took differnces that already existed and magnified them. they didn't create any new abilities or organs

This is incorrect, heredity does not work like that. Beneficial mutations do not get "watered down". The reason is mendelism, if that was a single dominant gene, than each offspring has a 50% chance of getting it the traits would remain as strong as ever. Traits expressed by recessive and other means can be explained by similar reasoning but it's a tad more involved.

who said the beneficial mutation is dominat? it could very well be recessive, just because something made the dog survive to the point where it could breed (that was essentially all it did according to natural selection) doesn't mean the trait is dominat [EDIT: grrr, for some reason i said excessive instead of dominat, what's worng with me? don't answer that ]