Sorry ID :) was just imagining swishing my lost tail...

Okay... So.. if I'm correct... ID'S theory of ID is...

Evolution#1: you accept change over time within individual species?
Evolution#2: you accept a common ancestor per kingdom?
Evolution#3: you deny evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutations?

I suspect my summation of #3 may need some amendment - perhaps you could help with that... it made me dizzy. :/ I thought it might be due to a logical fallacy on the website... but it can't be can it... as we're supposed to not be using those... and you did endorse the site... :)

The problem you see, is with "neo-darwinism"... I know what you said...

no proof exist for evolution #3 correctly identified by me as Neo-Darwinism, many times now.

Let me explain... put neo-darwinism into a search engine... end up with Intelligent design webpages. Logical conclusion... the only believers in neo-darwinism are intelligent design adherents... I sense you will have a problem with that... it clearly contradicts evolution #3 :(

I was relieved to discover there are dictionary sites - but when you trace the word back to it's origin... :/ Well... it's a bit like chasing your own tail, real or imaginary :)

You said you don't believe in genetic drift but believe in Evolution 1 and 2, but I can't see how you can believe in evolution 1 and 2 without believing in genetic drift. It seems impossible. I've been doing quite a lot of research into it you see (and will post it once it's complete) but I'm beginning to wonder whether there is any point, given that you have already resorted to...

Simply put, you have no proof.

Of course you were referring to evolution 3, but whilst I work on trying to prove evolution 3 to you in the coming days, could you be so kind as to prove to me how evolution 1 and 2 work without genetic drift? Please :) Because... I think that might be holding back your understanding, and accepting, of evolution 3. I'm sure we wouldn't object overly if you wanted to substitute Causal Agent (for natural) in front of selection? :) And even mutation could be made palatable to you given time... :)

You see, by invoking...

Simply put, you have no proof.

... leaves you, and intelligent design, wide open to exactly the same statement... which I think is a pity so early on in the debate :(

I too won't dispute the National Academy of Sciences definition of 'science fact'.

Ahem... Are you sure ID? :) One or two instances have popped into my mind... never mind... we won't go there :)

But Neo Darwinism is pulling a bait-and-switch: they will be using relatively trivial examples of evolution #1 to bolster more controversial definitions of "evolution." So if by "evolution" one means universal common descent (evolution #2), or neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution #3), where the primary adaptive force building the complexity of life is unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations, then many scientists would argue that such "evolution" most certainly is not a fact, but still a hypothesis. And will forever remain a hypothesis because no proof exist for evolution #3 correctly identified by me as Neo-Darwinism, many times now.

Aah... bait and switch... :) Yes! I got very familiar with that tactic when I was looking into Intelligent design's "find and replace" founders fiasco, you know... back in the early days... :)

I may annoy you a little on this aspect ID - I hope you will forgive me - it's just... ruling admissable evidence (which Intelligent design adherents chose to isolate in evolution 1 and 2) inadmissable (because intelligent design adherents isolated it in evolution 1 and 2) and then only recognising two out of a minimum of seven evolutionary factors that work together to bring about evolutionary change... is a bait and switch. Like saying.. a tree is not a tree because you're only allowed to look at it's trunk and prove it's an elephant... It's not how science is done, it's how belief systems preserve themselves against evidence contrary to them.

There is more to evolutionary theory than what is being seen by your eyes ID... and if it were to ever be proved that an Intelligent designer/causal agent was behind each and every one of those steps... you would be so impressed... :)

A comment on the 3 stages or types of evolution under discussion. My reading of this is that ID accepts that mutations can give rise to variation within species, but cannot give rise to new species (or kingdoms etc). That is, there is a limitation on how much variation can arise through mutation alone, and that therefore an additional mechanism is required to account for the observed variety of species. ID proposes that this mechanism involves an intelligent designer. i.e mutation + designer = all species.

---

A comment on the 3 stages or types of evolution under discussion. My reading of this is that ID accepts that mutations can give rise to variation within species, but cannot give rise to new species (or kingdoms etc). That is, there is a limitation on how much variation can arise through mutation alone, and that therefore an additional mechanism is required to account for the observed variety of species. ID proposes that this mechanism involves an intelligent designer. i.e mutation + designer = all species.

Thank you Brendan!!! :) You've helped clarify something I knew I'd got murky in my head... but couldn't quite pin down :) Greatly appreciated. :)

+1

irreducibly complex

One easily testable form of complex and specified information 'CSI' is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.


http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

A change into another species would take a vary large amount of information. Ergo the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago, that ID has a problem with---that cannot be explained by Neo-Darwinism. And Oxygen just doesn't cut it either, not by itself...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

irreducibly complex

That sounds as if you are stating that you don't understand something so you are making up a fairy tale to explain.

---

Evolution #2: Some scientists associate the word “evolution” with the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past, known as the Theory of Universal Common Descent. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree.

I agree here. And I also disagree.

It has to do more with Kingdoms then anything else. I have already stated that we can look at bacteria for hundreds of more years if you like but we will not see that change into anything else other then bacteria. Refer to # 1 once more, it will change a little over time but will not move up the tree of life into another species. There is a reason for more then one kingdom.

Why do you believe that the conditions favorable for multi-cellular organisms to develop from bacteria have occurred since Darwin proposed his theory?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

genetic drift does not account for all the information needed to change a species into another

I have just done the accounting you asked for

of course you may try to change my mind, it is open---for some things ;-)

so you don't want to use the National Academy of Sciences as a baseline...LOL ok

i believe wintergreen would call it peeing on my leg and calling it rain, i understand it well, it's how i see neo-darwin...

i am sorry you have seen a bass and called it a herring, i toss all of them back less then 14 inches. i will accept the bait and switch of neo-darwin if you will accept my bass? deal?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

why do you accept a protobiont gave rise to all i see with my two eyes?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Just a little help, in video format, for those who struggle with understanding Evolution, Creationism, Atheism and More.

N.B. It might take you some time, there are over 1,200 video's.

Have fun.

why do you accept a protobiont gave rise to all i see with my two eyes?

Because there's currently no better theory for all I see with my eyes. How about you answer the question you were asked?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

How about--no.

You and I will have NO banter.

I don't like you nor will I talk with you any more...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Am I to assume that this is the question to which you are looking for an answer Bobby?

Why do you believe that the conditions favorable for multi-cellular organisms to develop from bacteria have occurred since Darwin proposed his theory?

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

genetic drift does not account for all the information needed to change a species into another

I have just done the accounting you asked for

of course you may try to change my mind, it is open---for some things ;-)

so you don't want to use the National Academy of Sciences as a baseline...LOL ok

i believe wintergreen would call it peeing on my leg and calling it rain, i understand it well, it's how i see neo-darwin...

i am sorry you have seen a bass and called it a herring, i toss all of them back less then 14 inches. i will accept the bait and switch of neo-darwin if you will accept my bass? deal?

Your turn Anniet...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

+1

irreducibly complex

One easily testable form of complex and specified information 'CSI' is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.


http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

A change into another species would take a vary large amount of information. Ergo the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago, that ID has a problem with---that cannot be explained by Neo-Darwinism. And Oxygen just doesn't cut it either, not by itself...

Irreducible complexity cut down to size

Good, good, more science. It's wrong, but it's science.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Good, good, more science. It's wrong, but it's science.

Ah but it is, which is more that can be said for your links.

So here's some more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE

"Irreducible Complexity":
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIWODwjB0I4
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HH_V7mXlfk

LOL! Ah, wintergreen my science is better then your science. We have logic, you have none.

Reverse engineering is a science. And applies in my science very well. You nor anyone else has addressed it other then to dismiss it, and that isn't science. LOL!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

LOL! Ah, wintergreen my science is better then your science. We have logic, you have none.

Reverse engineering is a science. And applies in my science very well. You nor anyone else has addressed it other then to dismiss it, and that isn't science. LOL!

Idiot Design, show me where your links have demonstrated that they have done any worthwhile science.
Until that day then your claims of science are just Bovine Excrement.

WK you are so eloquent. As an aside I want to see if ID will get his RAC up to 100 with his new computer.

---

Who said it wasn't worth while? I know it works, evolution anyhow. As I have said we use it to make chickens with huge breats, and cows that have the same.

However it was good for you to change the name you called me, you should even remove this last one too.

Alas, you have no proof of species change...

...and that is what I take issue with, please pay attention if you can.

Tell me how Neo Darwin people like yourself explain the Cambrian explosion? Don't tell me oxygen, that doesn't account for the information transfer needed for all that life... ;-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...