• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What prevents macro-evolution?

Well of course the quotes are about the ID movement, because that's all ID is. There is no such thing as an ID theory, at best a couple of speculative hypothesises that doesn't have any evidence for it.
 
sphenisc said:
ID theory/conjecture is distinct from 'the ID movement', point 1) of this site attempts to confuse the two, as does your use of the word 'they'. What IDers do in the privacy of their own publications is up to them, I'm talking about ID theory.

point 2) refers to legislation on educational standards, this is not part of ID theory.

point 3) I'm pretty sure that IVP will publish the book of Esther, that doesn't mean that it contains any reference to God.

point 4) Again a reference to the ID movement, not ID theory.

point 5) "ID is blatantly anti-religious if the religion is one they disagree with." Again a switch (mid-sentence!) from discussing ID theory to IDers.

None of the points on this site support the claim that ID theory avoids specific reference to God.
Click to expand...
But you do admit it does draw a line between micro and macro evolution, and eschews the latter in favor of the intervention of an intelligent designer...
 
PatKelley said:
Try this quote on for size, as it's both from the DI and a recent article referring to Dover.
-(emphasis added)

That would appear to fit the bill for "macro-evolution is prevented."


Well, let's just see...

It assiduously, in this press release, avoids saying "God" but does assert that "Intelligentagencydiddit" for what they view as differences between species i.e. purported targets for "macroevolution" which they reject.
Click to expand...

Okay, "dissent is in what's known as macro-evolution" is not the same as "macro-evolution is prevented."

By analogy, Einstein 'dissented' from what was known as the law of gravity, this was not the same as 'gravity is prevented'. He proposed a different mechanism to account for the observed phenomena, he didn't reject the observations. ID does the same thing.

You support by point a) with "It assiduously, in this press release, avoids saying "God" ", thanks for that.
 
sphenisc said:
Okay, "dissent is in what's known as macro-evolution" is not the same as "macro-evolution is prevented."

By analogy, Einstein 'dissented' from what was known as the law of gravity, this was not the same as 'gravity is prevented'. He proposed a different mechanism to account for the observed phenomena, he didn't reject the observations. ID does the same thing.

You support by point a) with "It assiduously, in this press release, avoids saying "God" ", thanks for that.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)

1. What is the mechanism for gravity, either in the "Newtonian" or "Einsteinian" sense?! In absence of detailed mechanisms, what predictions can we make from the theory of gravity?
2. What mechanism does IDC suggest, again? Oh, and what about the predictive value of IDC...compared to, say, the theory of evolution? What predictions do necessarily follow from intelligent design creationism?!
 
Crispy Duck said:
From the Discovery Institute's "Top Questions and Answers about ID":



(For some reason, I'm not considered worthy to post links).

So I must admit, Sphenisc, you're right that ID, or at least one part of the Institute's website, does not deny macro-evolution. To me, this is even more bizarre. Can it really be the case that IDers accept that everything that has ever lived on this planet was the product of random mutation and natural selection, with the specific exceptions of flagella and blood clotting?

Curiouser and curiouser.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, it's great to be on a forum where people discuss issues, examine the evidence and are prepared to change their mind accordingly.
(Sorry, that sounds a bit patronising when I read it back - it's not meant to be.)

I strongly suspect that there are very few "IDers [who] accept that everything that has ever lived on this planet was the product of random mutation and natural selection, with the specific exceptions of flagella and blood clotting.", because many of them will be pet owners, eat farm produce and have considered with whom they want to have children.
:)
 
Guys, guys,

Please don't let my lovely thread get diverted into an argument about who the intelligent designer is.

My point is very specific: both micro- and macro-evolution follow absolutely inevitably from the basic behaviour of any system of any replicators. There isn't even a distinction between any two such levels of evolution. For ID to even "propose a different mechanism to account for the observed phenomena", it must first show why this automatic, inevitable behaviour does not apply to DNA-based replicators.

The key difference is that evolution doesn't have "explain" speciation etc as separate phenomena from mutation, selection etc - it just happens. ID is often criticised for not making falsifiable hypotheses, but here is a specific area where one is needed - they claim a "different mechanism" is needed for DNA-based replicators - why? What's stopping their behaviour following that of any generic system of replicators?

Anyway, after 23 posts, it seems the answer to the question in the thread title is "nothing".
 
Pastor Bentonit said:
(Emphasis mine)

1. What is the mechanism for gravity, either in the "Newtonian" or "Einsteinian" sense?! In absence of detailed mechanisms, what predictions can we make from the theory of gravity?
2. What mechanism does IDC suggest, again? Oh, and what about the predictive value of IDC...compared to, say, the theory of evolution? What predictions do necessarily follow from intelligent design creationism?!
Click to expand...

1. a) Matter instanteously generates a force which varies directly with the the mass and inverse squarely with distance.
b) Matter warps space/time, this warping is experienced as gravitation and is limited to c.

I won't go into a more detailed explanation due to
i) this part of your question not being the point you're REALLY interested in.
ii) my complete ignorance.


2) The intervention of an intelligent designer(s). I made no claims about predictive value - perhaps you read that somewhere else?
 
Crispy Duck said:
Guys, guys,

My point is very specific: both micro- and macro-evolution follow absolutely inevitably from the basic behaviour of any system of any replicators. There isn't even a distinction between any two such levels of evolution. For ID to even "propose a different mechanism to account for the observed phenomena", it must first show why this automatic, inevitable behaviour does not apply to DNA-based replicators.

The key difference is that evolution doesn't have "explain" speciation etc as separate phenomena from mutation, selection etc - it just happens. ID is often criticised for not making falsifiable hypotheses, but here is a specific area where one is needed - they claim a "different mechanism" is needed for DNA-based replicators - why? What's stopping their behaviour following that of any generic system of replicators?

Anyway, after 23 posts, it seems the answer to the question in the thread title is "nothing".
Click to expand...

Sorry the "evolutiondidit" doesn't wash ;) That 'etc' after 'selection' hides an awful lot of hidden requirements before you can say speciation 'just happens' as a result of mutation, selection etc.

The ID claim is not just that a '"different mechanism" is needed', it is that a different mechanism in actual fact operated. It is about the history of life on earth. There was nothing stopping DNA-based replicators' behaviour following that of any generic system of replicators, the claim is simply that this did not happen.
 
sphenisc said:
I made no claims about predictive value - perhaps you read that somewhere else?
Click to expand...

Of course you didn't. You can't. No one can. This is why ID is not and never will be science.
 
LOL. So many strawmen.

from talkorigins
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
Click to expand...

Then we segue into the question, "What defines species?", the obvious differences in critters we see all around us, and in the fossil record.

IC/ID as I see it makes one point. The chance of the correct sequence of events -- current apex us -- happening is infinitesmally small. Evolutionists must argue that the chances are high, since these genotype and/or phenotype discontinuities are a fact. Our own BillHoyt tabled the suggestion that chaos theory & strange attractors could be involved. How would that fit in The Theory? What would be the parameters of interest?
 
Sphensic said:
The ID claim is not just that a '"different mechanism" is needed', it is that a different mechanism in actual fact operated. It is about the history of life on earth. There was nothing stopping DNA-based replicators' behaviour following that of any generic system of replicators, the claim is simply that this did not happen.
Click to expand...
And the claim requires either evidence or logical proof. Otherwise it is just a claim, worth about $.59 on the open market.

~~ Paul
 
sphenisc said:
Okay, "dissent is in what's known as macro-evolution" is not the same as "macro-evolution is prevented."

By analogy, Einstein 'dissented' from what was known as the law of gravity, this was not the same as 'gravity is prevented'. He proposed a different mechanism to account for the observed phenomena, he didn't reject the observations. ID does the same thing.

You support by point a) with "It assiduously, in this press release, avoids saying "God" ", thanks for that.
Click to expand...

Ah, so then more evidence.
3. Has science shown that macroevolution is fact?

Science takes the position that macroevolution is undisputed fact and insists that it be taught as such in public schools. However, macroevolution has never been observed...not in the laboratory and not in the wild...and scientists plainly admit in the mainstream scientific literature that the microevolutionary processes observed in living populations cannot explain the large scale biological changes and adaptations hypothesized to have taken place in the past.

In addition, science has not identified even a remotely plausible mechanism for explaining the diversity and complexity of life.

Macroevolution may have taken place in the past as claimed, however, it has never been observed and because it has never been observed, there is no basis for claiming that it is fact and it should not be presented as such in public schools.
-Source
Click to expand...

Paleontologists have not found the extensive support for transitional forms we would expect to see in the fossil record if macroevolution were true. In short, macroevolution has not been proven and remains a theory. We cannot continue to teach macroevolution as the only scientific explanation we have for life's origins. The empirical scientific evidence of the origins of life should be taught in our schools along with the significant and viable models that the evidence supports. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution should be taught as a scientific theory, not proven fact, and it should be taught alongside the scientific theories of creation and intelligent design.
- Source (Thesis paper)
Click to expand...

"Why is evolution unable to account for the design in biology? Because there are examples of design that cannot have arisen via a sequence of functional intermediates.

"Evolution requires that every structure in biology, whether at the molecular or the morphological level, arose via a series of functional intermediate forms. In order for evolution to create the appearance of design, functional intermediates between all designs must exist. And the sequence of intermediates must be sufficiently gradual so that each successive form could have arisen from the previous form via normal biological variation. ID claims that at least in some cases no such sequence is possible."
Cornelius G. Hunter, Darwin's Proof (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003), 120.
Click to expand...
Gradual change over time and species arising from other species defines Macroevolution; the above statement specifically addresses this argument of "sequence of intermediates" that I displayed above; the argument being it should have been a fin the whole time, when that is not necessary, or really makes sense. It is rejected, macroevolution is, with the intermediates argument as the barrier, in addition to information theory arguments (no new information added, etc.) information decay arguments, and chances of deleterious mutation arguments which are also claimed to be against macroevolution.

These are all presented as barriers by ID. The intermediates is a rehashed creationist argument, the rest are de novo arguments in statistics and probability. All are presented as barriers to macroevolution, which is specifically referring to extrapolation of microevolution to new forms.





Well, that precludes the macroevolution-separate-from-darwinian principle.
 
sphenisc said:
Evidence please.
Click to expand...

Balderdash. You have the onus on the wrong parties. It is up to ID to marshall evidence it is a science. It has not done so. Period. Care to quibble? If I were to claim to be the King of Siam and someone were to assert "the h*** you are," are we to expect a call for the denier to marshall the evidence? Hardly.
 
BillHoyt said:
Balderdash. You have the onus on the wrong parties. It is up to ID to marshall evidence it is a science. It has not done so. Period. Care to quibble? If I were to claim to be the King of Siam and someone were to assert "the h*** you are," are we to expect a call for the denier to marshall the evidence? Hardly.
Click to expand...

Poppycock, You made four claims in four sentences, the first I will agree with, the other three are YOUR claims - you provide evidence.
 
Negative claims don't require evidence. Postive ones do.

"ID is science" is a postive claim.
"ID is not science" is a negative claim.
 
Plus are we going to have to define a scientific theory for the umpteenth, billionth time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom