Rhian,
You’ve said (more than once) that the ID and evolution positions are somewhat different in nature. Therefore to disprove evolution would not prove ID.

This is in contradiction with Zimmerman who wants to compare them, and play them off against each other, “a relatively neglected category of argument against ID and in favor of evolution: the argument from imperfection, as applied to the human genome.” (Zimmerman)

Therefore I ask you, do you agree with his reasoning? Are you willing to critique his article?

You say evidence for evolution is evidence against ID. Is not therefore evidence for ID evidence against evolution? Or do you want to play with a two headed coin?

-

First you describe the arguments for ID as ‘untenable’ (14/5). Then you say the argument for ID is inferior to those of Polkinghorne and Peacocke, which ‘seem to me more nuanced and rational than ID as usually presented’ (20/5).

I’ll take that as a bit of a concession. A comparison with Polkinghorne is not nearly as bad as being ‘untenable’.

However, I’d like suggest that it would be better not to look at any argument ‘as usually presented’ (or often misrepresented) but to analyse the strongest version of that argument. Then if you reject it, at least you will know what you have rejected.

While Peacocke and Polkinghorne are entitled to their opinion, and I can respect their scholarly view, I think you would agree that there is room to explore other views.

For these reasons, I think it is wise to be a little bit tempered, and not support rash statements from someone who’s gone off a bit half-cocked. When Zimmerman talks of the ‘damage’ ID is doing (despite being ‘dead and buried’), accusing them of ‘heights of arrogance’ and claiming they want ‘scientific investigation to be halted’, you wonder whether someone must have done something nasty to him in another life. He’s being shrill. And when he calls on the ‘God of the gaps’ you should know he hasn’t attempted to understand the ID argument.

Wow! So now McReal hurling abuse?! This just keeps getting better.

Vanna,

<<So cells in the past didn’t form proteins?>>

I didn’t say that at all. I simply responded to your assumption that primitive cells were like the more complex cells we see today.

<<So how did cells grow, and more importantly, why did they grow?>>

Because they’re made of materials that can replicate themselves.

<<If you want references, look in any of the main biology books (EG Biology by Campbell)>>

Telling someone to read an entire book is not a reference. Considering none of the “main biology books” agree with you, you’re going to have to give me some quotes with page numbers. Heck, even a web link would do.

<<HOWEVER, they tend to leave out a lot, and tend to state that evolution occurs over time and through chance.>>

Through chance?

There’s a very small element of chance in evolution, but evolution is not a theory of chance. What about that are you finding so difficult to grasp?

Again, references.

Oh and what’s an example of something they leave out too?

<<No one would want too many getting worried or all upset about something they can’t actually see or measure.>>

Evolution is observed all the time and yes, even measured... http://tinyurl.com/2g8su7d

<<You have not answered the last question I asked.>>

That’s because your question was nothing more than an insinuation that I’m being abusive.

You haven’t answered several of my questions. Would you kindly inform me of why a person who accepts evolution “would would walk away and not plant anything” despite the discovery of suitable land, or whether or not your lack of response earlier was an admission that evolution hasn’t failed any tests?

<<But you should be very careful giving insults and abuse directly to someone. I have seen what can happen in such circumstances. Not pretty.>>

Whoa! My first OLO threat! You’re really helping to give me a newfound appreciation for Dan, Vanna. Dan may have made some false accusations before but he’s never threatened anyone.

Phew! It’s just as well I’m not being abusive.

ajpillips..<<Telling someone/to read an entire book..is not a reference.>>lol..

so he gives a gimmic...
http://tinyurl.com/2g8su7d
..a link that..EVENTUALLY..SENDS ONE TO A LIBARY...of redirctive/gibberish/spin

<<you’re going to/have to..give me some quotes..with page numbers.>>

YES INDEED..YOU MUST..AS-WELL

a web link wont do...but here is a quote...from/the first link..of ya link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

<<Evolution experiments..throughout human-history

[picture]..show's..the wide range of dog-breed sizes..created using artificial selection.>>..NOT EVOLUTION..micro evolution..WITHIN THE CANUS GENUS

<<Unwittingly,>>>LOL<<..humans have carried out evolution experiments>>WITHIN THE GENUS..<<for as long as they have been domesticating plants and animals.>>

NOT EVOLUTION...selection..within the species

VIA..<<Selective breeding>>..ie../NOT EVOLUTION..<<of plants/and animals..has led to varieties>>WITHIN THEIR GENUS>>

<<that differ dramatically from their original wild-type ancestors.>>..YET ALL REMAIN IN THEIR GENUS/...yet/evolution CLAIMS..species..evolve into/..new genus...thats a lie/unsupported by their own evidence

<<Examples are the cabbage varieties,>>ie all in the genus/of cabbage

<<maize,..or the large number/of different dog-breeds.>>
..dogs are all in cannus/genus...ditto maize..in its genus

>>The power..of human breeding..to create varieties>>WITHIN THEIR GENUS<<with extreme differences...>PLEASE NOTE<<from a single species>>../

IE THEIR ALL..IN THEIR OWN SPECIES...
evolution..means change of../FROM/..their GENUS..into new genus

<<The Origin of Species..with a chapter on variation..in domestic animals./..Darwin discussed in particular the pigeon.>>

specificlly...the wild type rock/dove...columbia...A
LL PIGIONS ARE IN COLUMBIA/genus/species/liva

<<He wrote:..Altogether..at least a score of pigeons might be chosen,..which if shown to an ornithologist,..and he were told that they were/..wild birds,..would certainly,..I think,..be ranked by him as well-defined species.>>..ie not even then..as a new genus

<<Moreover,..I do not believe..that any ornithologist/..would place the English-carrier,..the short-faced/tumbler,..the runt,..the barb, pouter,..and fantail..in the same genus;>>>..YET THEY ARE!

<<more especially..as in each/of these breeds..several truly-inherited sub-breeds,..or species/..>>LOL

<<I am fully convinced..that the common opinion..of naturalists is correct,..namely,..that...#.all have descended..from the rock-pigeon*..(Columba livia),[genus columbia.species liva]

<<including..under this term..several geographical races--or sub-species*,..which differ from each other..in the most trifling respects.–Charles Darwin,..The Origin of Species

Early/..experimental evolution

<<William Dallinger...cultivated..small/unicellular organisms..the organisms had adapted>>>..NOT EVOLVED out of genus...let alone species...LOL

IE NOT EVOLVED out of their genus/..genious...

clever link...lol..
but trickery/gimmic..doth not evidence create/....

lol..your..only decieving..the decieved...bro

Vanna,

Photosynthesis is a localised highly phenomenon. The sun is very hot and the earth would be cold, if were not for the sun. Plants are highly organised seemingly defying the second law of thermodynamics. Yet, this not the case: The solar system as whole increases its entropy as the sun fuels down. Plants interact with that system. To explain the same verity, Paul Davies, notes when a refrigerator cools it increases the entropy of the kitchen.

To see evolution at work study HIV, because viruses mutate very quickly. Relatedly, HIV genomes have been studied. When some catches a serious virus the immune system cranks up. There is a battle. What actually might actually the host is not the original virus, rather a different genetically different virus, to the original caught.
Fundamentalist Christians think otherwise, but mutation is a fact.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_04

Regarding, the above, the same principles apply on a longer time scale.

Gene sequencing demonstrates that there are currently three forms of life, designated, bacteria, archaea and eucarya (multi-celled). The cross-differences in the RNA suggest that these lines evolved away from each other and that there may have been an earlier more primitive form of an RNA-like replicator. Primitive short sequence replicators are unstable individually, but may have enjoined, as a colony, to make it over the first hump towards continuous replication.

runner,

What was the first correctly semantic sequenced sentence spoken by Jesus? Do you believe Jesus orated the Sermon the Mount?

TYPICAL..redirections from/ohliver quote..<<..What was the first..correctly semantic/sequenced sentence..spoken by Jesus?>>

sequenced by whom/ohliver...god?
what was darwins?

interesting you/mention hiv...introduced by science...in their polio/vacine...grown on monkey-liver serum...CHIMP-pansy..serum..then tested..in africa/ussr...who still have the..higher prevalance of it

fromk your link<<The diagram shows some of the evolutionary history of HIV..as we know it today...An ancestral virus..(bottom)..evolved into strains..that infected chimpanzees..(SIV).

Over time,..new strains began to infect humans(HIV)...>>when their livers..were blended to extract/the serum..to grow polio virus...etc..the science godheads..playing god

much like the latest claim to grow life...lol..some nutter/a god wannabe...created a string of dna...inserted IT..into a living cell...and lo..the god-head..claimes he invented life...what a deception

its like emtying a train..putting in a new driver..then claiming you invented trains..its insane..but there you go...food for those loving to be decieved..yet again

OHliver<<..there may>>LOL<<have been an earlier..more primitive form of an RNA-like replicator>>..lest you be ignorant...please name the mechanmism..by which it replicated..[or name this rna..dont grasp at straws]

by the way please answer me this...did this first/unnanmed first/life...live in fresh water..or salt water?..

its a trick question..
but give-up your fact,..not your fiction

<<..Photosynthesis;is a localised highly phenomenon.>>..please say again?

thats gibberish ohliver..sure you got big words..but no sentance structure

then..<<The sun is very hot/and the earth would be cold,>>WOW>>the insight..its out of site..lol..but where are we going with this trickery

<<if were not for the sun...Plants are highly organised..seemingly defying the second law of thermodynamics.>>>thermo-dynamics...[its not the heat..bro,,,its the light...photo-syn-thesis,,,get it?

<<Yet,this not the case:>>the suns heat heats the system...now,,mainly because the sun has entrophied...[ie is cooling down...now

but earlier it was too hot..but its not heat/sun alone..its clouds//water...rotating earth..distance from the sun...a whole lot of vairiables...then a seed...to grow the tree/plant...etc...you claim ..via evolution..yet what evolved..name it...

<<The solar system as whole..increases its entropy>>>following the big bang...suns formed...and entrophied...

..but that natural progress..made other things..also needed for life...its perfect,,just like god planned it

<<as the sun fuels down>>>huh?...is that english?

<<Plants interact with that system>>>,,with the fuel/down system...lol
with..or within..?,...i wish you had a clue..about/what..your trying to say

A J Phillips.
I’m not threatening you. You seem to get scared very easily.

I’m just giving you some kindly advice. If you directly call someone “ignorant” outside of an online forum, you may find yourself abruptly learning about reality. So it is best not to get into the habit of doing that.

But you have convinced me.

The theory of evolution requires genetic mutations, and cells must have learnt how to use chlorophyll, through genetic mutations.

And cells must have learnt how to use the Krebs cycle, through genetic mutations.

And cells must have learnt how to carry out endocytosis and exocytosis, through genetic mutations.

Etc,etc.

Its all got to do with genetic mutations, although they do have to be very good genetic mutations.

I promise I’ll never doubt the theory of evolution every again.

No, that not quite right. I still have some nagging question at the back of my mind. You say that cells are “ made of materials that can replicate themselves.”. I guess your thinking of DNA, although you seem reluctant to mention it.

So how did cells discover DNA? And what did cells do before they discover DNA.? And how could cells carry out a genetic mutations before they discovered DNA?

And Would Cells Have To Have A Genetic Mutation, To Be Able To Discover DNA, So That Cells Could Then Carry Out A Genetic Mutation?

I guess I’ll have to wait for someone who doesn’t mindlessly follow the theory of evolution to answer such questions.

Under one god,
It is interesting that Darwin actually carried out ID, as well as countless other people throughout history.