Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

I'm aware of evidence (primarily in the form of fossil records) that supports the natural development of humans over a long period of time. I'm not aware of any evidence that the process was interfered with by any outside entities. Could you fill me in on this evidence, since you claim to have enough to distinguish intelligent design from simple undirected evolution?

Yanoda, is there any way to get access to the full article?

Please show me the evidence of "a natural development of humans over a long period of time." There isn't any. There are fossil records of creatures having lived and died. There is DNA evidence that, based on our ordering of genetic/chromosomal information, different species share genetic code. There is NOTHING that demonstrates that one genus "came from" another.

The best we can do is to show how similar species share DNA sequences that MAY suggest inter-breeding. It is NOT possible to show where from single celled organisms, the human race branched off from dinosaurs, sharks, small pox, crickets, chipmunks or begonias.

That being said, give it a rest. Saying you don't know is actually ok. Cause ya don't. Let the religious believe what they want. Till you can prove it wrong, let them have their fixations. I won't keep pointing out how what you hold as truth is less provable then you thought it was. It'll just piss everyone off. (I will allow you to slap down the literalist who think the Bible is correct word for translated word.) But don't pretend that Intelligent Design is a stupid idea just because it purports to include a being more intelligent than our academic elite.

BTW: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVZi9Iq8 ... re=related ) HILARIOUS!!

[Darth Crater]

Even if there were zero evidence for natural development (which is not the case; I don't feel like looking it up again at the moment, sorry; Yanoda probably knows a good source), you still haven't answered my request. Show me evidence for intelligent interference in the development of humanity, or at least tell me how to acquire that evidence if (like me) you can't spare the time to go looking at the moment. Don't ignore my question completely while pushing the discussion onto safer territory.

You're right, I don't know exactly what happened. I don't think I have claimed that I have. The evidence I've seen has convinced me that humanity arose through evolution and natural selection, so I make decisions according to that belief.

[11_Panama_]

So....who here likes Van Halen?

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Even if there were zero evidence for natural development (which is not the case; I don't feel like looking it up again at the moment, sorry; Yanoda probably knows a good source), you still haven't answered my request. Show me evidence for intelligent interference in the development of humanity, or at least tell me how to acquire that evidence if (like me) you can't spare the time to go looking at the moment. Don't ignore my question completely while pushing the discussion onto safer territory.

You're right, I don't know exactly what happened. I don't think I have claimed that I have. The evidence I've seen has convinced me that humanity arose through evolution and natural selection, so I make decisions according to that belief.

http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/content ... dintro.pdf
Read that article and decide if anything makes sense to you.

Statistically speaking, the proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10^113 (i.e. 10 to the 113th power), and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life.
The concept of irreducible complexity demonstrates that biological systems and organs could not have come about by any series of small changes as traditional Darwinian Evolutionists require. It argues that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of natural selection. Although it accepts that some complex systems and organs can be explained by evolution, the concept states that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer is a more probable explanation in the crafting of life or guiding of its evolution.

It does NOT necessitate a God. It simply says that it is more probable then not.

http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm

[Duel of Fates]

So....who here likes Van Halen?

Pre-Sammy Hagar: the best.
With Sammy: very good.
After Sammy: not so much.

[Darth Crater]

http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/content ... dintro.pdf
Read that article and decide if anything makes sense to you.

Statistically speaking, the proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10^113 (i.e. 10 to the 113th power), and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life.
The concept of irreducible complexity demonstrates that biological systems and organs could not have come about by any series of small changes as traditional Darwinian Evolutionists require. It argues that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of natural selection. Although it accepts that some complex systems and organs can be explained by evolution, the concept states that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer is a more probable explanation in the crafting of life or guiding of its evolution.

It does NOT necessitate a God. It simply says that it is more probable then not.

http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm

We discussed the numbers you're claiming earlier in the thread (around page 10, I think - I don't blame you for not reading the whole thing). As far as I remember, nobody was ever able to substantiate any particular number, but the few sources that had a backing in biology indicated it was far less than that (if difficult to pin down to more than several orders of magnitude). That's all regarding the origin of life, though, not the development of humans - I wish we could stop switching from one to the other.

Some quick pseudo-research (read: Wikipedia) suggests that the argument of irreducible complexity is severely flawed. Here's one source in which they demonstrated that complex features could indeed arise through unguided natural selection: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 01568.html . They used evolutionary algorithms on digital organisms, but as a Computer Science major I'm convinced that they've replicated the problem sufficiently.

[Yanoda]

Yanoda, is there any way to get access to the full article?

The link I provided should have been the full article...
Here is the link again: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 542.x/full

@ Dreadnaught
If you would have read the article you would have noticed they were referring to the Chinook Salmon that "colonised the Main Basin by 1975 (10 generations ago) and the North Channel and southern Georgian Bay regions by 1980 (eight generations ago)". These Salmon had no interference with humans (apart from being imported from the Green River). Also, there was nothing stated about

dramatic claim

, it was just a statement with verifiable data and research.
What the article states is that the Chinook Salmon that colonized the Main Basin, North Channel and Georgian Bay regions have started to differentiate from each other (both physical and genetically) compared to those native to the Green River.
Here's an image from a German Article talking about this: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natu ... 31,00.html

The best we can do is to show how similar species share DNA sequences that MAY suggest inter-breeding.

There is one flaw in your statement Dread, hybrid species tend to be sterile. There are some that reportedly were able to reproduce, but they were few. Therefore, there is no definite proof that inter-breeding could be viable let alone without human intervention.
Here is a simple article and video that demonstrate how Life can be related.
From page 30 -

Like I said before, there are many evidences that indicate Evolution of Life is a viable explanation. This website just explains the basics about Evolution: http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
And an interesting video about genes and conducting of experimentation that validates Evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 34_04.html

http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/0412d92cf791d1cb45bbad7d0fc38f80/miscdocs/idintro.pdf
Read that article and decide if anything makes sense to you.

From page 28 - [quote="Yanoda"][quote]
The first 2 minutes talks about quote mining, the rest is about the so called "designer".

@ Panama
If you have nothing relevant or useful (a rock band) to post on the Topic, then don't post.

Cheers

Yanoda

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

The link I provided should have been the full article...
Here is the link again: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 542.x/full

Cheers

Yanoda

I'm sorry I checked the link both times, and all I received was a log in page. Maybe you are a member, and we have to join in order to read the article?

[Yanoda]

I'm sorry I checked the link both times, and all I received was a log in page. Maybe you are a member, and we have to join in order to read the article?

Seems strange. Either way, here is the PDF link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 0542.x/pdf
If that doesn't work, here's the attachment below.

Cheers

Yanoda

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

We discussed the numbers you're claiming earlier in the thread (around page 10, I think - I don't blame you for not reading the whole thing). As far as I remember, nobody was ever able to substantiate any particular number, but the few sources that had a backing in biology indicated it was far less than that (if difficult to pin down to more than several orders of magnitude). That's all regarding the origin of life, though, not the development of humans - I wish we could stop switching from one to the other.

Some quick pseudo-research (read: Wikipedia) suggests that the argument of irreducible complexity is severely flawed. Here's one source in which they demonstrated that complex features could indeed arise through unguided natural selection: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 01568.html . They used evolutionary algorithms on digital organisms, but as a Computer Science major I'm convinced that they've replicated the problem sufficiently

These numbers are the most empirical and don't do statistical fudging. I use this example. If I flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads 75 times, the odds it will come up heads on the next toss is STILL 50/50. Too many people try and reduce the statistical probability by imposing supposition into the analysis. The height of the toss, the weight of the coin, wind resistance, etc. While all these factors are relevant and COULD affect the outcome the next toss may be different (by its very nature WILL be) and our best probability factor must revert to the empirical 50/50. To many people are afraid of not knowing. They pretend understanding and try to reduce the number in various ways to account for this and that. "This and that" are not objectively quantifiable only statistically supportable. My cited number is based upon the known DNA pairing structures possible. If anything it is the low side (there could be some we don't know). It is the most accurate.

I've read the article in wikipedia that constantly refers to scientists and studies as "they" without any attempt to hide bias. It attacks the idea of Intelligent Design by saying it isn't proven true. Those who refuse the idea really only rely on this argument alone. The idea of Intelligent Design (BTW it's why it is a theory and not a law) is that it is the most probable explanation for a natural system which inherently encourages chaotic change but has created such incredible, fragile order. It is chaos theory to the next step. It is as mathematically provable as a Higgs Boson and doesn't require imaginary numbers and multi-dimensions to get there. But because it is not definitively proven (and is a much more simple explanation) it is derided and discarded out of hand. They hold this idea up to a much higher standard than the alternative they espouse and claim to be enlightened.

Hey enlightened! It's possible, its even likely. Just cause you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true. I'm not saying it isn't possible it all ISN"T just random chance, but given the alternative, I believe in Intelligent Design.

BTW - My idea of ID is probably a little different then the main stream. I don't think humans were dropped on Earth fully formed like some creationists do. Mine is the LONG view. If you are familiar with the idea "Life finds a way," my notion is that the Intelligence is "Life" the Design is "finding a way". I believe the universe (multi-verse) exists for life and that life is ultimately connected to the Alpha/Omega. My evidence involves quantum physics (my dad does summer work at CERN, dinner conversations growing up were...complex) and I will share with anyone who cares to message me.