The Viability of Intelligent Design 2/3

[@Christianjr4]

That's not really the point, at least not mine. My point was that he was unable to respond to a question. His inability to answer the question immediately had nothing to do with them lieing. Notice that he didn't stop the interview after that question was asked of him. He told them to stop filming so that he could try to answer it again, and that's exactly what happened. They stopped filming and then started again with his new answer. Anything that happened after that was after that fact.

[@gmacdonald87]

Man, this is a really encouraging conversation. Typically these vlog sites are flooded with intellectual posturing and vitriol. Imagine that I would come across two individuals engaged in a gracious and intelligent dialogue on youtube! What are the odds?

[@Christianjr4]

Evolution is not the change in allele frequency. It properly refers to the mutations at the genetic level that give rise to phenotypic expression that may be selected for by a particular environment.

[@hedleypanama]

Ok 1-Is malaria agent a bacterium? 2-Is sickle cell disease a problem in respiratory system? 3-What Immune-system resistance to do with malaria resistance and sickle cell disease?

[@Christianjr4]

Finally, let me just add that I think all of this is beside the point. The point isn't about whether this is evolution or not. The point is whether the moth example that Dr. Ayala gave was an example of random mutation and natural selection. This wasn't a debate about evolution. Indeed Dr. Craig explicitly stated that he was not going to dispute common ancestry. Rather the debate was about the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection.

[@Christianjr4]

"Ah you know he said that becasue he knew then creationists had LIED to him" Then why did Dawkins restart the interview? "What would you do if somone lied and tricked their way in to your house?" I would kick them out, I wouldn't restart the interview with the same question that was asked of me. And by the way, Dawkins never said they edited another part of the interview to make it seem like one interview. Dawkins fully admitted to his not being able to answer the question the first time.

[@Christianjr4]

I never said he was stumped. I said the video showed him unable to respond to a question, however absurd the question may have happened to be.

[@Christianjr4]

I don't know why I come across this disclaimer so often. From my own survey of articles and books on evolution (both on the Internet and not) I find that both the terms macroevolution and microevolution are used by professional biologists. I agree with you that there's no reason to suppose a discontinuity between them. I was never arguing anything like that here. Surely microevolution gives rise to the huge differences we see among individual creatures. The question is how are they generated.

[@Christianjr4]

It will be uploaded soon.

[@Christianjr4]

I've stated a few times already that I was going to upload Dr. Ayala's presentation shortly. But of course, since I'm a Christian this must be typical of us not to upload the other side. It couldn't possibly be typical, however, of atheists who constantly upload soundbites of their favorite atheists like Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc all the time. Seriously these comments get really annoying, especially given that I always upload the other side of the argument. See my channel.

[@Christianjr4]

Agreed! Creationists don't accept evolution that gives rise to macroevolution and that's generally what is meant by evolution by both professional scientists and the average public as well. Therefore I think it's somewhat improper of you to say that a change in allele frequency is evolution. It does not begin to encompass the true meaning of that word. Dr. Ayala defines evolution correctly: "the process of change and diversification of living things over time".

[@Christianjr4]

He wasn't able to respond to it, at least at that particular moment and there's no denying that. Granted he answered the question later, but the point was that he was unable to give an answer right away to the question asked of him. As for the video being edited, it wasn't. Dawkins already responded to that video explaining why he didn't answer right away which shows his own admission of how long it took to answer it.

[@momoseth2]

I guess I do not understand your argument. I agree with you completely that natural selection favors stasis, not variation. Chihuahuas would quickly die out in the wild. I know, I happen to have one. What I fail to understand is how this can be used to make a case for microbes-to-man evolution.

[@Christianjr4]

No, definitely do not believe that mutations happen as a response to the organisms needs, at least by itself. I'm open, however, to the idea that an intelligent designer helped the process along and brought about the necessary changes that give rise to the vast differences in living organisms. And I don't dispute that random mutation can give rise to phenotypic changes. I just question how far that can be extrapolated.

[@noodles321321]

As far as I can tell, Craig thinks old earth creationism is more viable than evolution but plays that fact down because it's such a contentious issue.

[@momoseth2]

No creationist/ID theorist would claim that animals are unable to change. Dogs, though, are a good demonstration of the limits of change. Great Danes, for example, suffer from dilated cardiomyopathy, dilatation-volvulus, and hip dysplasia because of their large body size and shape. A Great Dane has reached the limit of its evolution. Any bigger or narrower, and the dog breed would have a difficulty surviving.

[@adstanra]

I don't mind any criticism of Darwinian evolution ( that is how science works) but I don't buy the criticism. It certainly does not have the power to knock the theory out , a theory that has amazing explanatory power, that is consistent with biochemical and genetic analysis,the fossel record, common ancestry( which it predicted and has all but been confirmed) and is useful when facing things like H1N1. It appears as though mutaion provides enough varience for natural selection to act upon.

[@adstanra]

suppose we have no experience arrows. We could infer a natural process, we could infer a human( we know of humans and their capabilities), we could infer aliens( likely they could do such a thing) , we could infer a spacetimeless devine entity. I would suggest we exhaust all possible theories akin to the 1st two before we conclude the 3rd or 4th hypotheses. If we cannot produce a human or an alien or a supernatural designer, we should infer an natural process partic. if the pattern suggests it

[@Christianjr4]

He doesn't mean simply change in allele frequency. He means change at the genetic level (ie. mutations that are selected for). He's very clear in his writings that this change represents descent with modification, which clearly can't happen simply by a change in allele frequency. You must have mutations for that. So yes, it does represent a change in genotypes, and no, it doesn't refer to allele frequency as you initially stated was itself evolution.

[@Christianjr4]

There was no editing in the Dawkins video. It showed him unable to respond to a question, however poorly designed a question it may have been. And quite the contrary, I see many countless videos from atheist who only post soundbites of atheists on KZbin. Whether you need to edit your videos is irrelevant. The point is that atheists do exactly what you accused me of doing all the time. Finally, this video isn't edited as you imply. It's just a post of the opening presentation of one speaker.

[@adstanra]

No one , including Darwin ever argued that mutation and natural selection has no limits. "begging the question" is a term that implies that I have built in the conclusion from my premises..not sure what you mean by it. You are right that M. Behe believes an intelligence directed the process, just not sure why he draws that conclusion. all he has done is question the prevailing theory. We know mutaions occur, that dna is the heriditary material and that selection occurs.Time is only requirement.

[@Christianjr4]

"There is a difference between inability and disinclination" The video speaks for itself. If he didn't want to answer the question then chances are he would have said so instead of looking perplexed at the question, waiting a while, and then finally asking to stop the video. Anyways, I'm not trying to make some point out of this. Personally, I thought the question was stupid and I don't hold that against Dawkins. Obviously Dawkins is still a brilliant scientist. The video proves nothing.

[@hedleypanama]

@andrewtheman19 You are right! I already knew the answers to my own questions, but WLC does not! According to HIM, malaria is a bacterial disease, sickle cell is a respiratory disease and sickle cell disease renders immune protection against malaria. In the last question, the answer is very tricky: malaria is not so dangerous outside Africa and sickle cell is a real s417. The trait (having a normal gene and SC gene) have no symptoms and renders protection against malaria.

[@momoseth2]

Hey, sorry I've been away for awhile. Consider this, if humans had not interfered with Chihuahuas, would they have evolved? No, they wouldn't have. It is only because of human interaction (i.e. an intelligent designer) with dogs that we do have the various breeds of dogs that we see today. The fossils record is nearly devoid of transitionals. With a few exceptions, the fossil record is not good evidence of evolution. Why else would Gould come up with punctuated equilibrium?

[@momoseth2]

I believe your debating theistic evolution with your final bit (I am not a theistic evolutionist). If it had happened naturally, I would consider a chihuahua and a wolf as two distinct species. My point is that the chihuahua would not exist if humans (intelligence) had not interfered.

[@Christianjr4]

It doesn't matter to me. You're the one who is making a big deal out of it. I was simply pointing out the obvious to someone who tried to use the video to their advantage. That's all. Your defense of Dawkins is bizarre. Obviously Dawkins allowed the people who were filming him to come into his house and interview him. That he was unable to respond succinctly to a question seems obvious to me, not a mere matter of speculation. Anyways, I'm leaving this side debate alone. It's not important.

[@Christianjr4]

By saying it's a "result of genetic mutation" you're just presupposing that which you must prove. The very point of the moth example given by evolutionists such as Dr. Ayala was to show that this is an example of a genetic mutation that was selected for. In reality it's only an example of natural selection acting on already existing allele's to give rise to a greater proportion of black moths.

[@adstanra]

If they are not possible by mutation and random selection then we must look for other theories. No one has shown that they are "unviable" via these means. In order to understand how the clotting system evolved we would have to go back in time. what if some parts of it were used for other purposes then useful that have been "exapted" into a new function? and who says that part of a clotting system, perhaps the extrinsic pathway, or part of it is not beneficial to some degree by itself?

[@adstanra]

no they wouldn't have , but that is not the point. The problem with analogies is that they are never perfect and can be misinterpreted. chihauhaus were selected for by humans, but don't project that onto the cosmos. the analogy was designed to show the varience within wolves and the short time it took for humans to do this.imagine what nature can do over thousands of millions of years! the fossil record is replete with transitional fossils .

[@Christianjr4]

We are evolved, that's why we have the traits that we do. The point was that intelligent design might be needed for certain results to come about (ie. the origin of life or the development of homo sapiens). I'm not advocating some sort of special creationism so it's not at all problem that we have tail DNA etc. This is to be expected on evolution period. And you completely misunderstand "God's image". It was never meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor for one's personhood (rationality).

[@adstanra]

the nested heirarchial bush pattern that emerges time and time again when we look at the biological pattern is consistent with an algorythmic stochastic process. 98 % of the branches on the bush lead to dead ends. This is simply not a determinitive pattern expected from a mind!

[@adstanra]

well if it is I will require your enlightenment.

[@adstanra]

This method is limiting in many ways as you suggest. Man could never make a bird out of the dog by selection.selection is algorythmic and acts upon what it has. It cannot go backward and has no foresight. An amphibian resently evolved from some lung fish , for example, has a huge evolutionary potential with access to a whole new envirnoment ..dry land.We know how whale ancestors evolved as they returned to the sea and have a fairly good fossil record of the transition.

[@adstanra]

I understand. no problem.

[@adstanra]

yes, and perhaps many viable branches of the evolutionary bush never happened for this reason. There is no foresight with evolution. If there is ongoing variation , coupled with selective pressure and time..evolution is a mathematical certainty that would produce a nested heirarchial bush of life as observed. Behe is arguing that mutation and selection are insufficient, but most scientists disagree. He needs to produce a designer or rule out every conscievable natural explanation.

[@adstanra]

perhaps it started as a platelet plug in some very simple organism with a redimentary vascular system where the plug worked better is enforced with a bit of fibrinogen or other now lost chemical. Why couldn't it gain complexity one step at a time algorythmically over time? I hope at least we have put to rest the flaggelum idea! As for the alalogy...we have experience with arrow heads and the types of people who produce them, so an inference to a native tribe is reasonable.

[@adstanra]

how many mutations does it take to get from a wolf to a chiwawa. I wonder, given Behe's analysis how it is even possible?Natural selection acts upon variation over time. There appears to be plenty enough variation

[@Christianjr4]

I don't see that as evolution. I think you're abusing the common accepted definition. An example of evolution would be that you have a mutation that gives rise to dark color skin and then the environment selects for it. That's an example of evolution. If simply increasing the proportion of an allele is evolution then even hardcore anti-evolution creationists would accept evolution since they would accept the fact that certain genes can and do become more numerous than others.

[@adstanra]

hey momoseth2. Imagine the time it took for humans to "create" a Chiwawa ( say 10,000yrs). Consider that a meter. then consider the evolutionary scale. That scale would stretch from NewYork to LA! Imagine the change that can occur in that time .Each branch produces variance that is constantly and algorythmically being acted upon by selection. Most activity will occur naturally with changes to the environment and with isolation of groups.We has transitional fossels showing this evolution.

[@MaltyT]

Marco evolutionary change?@1:15 What in the heck those Craig mean by that?

[@adstanra]

"But what if many of the branches that did happen are unviable on random mutation and natural selection?" Sorry PraetorD, this is unintelligable to me..i would be interested in your explanation. I have to work in am so must go zzzz. happy to reply perhaps tomorrow...take care. ps-Your analogy has so little explanatory power and relevence to what we are talking about ( concluding a deity )that I will not comment on it.

[@Christianjr4]

Your definition of evolution isn't equivalent to mine. Simply increasing the proportion of an allele isn't exactly evolution (although it's a very important part of natural selection). If black people were to hypothetically outnumber all other races because they bred more then by your definition that would be evolution, which it's not. Simply increasing the number of an already existing allele isn't evolution. Evolution is CHANGES at the genetic level.

[@adstanra]

I was simply pointing out the variance within the wolf population and the power of selection to effect changes . Do you consider a Chihauhau a wolf anymore? The fallacy comes through anthropomorphism. the temdency of humans to project themselves onto the cosmos. Just because man did this ( a mind) does not mean evolution is guided by a mind!

[@hedleypanama]

Indeed! However I publish it a month ago and nobody (but you) has paid atention to my questions... Ah!, the smell of LWC BS!

[@adstanra]

and common ancestry has been positively confirmed by genetic and molecular biology analysis. Moere and more transitional fossils are being found all the time. Do you know of any transitional fossils from wolf to chihauhaus

[@adstanra]

confused! Does wlc accept common ancestry or not? WRT Dogs...a few thousand yr experiment...at what point do we consider a chiwawa not a wolf anymore? the moth example shows how the frequency of alleles can change under natural selection.imagine this type of thing going on over 1000s of millions of yrs. the term "species " is btw an artificial term we humans use to define creatures that are alike enough to breed together, but each individual is a new creature, bound in time through it's ancestry

[@adstanra]

I am not sure of what you believe momoseth2 . you do seem to believe that a wolf and a chi are 2 different species " created" by man through selection over time. It was done by exploiting the natural variance in the wolf and sexual reproduction. therefore, sexual reproduction with selection acting on variance over time can lead to speciation. If a natural process, the expected pattern would be a nested heirarchy-the exact pattern we do find! imagine this over thousands of millions of yrs.

[@adstanra]

nice!

[@hedleypanama]

@andrewtheman19 In conclusion WLC knows less biology as my dead dog knew about quantic physics! indeed NOTHING I am a physician, so I must know about that...

[@geoffreyefloyd]

lol that's hilarious... :)