[_ Old Earth _] Kenneth Miller on The Collapse of Intelligent Design

[brother Paul]

As you know, evolutionary theory does not and cannot negate the possibility of a Creator. As you saw, Darwin attributed the origin of life to the Creator. Odd that an "evolutionist" would not know this.

Barb, you are dodging the point. I am sure Kenyon is well aware of the minority that holds to this view you espouse. But the TRUTH is most do not and hold to one of the other two views I espoused. Kenyon just came to realize (like many others) that either of the other more commonly held views in this group is absurd and not actually indicated by evidence or fact.

Yep. Forensics, geology, astronomy, etc. would be impossible if the creationists were right.

No! Only IF the literalist YECs are correct,.you in fact are a creationist (at least you claim to be)

No please do not divert by your “show me”! I am aware of the way the Genome is interpreted by this group and I believe they are incorrect. All Genomes share sections in common because those sections are relative to similar design of form (anatomical structure) or function (physiology) and do not at all evidence as a fact that one became the other or that t hey shared a common ancestor (though I have no doubt for example that all ape-kind had earlier fewer varieties from which all the diversity has been produced just as with all dog-kind, all cat kind, all humankind, etc.,)

You're a bit unclear here. The genetic data seems to be entirely consistent with fossil data. What are you trying to say?

You were implying with your link that the DNA supports the OP that we have Okapi then Samotherium and then what we call Giraffe…it does not and the link did not demonstrate this at all.

For those brainwashed who accepted the OP article on face value and were imprinted by the imaging it makes perfect sense and when challenged a cog gets stuck in their thinking process and they are UNABLE (via the program) to cognize the logic of such an opposition view as my own.

The fossil record DEMONSTRATES and can be observed to show that Okapi came last NOT first, therefore however one spins it, the OP article is misleading at best and a lie at worst. For the sake of one’s intellectual integrity it is best to just deal with it and see it for what it is. It is INCORRECT assumption based conslusionism engineered to appear to show something to be actual that clearly is NOT.

fewer and fewer scientists who doubt the fact of evolution

No one is talking about “evolution” in general but one animal becoming an entirely different animal (like Okapi becoming Giraffe through a middle man like Samotherium). Please stop trying to change the subject, Here is my question which I KNOW you will dance around and NOT take a direct stand on…

DO YOU believe Okapi BECAME Samotherium which BECAME our modern Giraffes as this OP article woould imply and have the masses believe? Yes or no!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you know, evolutionary theory does not and cannot negate the possibility of a Creator. As you saw, Darwin attributed the origin of life to the Creator. Odd that an "evolutionist" would not know this.

Barb, you are dodging the point. I am sure Kenyon is well aware of the minority that holds to this view you espouse.

The majority. The vast majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that acknowledge that there is no contradiction between Christian belief and evolution.

But the TRUTH is most do not

You're wrong. Slightly over half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics. The next biggest division is Eastern Orthodox. Both of these acknowledge the fact that evolution is consistent with Christian belief. So do Anglicans. So do almost all Lutherans except for one synod in the U.S. And even many evangelicals admit the fact. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian (who headed the Human Genome Project) and he openly admits the fact.

Barbarian, regarding the idea that we can't know anything we didn't directly observe:
Yep. Forensics, geology, astronomy, etc. would be impossible if the creationists were right.

No! Only IF the literalist YECs are correct,.you in fact are a creationist (at least you claim to be)

Since "creationist" has come to include so many people who don't accept the way God managed creation", I don't use that term to describe myself.

No please do not divert by your “show me”! I am aware of the way the Genome is interpreted by this group and I believe they are incorrect. All Genomes share sections in common because those sections are relative to similar design of form (anatomical structure) or function (physiology) and do not at all evidence as a fact that one became the other or that t hey shared a common ancestor

We can check that belief by looking at genomes of organisms of known descent. And the evidence shows that belief is wrong. Genetic relationships do indeed indicate common descent.

Barbarian asks:
You're a bit unclear here. The genetic data seems to be entirely consistent with fossil data. What are you trying to say?

You were implying with your link that the DNA supports the OP that we have Okapi then Samotherium and then what we call Giraffe…

No. I was pointing out that the evidence shows that all giraffids have a common ancestor, and that okapis are merely a relict population of a much larger group of smaller giraffes, whose shorter necks are due to allometric growth.

For those brainwashed who accepted the OP article on face value and were imprinted by the imaging it makes perfect sense and when challenged a cog gets stuck in their thinking process and they are UNABLE (via the program) to cognize the logic of such an opposition view as my own.

It's not that your argument is illogical; it's just contradicted by the evidence.

The fossil record DEMONSTRATES and can be observed to show that Okapi came last NOT first,

No, that's wrong. Giraffids appeared in the Miocene, and diversified into various groups. Giraffes, okapis, and other giraffids diversified at that time.. The point is that smaller ones had relatively shorter necks, because it seems that absolute increases in body size disproportionately increases neck growth. The the okapis and pronghorns seem to have diversified only shortly before the modern giraffes evolved. None of the modern members of this group are ancestral to any of the others.

therefore however one spins it, the OP article is misleading at best and a lie at worst.

The OP is Kenneth Miller, discussing the collapse of the "intelligent design" movement. Perhaps you're thinking of another thread that documents the transistional nature of giraffid necks.

For the sake of one’s intellectual integrity it is best to just deal with it and see it for what it is. It is INCORRECT assumption based conslusionism engineered to appear to show something to be actual that clearly is NOT.

Remember these were predicted by evolutionary theory before they were found. And they are supported by genetic data that shows the same thing.

Barbarian observes:
fewer and fewer scientists who doubt the fact of evolution

No one is talking about “evolution” in general but one animal becoming an entirely different animal (like Okapi becoming Giraffe through a middle man like Samotherium).

They are not entirely different. Genetically and anatomically, they are very much alike. And the differences seem to be due to allometry, not directly by natural selection. You seem to think that transitional forms must be ancestral to modern forms. They don't have to be. In fact, it would be truly remarkable, if the very individual that gave rise to a new group would be fossilized and found. As you know, Archaeopteryx is transitional between dinosaurs and birds, even though it probably isn't the genus that actually gave rise to birds.

Please stop trying to change the subject, Here is my question which I KNOW you will dance around and NOT take a direct stand on…

DO YOU believe Okapi BECAME Samotherium which BECAME our modern Giraffes as this OP article woould imply and have the masses believe? Yes or no!

Again, you're mistaking what it's about. The fossil record indicates that small, medium, and large giraffids diversified in the Miocene, and thereby were three groups (pronghorns, okapids, and giraffids) that diversified from a smaller artiodactyl. (I think I might have once said "perissodactyl". Sorry) Climacocera africanus was very close to the first giraffid. Samotherium could likely be the ancestor of modern giraffes. Paleotragus or a close relative was very likely the ancestor of okapis today. Don't know the most likely ancestor of the only remaining pronghorn, but there was a dwarf pronghorn, with a relatively shorter neck. Can't put it on the table yet, because I don't have a good estimate or body mass. I'll see what I can find.

 

[brother Paul]

Actually not Miocene...most believe and report that G. gracilis probably evolved into G. stillei in the mid Pliocene, and that evolved into our modern form at around the dawn of the Pleisostine. Okapi is not until the Miocene and therefore even the 7 million year old Samotherium precedes Okapi....

Again "very likely" or "most likely" are man made opinions and do not define what IS

Climacocera by the way is also a late bloomer (late Miocene) and only found in a small and specific geophysical region....but this does not address the misrepresentation of the OP article. In fact it once was not classified at all as being part of the Giraffe family, then changes and included and NOW has its own classification.

 

[Barbarian]

Actually not Miocene...most believe and report that G. gracilis probably evolved into G. stillei in the mid Pliocene, and that evolved into our modern form at around the dawn of the Pleisostine

Giraffokeryx from the Miocene is the most likely ancestor of today's giraffes. As you know, modern giraffes replaced earlier ones that existed in the Miocene.

Okapi is not until the Miocene and therefore even the 7 million year old Samotherium precedes Okapi....

As you know, earlier Okapis existed at the time of divergence in the Miocene.

Again "very likely" or "most likely" are man made opinions and do not define what IS

They are merely notes of the most likely. The argument that we can't know things unless we have complete information, is also quite wrong.

Climacocera by the way is also a late bloomer (late Miocene)

Climacoceras (from Greek, "Ladder Horns") was a genus of early Miocene artiodactyl ungulates of Africa and Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climacoceras

and only found in a small and specific geophysical region....

East Africa.

but this does not address the misrepresentation of the OP article. In fact it once was not classified at all as being part of the Giraffe family, then changes and included and NOW has its own classification.

Which is normal for a basal group that gives rise to another. Herrerasaurus has the same place for dinosaurs. It is extremely difficult to say whether such groups should belong in the group to which they gave rise, or should be a separate entity

One of the species of Climacocera is likely the ancestor of all giraffids. At some point, giraffids would have to evolve from a non-giraffid.

 

[brother Paul]

One of the species of Climacocera is likely the ancestor of all giraffids. At some point, giraffids would have to evolve from a non-giraffid.

That's the hypothesis that fits the theory...sadly is not supported by the real evidence but believe what ever you are told...

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
One of the species of Climacocera is likely the ancestor of all giraffids. At some point, giraffids would have to evolve from a non-giraffid.

That's the hypothesis that fits the theory...sadly is not supported by the real evidence but believe what ever you are told...

As you see, the evidence from anatomy, fossil record, and genetics supports the phylogeny of giraffids. That's the real evidence. Whatever else there is, perhaps you could show us.

 

[brother Paul]

I showed you but your programming will not allow logical thought. If one thing in actuality follows another it cannot be its cause....philosophy 101....

 

[Barbarian]

I showed you but your programming will not allow logical thought. If one thing in actuality follows another it cannot be its cause....philosophy 101....

You're still assuming that evolution requires all of these to be in a single line of descent, when the evidence shows that they split off very early from an ancestor of giraffids. I don't know if it's "programming" or something else, but creationists have a huge difficulty understanding that evolution produces branches, not a ladder. These different branches did not evolve on the same lineage. But if they had, the age of these organisms would have been consistent with it. You assumed a late Miocene appearance for a key species, when it actually appeared in the early Miocene.

But that's not what's holding you back. The cause of each branch of giraffids is not other branches, but unique niches in the environment to which they become more fit. Where natural selection favored larger sizes, allometry produced longer necks. That is supported by the anatomical and genetic data.

 

[brother Paul]

No I am not assuming any such thing. Look at the drawing and read the article....

 

[Barbarian]

No I am not assuming any such thing.

So why are you making that argument? As you see, each of these lines split off, rather early. So it doesn't matter when any particular line split off, but you were in error in assuming one of the lines appeared in the late Miocene, when it was early Miocene.

Look at the drawing and read the article....

Doesn't support your claim.

 

[Barbarian]

I showed you but your programming will not allow logical thought. If one thing in actuality follows another it cannot be its cause....philosophy 101....

Perhaps if you were clearer about what you meant there...

 

[brother Paul]

Plain and simple...the implication is that Samotherium is a transitional example BETWEEN okapi and modern Giraffe. It is not. Period! Okapi is last. Implication refuted by reality....better to recognize truth than try and support how it is set up to appear. No more dancing, the music has stopped at this concert.

 

[Barbarian]

Plain and simple...the implication is that Samotherium is a transitional example BETWEEN okapi and modern Giraffe. It is not. Period! Okapi is last. Implication refuted by reality....better to recognize truth than try and support how it is set up to appear. No more dancing, the music has stopped at this concert.

As you should know, "transitional" does not mean "ancestral." It merely means that a specific organism has apomorphic characters of two different groups, like dinosaurs with wings and feathers. Archaeopteryx is a transitional, because it's a mix of traits found only in dinosaurs and found only in birds. But the specimens we found are too recent to be the ancestors of the first bird. They are descendants of a line that did.

Likewise, Samotherium is a transitional because the neck vertebrae have the predicted transitional form between short-necked and long-necked giraffids. As you know, okapids existed long before today's okapi. I see the confusion now, and I hope this clears it up for you.

 

[Barbarian]

This intelligent design ‘laboratory’ is a stock photo

A video that was released by the intelligent design (ID) “think tank” the Discovery Institute showing a “researcher” in a laboratory setting.

An Ars Technica writer wondered why IDers would need a laboratory seeing as how ID does not rely on a single bit of actual scientific research and their laboratory resides inside a Bible and inside their undereducated imaginations.

“Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image,” writes Casey Johnston for Ars Technica.

Here is a link to the stock image to prove it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...ratory-is-a-stock-photo/#sthash.YbMoJuuw.dpuf

 

[brother Paul]

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

If I can ask this. Why does this matter? Is it about that God made us? From the very beginning to today has his molding of us and creating us. Is it about the institution of education mixing with the institutions of religion? Is it about the truth of whether God made us, and made our ancestors, or even made the origins of earth?

Is this not even about God? But about the observations that point to life being too complex to be a chanced occurance and still last without utter extinction; verses what counts as science, is provable, or expanding on previous knowledge to in theory discover new things? Thus making it about either science and philosophy, or about understanding the world verses discovering new things I. The world and redefining the world.

The reason I ask "what is the point," is because right now it's like this drama of science verses creationism, ID, or anything else comes back to either rejecting science or rejecting the religions God gave us. (Jewish then Christian promises, teachings and prophesy.) if that's the case, just to revisit science verses religion, then just stop. It's not worth it if that's the point.

 

[brother Paul]

If I can ask this. Why does this matter? Is it about that God made us? From the very beginning to today has his molding of us and creating us. Is it about the institution of education mixing with the institutions of religion? Is it about the truth of whether God made us, and made our ancestors, or even made the origins of earth?

Is this not even about God? But about the observations that point to life being too complex to be a chanced occurance and still last without utter extinction; verses what counts as science, is provable, or expanding on previous knowledge to in theory discover new things? Thus making it about either science and philosophy, or about understanding the world verses discovering new things I. The world and redefining the world.

The reason I ask "what is the point," is because right now it's like this drama of science verses creationism, ID, or anything else comes back to either rejecting science or rejecting the religions God gave us. (Jewish then Christian promises, teachings and prophesy.) if that's the case, just to revisit science verses religion, then just stop. It's not worth it if that's the point.

Though I agree 100% with what you have said, in relation to the OP I thought being able to see the double speak is significant. People like Dawkin's forked tongues are very subtle and missed totally by the brainwashed.

 

[Barbarian]

If I can ask this. Why does this matter? Is it about that God made us? From the very beginning to today has his molding of us and creating us. Is it about the institution of education mixing with the institutions of religion? Is it about the truth of whether God made us, and made our ancestors, or even made the origins of earth?

Evolutionary theory had nothing to do with any of that. It's merely about the way living populations change over time.

Is this not even about God? But about the observations that point to life being too complex to be a chanced occurance and still last without utter extinction; verses what counts as science, is provable, or expanding on previous knowledge to in theory discover new things?

If you're suggesting that a universe in which such amazing things come forth from nature, means that God must have made it to be so, then you're repeating what Darwin suggested:

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.
Charles Darwin, Autobiography

Ours is no little nature deity, making a tree here and a rabbit there. He is the Creator of the universe, and made it to work as He intended.

Thus making it about either science and philosophy, or about understanding the world verses discovering new things I. The world and redefining the world.

I think you'll find most accomplished biologists are pretty knowledgeable about philosophy. Ernst Mayr made that point a long time ago. Even Dawkins, hard as it is for him, admits God might exist. He just doesn't want it to be so. Which is too bad; he's a competent scientist otherwise.

The reason I ask "what is the point," is because right now it's like this drama of science verses creationism, ID, or anything else comes back to either rejecting science or rejecting the religions God gave us. (Jewish then Christian promises, teachings and prophesy.) if that's the case, just to revisit science verses religion, then just stop. It's not worth it if that's the point.

You don't have to do either. There is no dilemma between Christian faith and evolution. And many prominent scientists have pointed this out. You might want to read Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller (Catholic) or The Language of God, by Francis Collins, (Evangelical). Both men are highly accomplished scientists, and devout Christians.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Evolutionary theory had nothing to do with any of that. It's merely about the way living populations change over time.

Then the OP of ID fading away is not the focus? It's about the context of supporting evolution? I don't think so. Whenever ID and evolution are mentioned together either directly or through contex, it's been about rehashing this drama of Evolution verses ID, in one way or another.

If you're suggesting that a universe in which such amazing things come forth from nature, means that God must have made it to be so, then you're repeating what Darwin suggested:

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.
Charles Darwin, Autobiography

Ours is no little nature deity, making a tree here and a rabbit there. He is the Creator of the universe, and made it to work as He intended.

The arguments for ID in a non religous sence still look at the world as if it were designed. It is about being a conclusion, thus more of a philosophy in nature then being an expanding subject for scientific inquiry. One of the arguments I've seen in reference to ID is that there's no way this world occured by chance. Sometimes there's remarkable rationelle and evidance to support this conclusion, other times it's just the conclusion itself as a stand alone statement. The philosophical conclusions based on evolution are rarely science either, but that ID starts with it's conclusions based on bible principles, scientific observations, or other philosophical points stretches it to a Concluding aspect rather then a reasurch and discovery of new things aspect.

I think you'll find most accomplished biologists are pretty knowledgeable about philosophy. Ernst Mayr made that point a long time ago. Even Dawkins, hard as it is for him, admits God might exist. He just doesn't want it to be so. Which is too bad; he's a competent scientist otherwise.

Science verse philosophy isn't about one of the other, it's about finding new discoveries or proving the conclusions of another philosophical stance, verses holding to a specific unfaltering stance and philosophy.

You don't have to do either. There is no dilemma between Christian faith and evolution. And many prominent scientists have pointed this out. You might want to read Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller (Catholic) or The Language of God, by Francis Collins, (Evangelical). Both men are highly accomplished scientists, and devout Christians.

But there is a dilemma between the idea that the universe, life, or just us are designed and the idea of evolution. That's a narrow tightrope your walking on. Through all the arguing against ID it sounds like you support either the same on luscious or simular conclusions as ID, and is part of why I asked what was the point of this and suggested that the point of this was posibably only to rehash the drama between ID and evolution.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Though I agree 100% with what you have said, in relation to the OP I thought being able to see the double speak is significant. People like Dawkin's forked tongues are very subtle and missed totally by the brainwashed.

Feed a bird a type of birdseed and they might only ask for more of it. Feed a debate drama, and it might only do the same and ask for more of it.