Evolution versus Interrelation

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Biological Evolution is supposedly the best theory in Biology? And no one can replace Evolution?

The Intelligent Design had replaced Evolution with Biological Interrelation, basically, it is like
Flat Earth (Evolution) versus Round Earth (Interrelation).

If you can differentiate the two correctly, then, you will know why Evolution is stupid.

 

[rossum]

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Temujin]

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The evidence shows that assertions made by the OP can be dismissed without further thought.

 

[The Pixie]

Biological Evolution is supposedly the best theory in Biology? And no one can replace Evolution?

To do so a theory would have to show that its predictions - the necessary consequences of the theory - better match what we observe in nature. At this point there is such a huge wealth of confirming evidence that it would be extremely hard to replace evolution, but it is possible.

The Intelligent Design had replaced Evolution with Biological Interrelation, basically, it is like
Flat Earth (Evolution) versus Round Earth (Interrelation).

From a scientific perspective, the round earth replaced the flat earth because the necessary consequences better match what we see in a nature - the shadow of the earth on the moon during an eclipse, the different sunrise and sunset in different regions, the ability to circumnavigate the world, etc.

You have been posting on CARM for 9 months, and yet in all that time I do not recall you presenting any necessary consequences of your theory, let alone showing how they better match reality. Right now, your theory is more akin to a fringe theory like ancient aliens building the pyramids.

If you can differentiate the two correctly, then, you will know why Evolution is stupid.

It is clearly not stupid given hundred of thousands of biologists accept it. Remember, these are people who studied biology at university level, often have a Ph.D. too, and consequently made a career in it, and so know far more about it than you do with a degree in engineering.

Universally calling the experts in the subject "stupid" serves only to make yourself look like a crackpot.

 

[CrowCross]

Biological Evolution is supposedly the best theory in Biology? And no one can replace Evolution?

The Intelligent Design had replaced Evolution with Biological Interrelation, basically, it is like
Flat Earth (Evolution) versus Round Earth (Interrelation).

If you can differentiate the two correctly, then, you will know why Evolution is stupid.

When asked how an assembly line of organelle evolved...all the evos here can say is stuff like...real smart guys who studied biology at university level say they can...so there.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

To do so a theory would have to show that its predictions - the necessary consequences of the theory - better match what we observe in nature. At this point there is such a huge wealth of confirming evidence that it would be extremely hard to replace evolution, but it is possible.


From a scientific perspective, the round earth replaced the flat earth because the necessary consequences better match what we see in a nature - the shadow of the earth on the moon during an eclipse, the different sunrise and sunset in different regions, the ability to circumnavigate the world, etc.

You have been posting on CARM for 9 months, and yet in all that time I do not recall you presenting any necessary consequences of your theory, let alone showing how they better match reality. Right now, your theory is more akin to a fringe theory like ancient aliens building the pyramids.


It is clearly not stupid given hundred of thousands of biologists accept it. Remember, these are people who studied biology at university level, often have a Ph.D. too, and consequently made a career in it, and so know far more about it than you do with a degree in engineering.

Universally calling the experts in the subject "stupid" serves only to make yourself look like a crackpot.

You really do not know what you are talking about. Oh my goodness...

Evolution is....

On 1859 AD, a group of scientists had concluded that the shape of the earth is Flat. They called themselves Flat Earthers. They also wrote science book titled, “On the Origin of Flat Earth by Means of Area Selection”. They based their scientific explanation of Flat Earth from flat surfaces of Earth found in some major cities worldwide (not around the world) like Manila, Tokyo, Beijing, Canberra, Jakarta, Moscow, New Delhi, Riyadh, Johannesburg, Rabat, Abuja, Berlin, London, Ottawa, Washington DC, Brasilia, and Buenos Aires, etc. The basis or point of reference uses a 2 km x 2 km square flat surface, 4 km2 (4 km^2) area, on all picked cities. Since these picked flat surfaces could be found worldwide (not around the world), they concluded that the shape of the earth is really flat, and not round. They also had pictures of those flat surfaces and claimed that they could extend the area to 4 km x 4 km square flat surface, 16 km2 (16 km^2). To Flat Earthers, Round Earthers are wrong and to dis-agree with this conclusion is to become science-deniers.

To support their arguments, they invented scientific predictions for Flat Earth: (1) If Flat Earth is true, then, humans can build 50 story’s building inside the 4 km2 (4 km^2) area. (2) If Flat Earth is true, then, humans can run with their pet dogs. Flat Earthers too had invented scientific falsification criteria to disprove the theory of Flat Earth. (a) If we cannot fly a kite in Flat Earth, then, Flat Earth is not true. (b) If we cannot farm peanuts in a picked 4 km2 (4 km^2) area, then, Flat Earth is not true. Flat Earthers too claimed that there are bumped flat earth (symbolizes: slight modifications or progressions), or curve flat earth (symbolizes: beneficial changes, selective pressure and non-random) and dented flat earth (symbolizes: positive selection, strong selection, manual selection, artificial selection), to support their explanations of Flat Earth.

When they were presented with many pictures of whole round Earth from NASA, taken by a Hubble Space Telescope (HST) orbiting the Earth, (symbolizes the new Intelligent Design <id> from me), those Flat Earthers ridiculed the whole pictures and dismissed them as hoaxes.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

When asked how an assembly line of organelle evolved...all the evos here can say is stuff like...real smart guys who studied biology at university level say they can...so there.

Darwin had made them stupid...and deluded...

 

[mikeT]

Biological Evolution is supposedly the best theory in Biology?

I suppose, but no biologist portrays it that way.

And no one can replace Evolution?

That's wrong. Anyone can replace the theory of evolution. They just need to provide a theory which makes better predictions, and better-explains the evidence we currently have.

The Intelligent Design had replaced Evolution with Biological Interrelation,

Not in the sense that any biologist who makes a living in the biological sciences has ever heard of it before (let along agrees with it). An unheard-of hypothesis isn't going to replace the theory of evolution.

 

[The Pixie]

You really do not know what you are talking about. Oh my goodness...

Translation: You disagree with my crackpot theory.

Evolution is....

On 1859 AD, a group of scientists had concluded that the shape of the earth is Flat. They called themselves Flat Earthers. They also wrote science book titled, “On the Origin of Flat Earth by Means of Area Selection”. They based their scientific explanation of Flat Earth from flat surfaces of Earth found in some major cities worldwide (not around the world) like Manila, Tokyo, Beijing, Canberra, Jakarta, Moscow, New Delhi, Riyadh, Johannesburg, Rabat, Abuja, Berlin, London, Ottawa, Washington DC, Brasilia, and Buenos Aires, etc. The basis or point of reference uses a 2 km x 2 km square flat surface, 4 km2 (4 km^2) area, on all picked cities. Since these picked flat surfaces could be found worldwide (not around the world), they concluded that the shape of the earth is really flat, and not round. They also had pictures of those flat surfaces and claimed that they could extend the area to 4 km x 4 km square flat surface, 16 km2 (16 km^2). To Flat Earthers, Round Earthers are wrong and to dis-agree with this conclusion is to become science-deniers.

None of that is actually true, as I am sure you know. Why do you think asserting that evolution is like believing the earth is flat is going to convince anyone?

The reality is that you have this the wrong way round.

Centuries ago ancient man believed the world is flat and was created by an intelligent agency, a god. Lots of cultures had their own specific myths - the Bible gives us just one example - but it was broadly the same for all.

Modern science tells us that actually the world is round and orbits the sun, and actually species were created by a process of evolution. And it does so because of the overwhelming evidence.

So far you have absolutely no evidence your crackpot theory is right.

When they were presented with many pictures of whole round Earth from NASA, taken by a Hubble Space Telescope (HST) orbiting the Earth, (symbolizes the new Intelligent Design <id> from me), those Flat Earthers ridiculed the whole pictures and dismissed them as hoaxes.

Except you have not presented any such pictures.

You have no evidence.

 

[The Pixie]

When asked how an assembly line of organelle evolved...all the evos here can say is stuff like...real smart guys who studied biology at university level say they can...so there.

Discussed here (as you know):

- Evolution of the Organelle Assembly Line

Background Proteins are made in cells in a complex system. A protein is a long sequence of amino acids. There are twenty different amino acids used in nature; different sequences give different proteins. The sequence is encoded in DNA, with a set of three bases signalling a specific amino acid...

forums.carm.org

 

[CrowCross]

Discussed here (as you know):

- Evolution of the Organelle Assembly Line

Background Proteins are made in cells in a complex system. A protein is a long sequence of amino acids. There are twenty different amino acids used in nature; different sequences give different proteins. The sequence is encoded in DNA, with a set of three bases signalling a specific amino acid...

forums.carm.org

I read through it and saw this answer:

How could such a complex system possibly evolve?
The simple answer is that we do not know.

Perhaps you could point out where in your cut and paste article it explains how an assembly line of organelle could have evolved.

 

[The Pixie]

I read through it and saw this answer:

How could such a complex system possibly evolve?
The simple answer is that we do not know.

Perhaps you could point out where in your cut and paste article it explains how an assembly line of organelle could have evolved.

And in creationism "we do not know" means we get to pick the crackpot theory our religion promotes and assert it as fact.

 

[CrowCross]

And in creationism "we do not know" means we get to pick the crackpot theory our religion promotes and assert it as fact.

LOL.........when the sophistication and complexity is easily pointed out to you...your only reply is "we don't know" which makes intelligent design a "crackpot" concept.

The bottom line is you can't counter an opposition to Intelligent Design. What you can do and have tried to do is using an ad-hom argument is hope to make ID look bad as you focus on your anti-God religion.

 

[rossum]

The bottom line is you can't counter an opposition to Intelligent Design.

Of course we can. There are many possible counters... I like to ask about the origin of the first life. What is the ID explanation for the origin of the first living entity? Not the second living entity, but the first living entity.

In a similar vein, what is the ID explanation for the origin of the complex property of intelligence?

You will need to think more than a few seconds to answer those questions. There are "obvious" answers, but those obvious answers are wrong.

 

[CrowCross]

Of course we can. There are many possible counters... I like to ask about the origin of the first life. What is the ID explanation for the origin of the first living entity? Not the second living entity, but the first living entity.

In a similar vein, what is the ID explanation for the origin of the complex property of intelligence?

You will need to think more than a few seconds to answer those questions. There are "obvious" answers, but those obvious answers are wrong.

The answer is God.

The first mention of animals being created was day 5. "waters teem with living creatures," Outside of plants that would be first life.

The question about the complex property of intelligence...could be asked...how/where did the part of you that you claim re-incarnates life after life come from?

 

[rossum]

The answer is God.

No, the questions were designed (!) so the Abrahamic God is not the answer. You failed to heed my warning about the obvious, and wrong, answer.

The first mention of animals being created was day 5. "waters teem with living creatures," Outside of plants that would be first life.

Plants are also alive, which is a minor error. The Abrahamic God is a "living God", so anything God creates is a best the second, third... living thing. Not the first.

The question about the complex property of intelligence...could be asked...how/where did the part of you that you claim re-incarnates life after life come from?

Another failure to answer the question. How did the intelligence present in your proposed Intelligent Designer originate?

 

[The Pixie]

LOL.........when the sophistication and complexity is easily pointed out to you...your only reply is "we don't know" which makes intelligent design a "crackpot" concept.

When the argument for ID is:

• We do not know
• Therefore ID

It is a crackpot concept.

The bottom line is you can't counter an opposition to Intelligent Design. What you can do and have tried to do is using an ad-hom argument is hope to make ID look bad as you focus on your anti-God religion.

No. The bottom line is that ID makes no testable predictions - necessary consequences of the hypothesis that can be tested - and therefore is not science.

Get back to us when you have a hypothesis sufficiently filled out that you can make predictions.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Translation: You disagree with my crackpot theory.


None of that is actually true, as I am sure you know. Why do you think asserting that evolution is like believing the earth is flat is going to convince anyone?

The reality is that you have this the wrong way round.

Centuries ago ancient man believed the world is flat and was created by an intelligent agency, a god. Lots of cultures had their own specific myths - the Bible gives us just one example - but it was broadly the same for all.

Modern science tells us that actually the world is round and orbits the sun, and actually species were created by a process of evolution. And it does so because of the overwhelming evidence.

So far you have absolutely no evidence your crackpot theory is right.


Except you have not presented any such pictures.

You have no evidence.

As I said, that anybody could give explanation in Biology, even Evolution. But any theory will either will be very narrow or broad in its scope. Narrow like Flat Earth and Broad like Round Earth. Bio Evol is a narrowly scoped theory, thus, not really correct (wrong) in the explanation of reality, especially in Biology.

Here are some narrow scope of Evolution:

1. Intelligence
2. Origin of Life
3. Origin of Universe
4. Differences between Natural Selection to Intelligent Selection...
5. Exclusivities of Explanation, falsification and confirmation..

 

[The Pixie]

As I said, that anybody could give explanation in Biology, even Evolution.

Except you. You have been posting about your crackpot theory for months, but seem unable to use it to explain anything.

But any theory will either will be very narrow or broad in its scope. Narrow like Flat Earth and Broad like Round Earth.

Wrong. Flat earth and round earth address exactly the same issue, even if they come up with different hypotheses. The scope is identical.

You might want to check what these words mean.

Bio Evol is a narrowly scoped theory, thus, not really correct (wrong) in the explanation of reality, especially in Biology.

Scope is not related to correctness. The scope of biological evolution is the entirety of life from the first living thing on this planet to the vast array of species we see today. You might think it is wrong, but its scope is fairly broad.

Here are some narrow scope of Evolution:

1. Intelligence
2. Origin of Life
3. Origin of Universe
4. Differences between Natural Selection to Intelligent Selection...
5. Exclusivities of Explanation, falsification and confirmation..

Yeah, it is pretty clear you do not understand what "scope" actually means.

The scope of a hypothesis is the areas it addresses. The scope of relativity, for example, is the large-scale interactions between bodies, while the scope of quantum mechanics is the small scale. The scope of Flat Earth and Round Earth is the shape of this planet though arguably that informs a wider cosmology.

You are an engineer, so think about the different between chemical engineer and electrical engineer. The difference is the scope; the areas they can be applied.

How intelligent arose is within the scope of evolution. The origin of life and the universe is not. Explanation, falsification and confirmation are techniques used in science; they are not in the scope of evolution, but are part of how evolution is studied in science.

Every post you make serves to show just how woeful your understanding of science is.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Except you. You have been posting about your crackpot theory for months, but seem unable to use it to explain anything.


Wrong. Flat earth and round earth address exactly the same issue, even if they come up with different hypotheses. The scope is identical.

You might want to check what these words mean.


Scope is not related to correctness. The scope of biological evolution is the entirety of life from the first living thing on this planet to the vast array of species we see today. You might think it is wrong, but its scope is fairly broad.


Yeah, it is pretty clear you do not understand what "scope" actually means.

The scope of a hypothesis is the areas it addresses. The scope of relativity, for example, is the large-scale interactions between bodies, while the scope of quantum mechanics is the small scale. The scope of Flat Earth and Round Earth is the shape of this planet though arguably that informs a wider cosmology.

You are an engineer, so think about the different between chemical engineer and electrical engineer. The difference is the scope; the areas they can be applied.

How intelligent arose is within the scope of evolution. The origin of life and the universe is not. Explanation, falsification and confirmation are techniques used in science; they are not in the scope of evolution, but are part of how evolution is studied in science.

Every post you make serves to show just how woeful your understanding of science is.

Once again, I would like to reiterate that Evolution = change of freq alleles... The topic of Evolution is change. The scope of "change" must be studied, whether the change is limited/narrow or broad/wide. Because, every explanation in science must be correct and the falsification too must be correct AND all explanations must be real.

Now, if Evolution will limit its explanation from of life from the first living thing on this planet to the vast array of species we see today, then, Evolution must decide or conclude if the origin of life, that will affect the change of life in living organisms, are intelligently designed or not, since change will always be affected by which factor will be chosen by Evolution.

Darwin and supporters of Evolution had chosen and concluded, that the change of freq alleles never uses intelligence, and the major mechanism is natural selection, and not intelligence nor intelligence selection. Thus, Evolution must really sure to it that these topics are well explained and well tested. But Evolution is dead on these topics, but had quickly concluded natural selection. That is stupidity.

In addition, Evolution must sure to it that the origin of both universe and life have no effect with the change of frequency alleles that will result in the origin of new species. BUT Evolution, as claimed and concluded by its supporters, started its explanation when life had begun! Evolution had limited its scope! The same analogy of FLAT EARTH by using a limited area of flat surface of earth! That is wrong and stupidity!

Thus, the best analogy of EVOLUTION is FLAT EARTH, as I had shown above.

Thus, if you are supporters of Evolution, you either deluded, or fooled by supporters of Evolution or deliberately deny reality, and uphold Evolution as a religion.

Once again, real scientist must ask, what change the Evolution is talking about?
What could affect the change of freq alleles in living organisms?
Do life and its origin have no affect in the change of freq alleles?

Those are the starting questions for Evolution, before Evolution conclude. Can you answer them?