Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/5/05 09:47 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 9/5/05 09:29 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Thoughts?

Since intelligent design implies some sort of omniscient, omnipresent deity, which can do absolutely anything at will, it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory, it qualifies as religion.

Not necessarily, for we know we could've been genetically manipulated by Aliens. I personaly don't think that but that does qualify as Intelligent Design.

Yes, but then the question arises "How did the aliens originate?"

It eventually gets traced back to evolution at some level or a deity.

It would probably be better classified as a pseudoscience.

At 9/5/05 10:06 PM, Elfer wrote: Yes, but then the question arises "How did the aliens originate?"

It eventually gets traced back to evolution at some level or a deity.

The question is "where did we come from?" and not where the "designer" comes from.

At 9/5/05 10:09 PM, world_eater40000 wrote: The question is "where did we come from?" and not where the "designer" comes from.

No, the question is "What is the origin of human life" The origins can be traced back to the origins of the aliens that created us.

In any case, evolution is the best theory available by means of Occam's Razor. Intelligent design is just waaaaay out there in terms of Occam's Razor, so it really shouldn't be taught in a science class.

At 9/5/05 10:12 PM, Elfer wrote:
No, the question is "What is the origin of human life" The origins can be traced back to the origins of the aliens that created us.

Alright I get what you're saying then.

In any case, evolution is the best theory available by means of Occam's Razor. Intelligent design is just waaaaay out there in terms of Occam's Razor, so it really shouldn't be taught in a science class.

Either both should be taught in class so that people have a choice to believe it or neither so that people can find it themselves... those who actually care that is.

Any idea that fails to use Occam's Razor is generally regarded as a pseudoscience. Intelligent Design fails to use it. Therefore, ID has no place in science classrooms, except as a trival footnote, an example of a pseudoscience.

At 9/5/05 10:15 PM, world_eater40000 wrote: Either both should be taught in class so that people have a choice to believe it or neither so that people can find it themselves... those who actually care that is.

Right, but evolution is by far the best scientific theory we have available to us at the moment, and it does really seem to be the correct on, so why not teach the best possible scientific theory that we have in a science classroom?

Personally, I dont care weather or not they put "intelligent design" in a biology class (or whatever class that will teach evolution). I just dont see why I should be required to take a biology class.

Hmmm. Here biology is an elective. There's some biology taught in the initial general science courses, which are required, but they don't talk about evolution in those.

However, in more advanced biology courses, I've heard that nothing about biology makes sense without evolution.

At 9/5/05 10:19 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 9/5/05 10:15 PM, world_eater40000 wrote:

Right, but evolution is by far the best scientific theory we have available to us at the moment, and it does really seem to be the correct on, so why not teach the best possible scientific theory that we have in a science classroom?

Because Biology and Evolution contradict.

I'm tired of explaining how macroevolution is virtually impossible mathematically speaking. If you want there are evolution threads that I have gone into more detail in, but the premise goes like this. Two organisms of the same species having a mutation which alters the sex chromosone to where they are unable to breed successfully with their parent species but are able to breed with each other is less possible than a literal Flying Spaghetti Monster creating everything. It necessitates a mutation with next to 0% margin of error to occur in at least 2 organisms in the same breeding cycle in the same area and for them to mate with each other and for that to have occured in every single sexually reproducing organism. That's not even taking into account the creation of single cellular organisms. The time frame it would have to take place in would have to span hundreds of billions of years. The maximum time frame that scientists have is about 14 billion years. The math does not add up, it's not even close.

At 9/5/05 10:27 PM, Elfer wrote:

However, in more advanced biology courses, I've heard that nothing about biology makes sense without evolution.

In my school, biology is required, and the whole book deals with evolution. I'd have taken chemistry in place of it, but in order for me to have chemistry, i had to take biology.

At 9/5/05 10:29 PM, world_eater40000 wrote: Because Biology and Evolution contradict.

No... no they don't. In fact, there's a famous essay entitled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Without Evolution"

Go ahead, look it up.

At 9/5/05 10:38 PM, Elfer wrote: No... no they don't. In fact, there's a famous essay entitled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Without Evolution"

Go ahead, look it up.

Microevolution, not macro. Microevolution is not a theory, adaptation has been proven over and over. It corresponds with genetic evidence and everything else we can find. Animals adapt, there is no gray area, it is rather definate.

Macroevolution is a lump of elephant shit that gets tacked onto microevolution. There is no evidence, biological, archaeological, or otherwise that supports one species "evolving" from another species. Any animal that has had a mutation (which is the means by which macroevolution is supposed to work) that has caused it to not be able to mate with its parent species has been infertile, thus a new species can not result from another one. Not only that, but if the freak chance should occur that it happened once where two almost mathematically impossible mutations occured in organisms of the opposite sex that allowed them to mate with only each other succussfully, then that is the exception, not the rule. There is no way, mathematically speaking, that macroevolution can account for thousands, even millions of sexually reproducing species that exist.

Id hate to break it to all of you but uhhh NOBODY knows for sure , thats why its a theory, it is very possible we couldve evolved from primates, also that we are from other things not of this world also, so why do ppl have to be ignorant and say that one thing isnt possible

At 9/5/05 10:45 PM, Gunter45 wrote: There is no way, mathematically speaking, that macroevolution can account for thousands, even millions of sexually reproducing species that exist.

Who says that macroevolution has to happen in one generation?

Most animal species are unlike humans in that they tend to choose their mates based on which animal is biologically similar to themselves. Thus, if one animal had a mutation that was semi-common, those animals would breed primarily amongst themselves. Also, there's the possibility of a mutant breeding a mutant by an unmutated member of its original species.

It's not that they are unable to breed with what they once were, it's just that they eventually stop doing it, then after a time become so diverged from the original species through gradual adaptations and accentuation of their mutated attributes that they become unable to breed with the other descendants of their ancestors.