ID goes to sleep

[MorningGlory]

It seems the foundations of ID are being chipped away faster and faster now. Creationists should start devising a new pseudo-scientific theory soon.

Article

I really think most creationists are christian as well as you and i are? They have led a life of doing a job and probably getting paid for it. they have been taught there entire lives about evolution as creating the earth as we now have it. So therefore they do not think about the I.D part of things. and this derives mostly because evolution is true and evolution was created by the lord as well as everything else was created from dust. He also made evolution to have the things he created be able to adapt to changing enviornmemts and such as his great naster plan of the creation is being brought to fruitation still today as we speak. but it is a much wrong analogy to slap a label on evoltutionists that they are not Christian this is simply just not true. Evolution and intelligent design go hand in hand! the lord made it that way.

I'd be willing to bet a hostess Twinkie that most Creationists are indeed Christian. They really don't believe in the TOE, generally speaking.

[mikeinsarasota]

No, his data was well laid out; as I said before, he is a brilliant man. But, his findings don't agree with the Creation, as described in Genesis.

So are you saying you actually did look at his data and that you determined it to be "well laid out?" What does that mean anyway?

It means he did a good job of researching and presenting the results in a logical fashion. And, yes, I actually did read the thing......how else could I respond to it????

I said "data." Not the article I linked to in the OP but his raw data, the evidence upon which his conclusion are based.

[artsylady]

You need a source for Intelligent Design? There are many. I'll give you an example. The eye has more than 20 components. If each and every part is not fully functioning and fully developed simultaneously, the eye will be useless. So how could these very many parts have evolved with no design in mind for the end result?

[mikeinsarasota]

You need a source for Intelligent Design? There are many. I'll give you an example. The eye has more than 20 components. If each and every part is not fully functioning and fully developed simultaneously, the eye will be useless. So how could these very many parts have evolved with no design in mind for the end result?

A source for the article.

And the eye thing is probably not the best defense you should be using. What you just stated about it has been debunked long ago. You should read up on these things before posting them instead of just parroting some discovery institute line.

[the_interactionist]

It seems the foundations of ID are being chipped away faster and faster now. Creationists should start devising a new pseudo-scientific theory soon.

Article

Good article. I'd be more prone to accepting the findings as good evidence if it stated specifically how the concluded their studies, instead of simply stating things like, "Our studies found," or "Our research concluded... 'such and such' occurred over 450 millions years ago..."

Is there a way to get ahold of the pulbished research put out by Thornton? Or is it not available to the public?

[MorningGlory]

No, his data was well laid out; as I said before, he is a brilliant man. But, his findings don't agree with the Creation, as described in Genesis.

So are you saying you actually did look at his data and that you determined it to be "well laid out?" What does that mean anyway?

It means he did a good job of researching and presenting the results in a logical fashion. And, yes, I actually did read the thing......how else could I respond to it????

I said "data." Not the article I linked to in the OP but his raw data, the evidence upon which his conclusion are based.

You mean did I research his findings beyond reading your linked article? No; why would I?

[MorningGlory]

You need a source for Intelligent Design? There are many. I'll give you an example. The eye has more than 20 components. If each and every part is not fully functioning and fully developed simultaneously, the eye will be useless. So how could these very many parts have evolved with no design in mind for the end result?

A source for the article.

And the eye thing is probably not the best defense you should be using. What you just stated about it has been debunked long ago. You should read up on these things before posting them instead of just parroting some discovery institute line.

Tsk, tsk! Artsy is getting the brunt of the sarcasm now, eh?

[mikeinsarasota]

It seems the foundations of ID are being chipped away faster and faster now. Creationists should start devising a new pseudo-scientific theory soon.

Article

Good article. I'd be more prone to accepting the findings as good evidence if it stated specifically how the concluded their studies, instead of simply stating things like, "Our studies found," or "Our research concluded... 'such and such' occurred over 450 millions years ago..."

Is there a way to get ahold of the pulbished research put out by Thornton? Or is it not available to the public?

Why would it not be available to the public? Of course, unless you have access to a library that has a subscription to Science or are yourself a member of AAAS you have to pay for it. Or if you know someone who has a pdf of the article and would be willing to send it to you, that could work too. Though unless you are yourself a specialist in the field it will be very hard to read, and will probably put you to sleep. Here's a snippet, "The puzzle that complex systems pose for Darwinian evolution depends on the premise that each part has no function

[mikeinsarasota]

You need a source for Intelligent Design? There are many. I'll give you an example. The eye has more than 20 components. If each and every part is not fully functioning and fully developed simultaneously, the eye will be useless. So how could these very many parts have evolved with no design in mind for the end result?

A source for the article.

And the eye thing is probably not the best defense you should be using. What you just stated about it has been debunked long ago. You should read up on these things before posting them instead of just parroting some discovery institute line.

Be polite. You are correct, but instead of just asserting that, show artsylady her mistake. Artsylady, here is the wiki article on the evolution of the eye.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Sorry artsylady. Please read the above link, it'll explain it.

[artsylady]

I've read the Wikipedia article before.

Where does it show how every single part came together simultaneously?

The fossil record suggests that eyes appeared during the lower Cambrian period (about 540 million years ago). This period saw a burst of apparently rapid evolution, dubbed the "Cambrian explosion". One of the many hypotheses for "causes" of this diversification (backed up by scant evidence) holds that the evolution of eyes initiated an arms race that caused a rapid spate of evolution.[citation needed]

Sudden appearance of the eye. Sudden appearance of a mechanism with more than 20 different parts that all must come together simulateously fully formed, otherwise each part is completely useless.

Since the fossil record, particularly of the Early Cambrian, is so poor, it is difficult to constrain the rate of eye evolution. Simple modelling, invoking nothing other than small mutations exposed to natural selection, demonstrates that a primitive optical sense organ could evolve into a complex human-like eye within under a million years.[12] This surprised the non-scientist David Berlinski, who loudly questioned the basis of the calculations.[13] Berlinski's misgivings were soon shown to have no scientific basis.[14][15]

Simple mutations don't even begin to cover it. This is not an explanation. There is a design - an end product in mind.

[edit] Stages of eye evolution

[edit] Early eyes

The stigma (2) of the euglena hides a light-sensitive spot.The basic light-processing unit of the eye is the photoreceptor, a specialized cell consisting of two molecules in a membrane: the opsin, a light-sensitive protein, surrounding the chromophore, a pigment that distinguishes colors. When a photon is absorbed by the chromophore, a chemical reaction causes the photon's energy to be transduced into electrical energy and relayed to the nervous system. These photoreceptor cells form part of the retina, a thin layer of cells that relays visual information,[16] as well as the light and daylength information needed by the circadian rhythm system, to the brain.

The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they can not distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from. Eyespots are found in nearly all major animal groups, and are common among unicellular organisms, including euglena. The euglena's eyespot, called a stigma, is located at its anterior end. It is a small splotch of red pigment which shades a collection of light sensitive crystals. Together with the leading flagellum, the eyespot acts as a sort of directional eye, allowing the organism to move in response to light, often toward the light to assist in photosynthesis,[17][18] and to predict day and night, the primary function of circadian rhythms.

It is likely that a key reason eyes specialize in detecting a specific, narrow range of wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum