Intelligent Design...

[Man_with_a_Plan]

Re: Intelligent Design...

*Should it be taught as a science subject in schools? *

Intelligent Design is not science. Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case. ID is neither obserable nor repeatable, thus violating the scientific requirment of falsifiability.

[parissenoor]

Re: Intelligent Design…

@NeSCio

^parissenoor, I like the examples you give. But they again prove my point: I’m sure the examples you gave, you selected them carefully so they fit your hypothesis.

conversely, what about the following examples:

suppose someone from the bushes comes here and his blood pressure is measured which is too high: do you think he will agree with the western doc to start taking 2/3 drugs each day/3 times a day for the rest of his life, because it will reduce his chance of a stroke over 20 years by 10%?

If you think about it, it’s totally crazy: only 10%!!! That means that most people who take the drug won’t even benefit from it: basically you’re taking the drug so that someone else among the group of drug-users doesn’t suffer a stroke.
.

you took an nice example, because i am exactly like this guy:D, i never allow any doctor to give something whith no STRONG scientific basis, and to me , unlike most commercial scientist paid by industry, 10% work IS NOT conclusive!
I remember that argued with my research director last year, about an article we reviewed, the guy had said a 60% correlation was ‘outstanding link’ and i disagreed, i felt it was too strong, but unfortunately that’s how modern research is done:bummer:
money makes scientist publish results who serioulsy are rather weak, thus increasing sceptism amongst people like you, but also me…

honetly i don’t know if those scientific research about human are made any more seriously, cause i have not worked directly with them, but doubt is the basis of science

[narayan]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@parissenoor

it is well known that to get better quality the price is higher. but cheap can also be satisfying, it is personal choice after all.

On a lighter note - **not related to the topic so you can skip this, might not be even true. I heard it from someone - **When USSR was sending first man to space they wanted a writing device. They could not use the ball-point pen because it works on gravitation force. So NASA invested 100's of thousands of $$ on R&D of a pen (which they successfully made).
The Russians also had the similar problem - They used a pencil.

[narayan]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@Man with a Plan

*Should it be taught as a science subject in schools? *

Intelligent Design is not science. Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case. ID is neither obserable nor repeatable, thus violating the scientific requirment of falsifiability.

I agree.

[parissenoor]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@narayan

On a lighter note - **not related to the topic so you can skip this, might not be even true. I heard it from someone - **When USSR was sending first man to space they wanted a writing device. They could not use the ball-point pen because it works on gravitation force. So NASA invested 100's of thousands of $$ on R&D of a pen (which they successfully made). The Russians also had the similar problem - They used a pencil.

:Dthat's like a joke, lol
i'm sure the expensive stuff had some high tech advantages ;)
anyway some people like to make complicated things even when simple solution exists...

[WitchDr]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@parissenoor

junk DNA is very negatice term used by scientists who felt their pride threatened by their ignorance of this DNA functiun, but as science progress it appears that this DNA could be involved in the "mysterious" processes, such as the expression or the inhibition of some genes, which is a VERY important process for all musticellular organims as it allows the formation of differentiate parts of the body/plant and is also the source of one of our most deadfull desease: cancer!

Irrelevent. But you made the point yourself.
This is exactly my point, as well, in pasting all those materials. There are a lot of ifs and buts invloved in these theories. Some of not-so-enlightened-evolutionist tend to disregard those ambiguities in the theories. Science has an eye of a skeptic. True evolution scientists do recognise this fact that evolution is still a theory instead of claiming it to be the first truth. There is a lot we need to know more.

[parissenoor]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@WitchDr

Irrelevent. But you made the point yourself. This is exactly my point, as well, in pasting all those materials. There are a lot of ifs and buts invloved in these theories. Some of not-so-enlightened-evolutionist tend to disregard those ambiguities in the theories. Science has an eye of a skeptic. True evolution scientists do recognise this fact that evolution is still a theory instead of claiming it to be the first truth. There is a lot we need to know more.

do you mean all debate is irrelevant because truth can not be reached?

[WitchDr]

Re: Intelligent Design...

Not really. The more we know, the more possibilities open up. Making conclusions on not-yet-proven theories is not healthy for the scientific cause. Actually, IMHO, that splits the scientists in groups who work on validating their own pre-conceived notions on different theories, instead of having a unified unbiased approach in scientific research. I think that is bad for science itself.

[narayan]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@WitchDr

Not really. The more we know, the more possibilities open up. Making conclusions on not-yet-proven theories is not healthy for the scientific cause. Actually, IMHO, that splits the scientists in groups who work on validating their own pre-conceived notions on different theories, instead of having a unified unbiased approach in scientific research. I think that is bad for science itself.

Exactly right. Unproven theories should be studied and researched but should not be tought as a science subject in schools. I would myself love to study a subject like Intelligent Design, but in a Phylosophy class.

[parissenoor]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@WitchDr

Not really. The more we know, the more possibilities open up. Making conclusions on not-yet-proven theories is not healthy for the scientific cause. Actually, IMHO, that splits the scientists in groups who work on validating their own pre-conceived notions on different theories, instead of having a unified unbiased approach in scientific research. I think that is bad for science itself.

exactly a new finding in cancer research is curently kinda frightening most ongoing and past research directions .... while patients are still dying sigh

BUT at the same time all of that research has explored new fields and bring lot of knowledge usefull for other discoveries!
we shall not JUDGE science as bad or good, science is not religion, apart from ethic limitations, science is not made upon moral values, it is intellectual curiosity,to understand how this world is working.
then from this scientific understanding, we can build technologies that we use in daily life.
is that good? well i don't think so but it's a personal point of view, i do believe stone age gyus are more happy than 21 st century techno slaves....
the objective thing is that science do serve human evolution, and there has been no coming back in that evolution from the time science and technology began to shapen human lifes...from fire domestication, agriculture, cars to internet...technology is a run towards more advanced, including trying to repair the damages done by it...

[parissenoor]

Re: Intelligent Design…

@narayan

Exactly right. Unproven theories should be studied and researched but should not be tought as a science subject in schools. I would myself love to study a subject like Intelligent Design, but in a Phylosophy class.

awhole lot of physics is still not sure, should we teach relativity and quantum physics in philosophy class?

[NeSCio]

Re: Intelligent Design…

^yeah, why not, but on the other hand we already do: after all, for me science and philosophy are synonymous!

(sorry for interrupting the gr8 discussion of u two)

[parissenoor]

Re: Intelligent Design…

@NeSCio

^yeah, why not, but on the other hand we already do: after all, for me science and philosophy are synonymous!

(sorry for interrupting the gr8 discussion of u two)

you are more than welcome to contribute to any discussion Nescio:wink:

science and philosophy as synonymous?

in high school they are opposite:D, students in philosophy section hating math
and student in science section hating philosophy:halo:

[sal35]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@narayan

"The idea that an intelligent designer played a role in some aspect of the evolution of life on earth, usually the origin of life itself. Generally, a thinly disguised version of scientific creationism." (Copied form web)

In recent years Intelligent Design has become a topic of controversy. There is a growing debate in the US educational institutions about the topic. Some religious groups (mostly catholic) are of the view that this subject should be taught in schools as a science. There was a case in Dover which was ruled against the proponents of the Intelligent Desing.

Should it be taught as a science subject in schools? What do you think about the idea of Intelligent Design?

Intelligent design is a stupid idea advanced by american religious fanatics and given whole hearted support by people like Bush and has absolutely no scientific basis. It is fine for average Americans since their average intellectual capacity is far less than those from other developed nations but not for Canadians, Europeans and Japanese to name a few. This subject is never discussed in these countries because no body has doubts regarding Darwin's revolutionary theory (rather I'd call it a Darwin's law). Nobody in the scientific community refutes this law except those with fanatic mind.

[sal35]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@WitchDr

......The claim of 98% similarity between chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002).

......It appears that only about 1.5% of the human genome consists of genes, which code for proteins. These genes are clustered in small regions that contain sizable amounts of “non-coding” DNA (frequently referred to as “junk DNA”) between the clusters. The function of these non-coding regions is only now being determined. These findings indicate that even if all of the human genes were different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA still could be 98.5 percent similar if the “junk” DNA of humans and chimpanzees were identical.

Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this “similarity” line of thinking.Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7).Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter human”? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA. Marks went on to concede:Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes.... Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans **(B-7, emp. added).The truth is, if we consider the absolute amount of genetic material when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides **(compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome). To help make this number understandable, consider the fact that if evolutionists had to pay you one penny for every nucleotide in that 1-2% difference between the human and the chimp, you would walk away with $800,000. Given those proportions, 1-2% does not appear so small, does it?

All your above statements will evaporate with just one question. Why all life forms carry the chemical code A, G, C and T right from bacteria to human? It is possible to have billions of different chemical codes (not necessarily A,G,C,T). I mean to say that theoretically an organism or life form can get created with a different set of chemical code but surprisingly every life form on this planet have genetic program with A,G,C and T code only. This itself is a powerful proof of Darwin's theory of evolution.

The whole purpose of the genetic code is to create functional protien (many created regularly and some at different period). The same functional protien can be theoretically created by other set of chemical code too. Again every organism on this planet have amino acids of just one type (and not the other type or complementary type). All these facts lead to an obvious conclusion that Darwin's theory of evolution is absolute. The only thing which should now be debated is about how this genetic accident occured?

The first life form evolved with this genetic accident and eventually led to human species. That's the reason why every life form on this planet carry the genetic code A,G,C,T. Probably some other planet on this universe with earth like atmosphere may have life forms with another set of genetic code.

[NeSCio]

Re: Intelligent Design...

Let's not take DNA/RNA as the ultimate basis of life. That's not true: there are 'lifeforms' that show signs of life but don't have any nucleotide in them.

For example the prions, the infective agents that cause Mad-cow disease. These are merely proteins.

So there's more out there than meets the eye

[parissenoor]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@sal35

Intelligent design is a stupid idea advanced by american religious fanatics and given whole hearted support by people like Bush and has absolutely no scientific basis. It is fine for average Americans since their average intellectual capacity is far less than those from other developed nations but not for Canadians, Europeans and Japanese to name a few. This subject is never discussed in these countries because no body has doubts regarding Darwin's revolutionary theory (rather I'd call it a Darwin's law). Nobody in the scientific community refutes this law except those with fanatic mind.

thank you for your sincere and brilliant input

@NeSCio

Let's not take DNA/RNA as the ultimate basis of life. That's not true: there are 'lifeforms' that show signs of life but don't have any nucleotide in them.

For example the prions, the infective agents that cause Mad-cow disease. These are merely proteins.

So there's more out there than meets the eye

prions are not really understood...aren't they quite little phenomena compare to the huge importance of life world, including billions and billions of insects and bacteria, to tell about the less "visible" life forms?

[vineshvk]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@NeSCio

Let's not take DNA/RNA as the ultimate basis of life. That's not true: there are 'lifeforms' that show signs of life but don't have any nucleotide in them.

For example the prions, the infective agents that cause Mad-cow disease. These are merely proteins.

So there's more out there than meets the eye

Of course they are but is cynide and other poisonous substances. But are they coding for something.

[narayan]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@sal35

Intelligent design is a stupid idea advanced by american religious fanatics and given whole hearted support by people like Bush and has absolutely no scientific basis. It is fine for average Americans since their average intellectual capacity is far less than those from other developed nations but not for Canadians, Europeans and Japanese to name a few. This subject is never discussed in these countries because no body has doubts regarding Darwin's revolutionary theory (rather I'd call it a Darwin's law). Nobody in the scientific community refutes this law except those with fanatic mind.

Yes I agree to most of what you said. ID as science is a propaganda by some religious fanatics who want to advance their religious beliefs into the minds of the children. It is simply evil.

I would not comment on the intellect of average American due to lack of evidence. America has given the world so much in science and technology that this statement does not seem correct to me.

[parissenoor]

Re: Intelligent Design...

@narayan

Yes I agree to most of what you said. ID as science is a propaganda by some religious fanatics who want to advance their religious beliefs into the minds of the children. It is simply evil.

I would not comment on the intellect of average American due to lack of evidence. America has given the world so much in science and technology that this statement does not seem correct to me.

he said average, that does not deny the fact most talented scientists are either american or working there.

just like average wealth of america is above most nations in the world, BUT number of poors is higher than in all western europe; you'll find average american more brainwashed by underfunded public schools and demagogic medias, BUT most quality scientists over there!