Intelligent design belongs in Church not Biology class.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

"After spending nearly a week leafing through seedy websites and blogs color1's quest came to fruition after finding several articles that contain favorable quotes to his cause. After removing the small chunks from the long articles, color1 presented his case to the world, not caring or even knowing if the articles he had ripped the quotes from shared or even disproved his argument.
Many Atlas members were bewildered at the fact that he was using cherry-picked evidence to prove a case that was unrelated to the evidence in question. Despite the resistance, color1 bravely forged on and continues to cherry-pick info from random sources today."

-Antineutrino, Pessimistic. Notable Trolls throughout History. 48th ed. Benghazi:
     Color1'sCoolKidSquad, 1969. Print.

[color1]

So what's the chance that life can come into existance over and over again on planet Earth in a very short period of time - even as it is being bombarded heavily with meteors?

""Harold Morowitz, a Yale university scientist, calculated the odds of a single bacterium arising from basic chemicals by random forces. He concluded that the chances of such an event were 1 in 10100,000,000,000 (cited
in Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, “The Creator Beyond Time and Space,” Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT,
1996, p. 61). This number is so large that it would take 100,000 average-sized books, filling every page with numbers, just to write it out.

These numbers are unimaginable, but let’s try to compare it to a modern situation. Assume that the chances of winning the state lottery are 1 in ten million. The odds of winning each successive week involves multiplication of probabilities, so that the odds of winning every week for 80 years in a row is 1 chance in 4.6 x 1029,120. In other words, it is far (almost infi nitely) more likely that you would win the lottery every week for 80 straight years than it is that a single bacterium arose by pure chance.  “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged (through evolutionary processes) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein” (Sir Fred Hoyle, “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, November 1981).""

[barfbag]

While chances are extremely low that life comes to be on earth, it's still bound to happen over the course of our galaxy's life. Think about how long matter has existed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Dear God just shut up.

God will speak whenever he wants to; so will color1.  But just as some people choose to ignore God, they can also choose to ignore color1.  I already choose to ignore one of them and it ain't the one whose name is capitalized.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Reading old Atlas threads is like staring deep into a trash can at times.

[color1]

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html

""Lead researcher from the Department of Biology & Biochemistry, Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals, or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions."
 
The team used published descriptions of extinct groups in order to construct 'morphospaces'; empirical spaces in which anatomically similar species plotted close together, and more dissimilar species plotted further apart. By looking at the manner in which the occupied 'volume' of space changed through time, they were able to track changes in morphological disparity.


 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html""

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Logically, there is no reason to have believed that it should be a cone in the first place.  With more ecological niches wide open, it's more likely that an adaptation will prove useful and that as those niches become filled in, it is less likely that a random adaption will fill a purpose that is not already being undertaken by an existing creature that has had time to optimize to the niche.

[barfbag]

While I think most of us here on atlas can understand intelligent design, I don't think many high school students will be able to fully grasp the difference between it and the God of Christianity which is what most of them have been exposed to their whole lives. In college courses though, it's almost impossible not to teach it. There's still too much randomness in our universe to prove intelligent design though. A more simple approach would be William Paley's watch maker theory.

[John Dibble]

While I think most of us here on atlas can understand intelligent design, I don't think many high school students will be able to fully grasp the difference between it and the God of Christianity which is what most of them have been exposed to their whole lives. In college courses though, it's almost impossible not to teach it. There's still too much randomness in our universe to prove intelligent design though. A more simple approach would be William Paley's watch maker theory.

Actually, it's quite possible not to teach it in college courses which is why most of them don't. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory - it proposes no mechanism by which the designer works and makes no testable claims, so there's no way to gather scientific evidence for it. It simply posits "complexity therefore design" with nothing to back it up.

[barfbag]

While I think most of us here on atlas can understand intelligent design, I don't think many high school students will be able to fully grasp the difference between it and the God of Christianity which is what most of them have been exposed to their whole lives. In college courses though, it's almost impossible not to teach it. There's still too much randomness in our universe to prove intelligent design though. A more simple approach would be William Paley's watch maker theory.

Actually, it's quite possible not to teach it in college courses which is why most of them don't. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory - it proposes no mechanism by which the designer works and makes no testable claims, so there's no way to gather scientific evidence for it. It simply posits "complexity therefore design" with nothing to back it up.

My degree is in religion. In our religion and science course it was almost impossible not to talk about intelligent design. We spent two weeks on it.

[John Dibble]

While I think most of us here on atlas can understand intelligent design, I don't think many high school students will be able to fully grasp the difference between it and the God of Christianity which is what most of them have been exposed to their whole lives. In college courses though, it's almost impossible not to teach it. There's still too much randomness in our universe to prove intelligent design though. A more simple approach would be William Paley's watch maker theory.

Actually, it's quite possible not to teach it in college courses which is why most of them don't. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory - it proposes no mechanism by which the designer works and makes no testable claims, so there's no way to gather scientific evidence for it. It simply posits "complexity therefore design" with nothing to back it up.

My degree is in religion. In our religion and science course it was almost impossible not to talk about intelligent design. We spent two weeks on it.

I don't think that could be classified as an actual science course, and most science courses would not involve discussion about intelligent design as part of their standard curriculum.

[barfbag]

While I think most of us here on atlas can understand intelligent design, I don't think many high school students will be able to fully grasp the difference between it and the God of Christianity which is what most of them have been exposed to their whole lives. In college courses though, it's almost impossible not to teach it. There's still too much randomness in our universe to prove intelligent design though. A more simple approach would be William Paley's watch maker theory.

Actually, it's quite possible not to teach it in college courses which is why most of them don't. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory - it proposes no mechanism by which the designer works and makes no testable claims, so there's no way to gather scientific evidence for it. It simply posits "complexity therefore design" with nothing to back it up.

My degree is in religion. In our religion and science course it was almost impossible not to talk about intelligent design. We spent two weeks on it.

I don't think that could be classified as an actual science course, and most science courses would not involve discussion about intelligent design as part of their standard curriculum.

True. The class was very divided between religion and science. We covered quantum physics and the mother-daughter universe. Pascal's wager and Paley's argument from design were covered. Intelligent design is kind of another way to discuss philosophical proofs for God. I lean towards the idea that there is proof for a God but God's presence is incredibly exaggerated and there is no proof for a particular religion.

[color1]

   interesting site: www.reasons.org
         basically says God is creator and if so using the scientic method they predict what should be found in the future studies/analysis thru genetic, geologic, cosmological discoveries.

[color1]

I think this supports a Creator who created species complex and varied (lots of them) and at the molecular DNA level complex and complete at the time of creation, but sophisticated enough to be self modifiying code so that the creature could survive environmental changes/upheavals.( the self modifying part of the design is what scientists label evolution):

They found that present-day thioredoxin structures are remarkably similar to those that existed at a time close to the origin of life, even though their amino acid sequences are very different. This finding supports a punctuated-equilibrium model of evolution in which protein structures remain constant over long time periods, with new changes occurring intermittently over short periods.

"""
'Digging up' 4-billion-year-old fossil protein structures to reveal how they evolved

2 hours ago

Modern proteins exhibit an impressive degree of structural diversity, which has been well characterized, but very little is known about how and when over the course of evolution 3D protein structures arose. In a study published by Cell Press August 8 in Structure, researchers resurrected 4-billion-year-old Precambrian proteins in the laboratory and gained novel insights into protein evolution by analyzing their X-ray crystal structures. This method has revealed a remarkable degree of structural similarity among proteins since life first evolved on this planet, and it represents a powerful and novel approach to explore the evolution of protein structures
 

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-billion-year-old-fossil-protein-reveal-evolved. "So far, attempts to understand protein structure evolution have been based on the comparison between structures of modern proteins. This is equivalent to trying to understand the evolution of birds by comparing several living birds," says senior study author Jose Sanchez-Ruiz of the University of Granada. "But it is most useful to study fossils so that changes over evolutionary time are apparent. Our approach comes as close as possible to 'digging up' fossil protein structures."

 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-billion-year-old-fossil-protein-reveal-evolved.
In a recent study, Sanchez-Ruiz and his collaborators constructed a phylogenetic tree of protein sequences by analyzing the amino acid sequences of thioredoxins—proteins found in organisms from the three domains of life, including bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes. Using this phylogenetic tree, they were able to resurrect Precambrian proteins in the laboratory and characterize their features.
 
In the new study, Sanchez-Ruiz teamed up with Jose Gavira of the Andalusian Institute of Earth Sciences (Spanish National Research Council – University of Granada) to analyze the X-ray crystal structures of the previously resurrected Precambrian proteins. They found that present-day thioredoxin structures are remarkably similar to those that existed at a time close to the origin of life, even though their amino acid sequences are very different. This finding supports a punctuated-equilibrium model of evolution in which protein structures remain constant over long time periods, with new changes occurring intermittently over short periods.
 
"In addition to uncovering the basic principles of protein structure evolution, our approach will provide invaluable information regarding how the 3D structure of a protein is encoded by its amino acid sequence," Sanchez-Ruiz says. "It could also provide information about how to design proteins with novel structures—an important goal in protein engineering and biotechnology."

 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-billion-year-old-fossil-protein-reveal-evolved

[John Dibble]

Protein and DNA are not the same thing. You haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about. You are scientifically illiterate and not even remotely qualified to talk about the implications of scientific papers.

[color1]

Still if evolution created life, one would expect "ultra simple" proteins and  "ultra simple" organic molecular structures.  That is not what the evidence shows.  They show complex complete structures.  Exactly what one would expect from a laptop creator - complex & complete for it to even work.

Or from one who created billions of species - complex and complete.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Still if evolution created life, one would expect "ultra simple" proteins and  "ultra simple" organic molecular structures.

Says who?

[color1]

  Heavy meteor bombardment peaked 3.75 to 3.85 billion years ago.  Bad enough to vaporize oceans and melt the Earth's crust.   But there is evidence that life existed on planet Earth 3.85 billion years ago even in the molten rocks.

Evidence that cyanobacteria lived 3.6 billion years ago in sedimentary rocks: ""The oldest fossils are found in rocks that were formed during the Archaean eon, which lasted from 3.6 to 2.7 billion years ago. Before this time, during the Hadean eon that covered the time from 4.6 billion to 3.6 billion years ago, the surface of the Earth was covered in molten rock on which no life could survive. Once the rock cooled and hardened, the geological history of the Earth could begin ... Blue-green algae, also known as cyanobacteria, are single-celled photosynthetic organisms that lived in the seas.""
Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_8352164_oldest-fossils.html#ixzz2bPgdFhbT
----------------
The following conference in 2012 assume a Primordial Soup when life began 3.8+ billion years ago.
-----------------

http://www.livescience.com/18565-life-building-blocks-chemical-evolution.html

How Earth's Primordial Soup Came to Life

 Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer   |   February 21, 2012 09:46am ET

""The molecules swimming in early Earth's primordial soup would have been continually destroyed by ultraviolet radiation from the sun, as well as heat and other processes on the planet. [7 Theories on the Origin of Life]
 
But when certain special pairs of molecules combined to form a larger compound, they sometimes came out with protections that neither had alone.
 
"When molecules interact, they start taking on properties they don't have as individuals, but do gain when they're in a complex," Robert Root-Bernstein, a physiologist at Michigan State University, said Sunday (Feb. 19) here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "This provides a means of natural selection."
 
Molecules that could combine to gain attributes would survive longer and proliferate, while those that were more easily destroyed would fade away.""

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Still if evolution created life, one would expect "ultra simple" proteins and  "ultra simple" organic molecular structures.

Says who?

People who obviously haven't been paying attention to chaos theory.  We have multiple examples in which simple processes self-generate complex systems.  So the whole argument that life is too complex to have arisen without a creator micromanaging the details is utter hooey.

[color1]

Takes FAR LESS FAITH to beleive that God created the billions of complex and complete species than to put my FAITH that Chaos Theory did it. 

Get real.  We are not talking snowflakes or some complex fractal designs here. Billions of species complex and complete - most who have died out, never to return -- ever in spite of chaos theory. NEVER to return unless a designer/creator - man, assembles the DNA, RNA, animo acids, proteins and incredibly specialized catalysts for them to exist again.

[afleitch]

Takes FAR LESS FAITH to beleive that God created the billions of complex and complete species than to put my FAITH that Chaos Theory did it. 

Get real.  We are not talking snowflakes or some complex fractal designs here. Billions of species complex and complete - most who have died out, never to return -- ever in spite of chaos theory. NEVER to return unless a designer/creator - man, assembles the DNA, RNA, animo acids, proteins and incredibly specialized catalysts for them to exist again.

All hail Apollo.

[barfbag]

Still if evolution created life, one would expect "ultra simple" proteins and  "ultra simple" organic molecular structures.

Says who?

People who obviously haven't been paying attention to chaos theory.  We have multiple examples in which simple processes self-generate complex systems.  So the whole argument that life is too complex to have arisen without a creator micromanaging the details is utter hooey.

That's right. Whose to say earth life is too complex? In comparison to the history of the universe, life could be quite simple.

[color1]

Behe's Challenge: Evolve Me a Cilium
   or Chaos Theory Me a Cillium
     ---
   so far zilch for smart humans
   so far zilch for chaos theory
   so far zilch for evolution theory
     zilch

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, there are several theories on how the cilium evolved.  None universally accepted as of yet which isn't surprising since we're having to infer how it may have happened rather than actually watch it happen.

I guess since the contention that the eye was too irreducibly complex to have evolved has been fairly thoroughly debunked, the creationists have had to move on to other structures less familiar and eye-catching in their efforts to disprove evolution.

[color1]

 a cillium is much much simpler molecularly than an eye.
---------
    The most complex automobile today is much simpler than a cillium.
    But who believes that evolution or chaos theory can create one of the automobiles of today - a Lexus anyone or a Beamer?