A thread for ID proponents to explain their alternative theory for biological phenomena.
Allan Miller has written an article on sex, proposing an evolutionary explanation for why almost all Eukaryota indulge in sex. In response to comments from evolution skeptics questioning his explanation, he challenges them:
OK, you ID types, what’s the Design explanation for sex? You need to explain why all eukaryotes have genes that are involved in meiosis, though some never actually perform meiosis, and in some, the genes are ‘broken’. And you need to explain the taxonomic distribution of asexuality – absent in mammals and birds, but increasingly found as one descends your imagined scala naturae – though intermittent sex remains the norm, even in single celled organisms.
Why? What purpose does it serve that is common to single celled protists and our favourite organism, the chimp? Why wasn’t everything designed to just reproduce asexually?
In response, commenter phoodoo writes:
Why are there legs? Wouldn’t it be better if we just moved like water? Why ten fingers instead of thirty? Why skin? Evolution doesn’t answer these questions any better or worse than ID.
Now, for evolution to have a better or worse explanation than ID, there must be an explanation for sex according to the theory of “Intelligent Design”.
I don’t know of any Intelligent Design theory that attempts to explain biological observations such as sexual reproduction. So I invite those who do know of such a theory to correct my ignorance.
How does the theory of Intelligent Design explain sex?
PS: please feel free to use this thread as a peanut gallery WRT Allan’s article.
Read again. Your objection is illogical. When you are an inbred, you resemble your FEW closest relatives, yet you will be way different than all OTHER inbred families out there.
An adequate answer was provided for those that can read. Nut your case apparently.
Like one of those ghosts that can’t touch the living as much as they struggle.
Typically, in order to further discussion, you would link to where that answer was given. If the answer was genuinely missed, you have now enlightened. If the answer was seen but considered something other then an actual answer then further discussion can also produce further enlightenment, if only to know what each party considers an adequate answer.
Given that you are here writing OPs with, presumably, the intent of discussing those OPs it’s a bit of a dick move what you actually did right there.
So, um, how’s that all working out for you?
If I look at the list of who links to your website nonlin.org it seems to be you on comment threads and other message boards. Can you give me an example where someone that is not you links to you because they think you are worth reading or engaging with?
Looking forward to your excuses and insults.
Demonstrate that you are not a ghost. Who takes you seriously? Can you name a single person/provide a single link?
You can also search. And since “you” missed it, it’s your responsibility to search, right? Still, I would go the extra step knowing most TSZ readers are genuinely thirsty for knowledge. But that is not the case, is it?
Others tried the psychological warfare to no avail. Don’t bother. It doesn’t work. Meanwhile, my essays on TSZ invariably stimulate long and deep discussions with a variety of people. Go check. Sadly, I don’t remember you as one of the deeper thinkers on TSZ. Furthermore, not to boast, but I seem to win the argument every single time.
That’s a bluff! 😉
In your imagination only. People get tired of explaining things that you fail to grasp time and again. That’s not you winning the argument, that’s you being an obtuse uneducable idiot.
Then why are you not winning the war?
As long as nonlin chooses to be psehdoanonamous that limits the reach his ideas can ever have. There’s a reason there’s a citation index noniin. It’s like how when I go to github I can get an idea of how likely something is to be good by the number of other people who found it was good.
For arguing on a blog that lets literally anyone post an OP you are doing fucking great.though.
So how do all the different clones get to be different from each other?
How To Win At Arguing.
1) State your position.
2) Go To 1.
How very odd. I have exactly the same thing!
No you don’t!
Is. Is’int.
No one on TSZ gets “tired of explaining”. This is your pathetic life: defending the indefensible at TSZ.
Good question. Because people like you have strong religious views and, as such, are not persuaded by the clearest logic. And to anticipate next question: “then why go on”? For the few nuggets in the pile of crap. See? You too can contribute something.
You have what?
By not mixing with the other strains. Why ask me? This is common knowledge.
In fact you are in error. Your target audience is not me. It’s scientists. And you reach them by publishing where they will read. And that’s not here. A blog.
Tell me, can you point to a paper that was rejected that contained the clearest logic but was rejected for religious reasons only?
I mean, if you can’t……
Are you saying TSZ is just a waste of time? And that no one here is a “scientist”? Who’s a “scientist” anyway? Darwin’s education was in medicine and theology so he was not a biologist. How dared he write about biology?
Silly question.
Biology is not philosophy. Darwin happened to have influential insights which have been built on but biology doesn’t depend on Darwin.
It’s not the place to advertise crackpot ideas, no.
What I am saying is that what is the best you can possibly achieve by posting your ideas here?
And compare that to what you could achieve writing a proper paper and publishing it somewhere legitimate?
Do the two outcomes not differ somewhat?
What are you trying to achieve? Convince some random people on a blog or changing the world?
It’s not a silly question. It’s an excuse that ID people make as to why they don’t bother to attempt to get their ideas peer reviewed and published.
They claim that the journals reject papers simply on ideological grounds rather then anything specific. I even posted an OP on it recently.
As a hint, it’ll probably become your excuse later on when you do actually try the formal publishing route. As it cannot possibly be the quality of your ideas, no sir.
I do get tired of explaining things to you. I have stopped many times already. That alone makes your claim false. Now try and go to ridiculous extremes to deny this you mentally infantile idiot.
Says the irony-deaf idiot who could not stop claiming that assumptions cannot be tested. The same irony-deaf idiot who now cannot stop claiming that genetics has nothing to do with evolution. What’s next? 2+2 can never be 4? Will you have someone getting tired showing that to you and then declare that you “won the argument”?
The fucking irony! Nice shot at your own foot!
Yeah, I know. Amazing isn’t it? But I have won every argument I’ve ever had.
No, by not mixing clonal lineages preserve their differences. Allan asked how they got to be different in the first place. Have they been *gasp* diverging?
ETA: Wow, looks like I am going to win an argument again.
With exceptions granted for atheism and skepticism, of course.
Just think how many you could win if you cloned!
I guess the problem there might be, what if you started arguing with yourselves? I guess you would always win. 🙂
Meaning? Are you conceding that Darwin was just a bad philosopher?
Meaning? TSZ is a place for …
Not really. Considering that anything “evolution” is bogus, there’s no difference whatsoever.
Nope. Testing ideas. That’s all.
And that cannot be true because…? It is silly to ask for “rejected papers for religious reason” – those are by definition not public and, also by definition, no one will admit they [scientific papers] were rejected for religious reasons. Silly.
I don’t see the contradiction. Sex keeps populations homogeneous. Do you have a problem with that? To “keep from evolving” was an ironic apropos. You’re too tense.
Get over, retard. No one supports this stupidity.
discussing controversial ideas:
My name is Elizabeth Liddle, and I started this site to be a place where people could discuss controversial positions about life, the universe and everything with minimal tribal rancour (pay no attention to the penguins….)
My motivation for starting the site has been the experience of trying to discuss religion, politics, evolution, the Mind/Brain problem, creationism, ethics, exit polls, probability, intelligent design, and many other topics in venues where positions are strongly held and feelings run high. In most venues, one view dominates, and there is a kind of “resident prior” about the integrity, intelligence and motivation of those who differ from the majority view.
That is why the strapline says: “Park your priors by the door”. They may be adjusted by the time you leave!
I will start the blog off with a series of posts arising from some interesting discussions at Uncommon Descent, which were difficult to pursue because of the blog format over there. I hope that the participants in those discussions will come over here where we can continue them without having to move from squat to squat on other threads, derailing them as we go.
I also hope that other people will join me in posting new OPs, so that it becomes a group blog, and that people will also offer to write guest OPs.
In the mean time, welcome to all, and have a free virtual beer on the house!
Lizzie
And:
So I’m going to start a bit vague, then get more specific as need arises.The principle is in the strapline: Park your priors by the door. Everyone has priors, they are crucial to way we make sense of the world. But the impetus behind this site is to be a place where they can be loosened and adjusted while you wait. So leave them by the door, and pick them up again as you leave!
There are plenty of blogs and forums where people with like priors can hang out and scoff at those who do not share them. There’s nothing wrong with those sites, and I’ve learned a lot from them. But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie. In my experience, when you reach that point, who is right becomes obvious to both parties 🙂
How come? You’ve abandoned every single argument between us. Go check.
“Diverging” is different than “different”, ain’t it? Think male/female. Different? YES! Diverging? NO!
Sorry to pop your bubble… Again!
Nope. Evolutionary biology has moved on since Darwin. He’s not a minor God. he is celebrated by those who appreciate his efforts because he (along with Wallace) first formulated the theory of natural selection.
As if! 🙂
Nice goals. Ain’t happening. As far as I can see.
However, what TSZ got right is allowing the dialogue that isn’t happening anywhere else basically. Other than that, crackpot galore.
Not minor. Darwin is a MAJOR god (The God!) to Darwinistas. I see no “moved on”. Just a mad scrambling to right up the sinking ship.
Don’t think so. He got a few things wrong.
Well, it’s a fine objective that is limited by folks ability to suspend their priors.
Don’t get me started on those “few” 🙂 The better question: did he get ANYTHING right? ANYTHING at all? With regards to “evolution”, not the fine toast his wife made. Obviously?
Why yes, yes he did. His idea of natural selection was a brilliant insight.
Actually, no. We discussed how retard that idea was: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/natural-selection-evolution-magic/
Hmmm.
*flicks through comments on that thread*
My view of the comments is that you failed utterly to persuade anyone you had a point.
People like you are un-persuade-able. This is the unfulfilled goal of TSZ as discussed above. Remember? “Persuading” was not the point. Answering all reasonable objections was. And this was done successfully as you can double and triple-check. Hence, the claims of that essay are valid. For now, at least…
You were eviscerated! As anyone who wishes to look back on the comments in that thread can see, as I have just done. You should have a look yourself.
*chuckles*
Yup. Checked (not that I needed to). Nonlin was eviscerated.
Anything left worth eating?
I’m reminded of what killed boxing. The fix was always in, and after the fight the ref would scrape the hometown boy off the mat, hold his unconscious arm in the air, and declare him the winner. This is how nonlin’s positions also win disputes.
In that case your “explanation” is incomplete. Why do some populations need to be kept homogeneous, whereas others do not? In some cases sexual and asexual populations co-exist within the same species .
There really is no point in continuing the argument after I have solidly beat you, is there?
You haven’t answered the question. How did clonal lineages get to be different in the first place? Were they created differently? Do they qualify as kinds?
No need to be sorry. I’m winning! 😄
All that meat lying around and you thought I’d leave some of it for you? Not a chance.
ETA: But you can check other Nonlin OPs. He was eviscerated each and every time. Lots of meat left.
Do you like chicken brains not affected by Entropy, hopefully? 😉
Sorry, buddy. You’re from Pluto or some other illogical place
I explained very clearly. But you missed as always. They’re all homogeneous. Except sex is a better mechanism than HGT plus accurate copying. Go read!
You too are from Pluto.
And YOU haven’t answer the simple question you pretend to answer. You fail again. But why not? Because by answering you would concede you made a clearly false claim. Fail either way
Back to your question, what do you mean? They’re different, but not that different. Think poodle vs. pug. They have been kept separate (no interbreeding). Just inbreeding. Why is this hard for you?