Evolution or Intelligent design ?

good_logic

Pece Student of Allah.

Thank you for your post.

Please have a look here

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHUtMEru4pQ

And

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuDDmbv1WS8

I have based my understanding on recent scientific research on DNA.

Peace to you.

good_logic

Peace Student of Allah.

When I said " impossible" for a species to become another ,I was talking mathematically

i.e probability. Perhaps RK was ahead of his time as far as DNA IS CONCERNED

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE

God certainly knew the future.He created Science and Mathematics.

Peace to you.

Bender

Shalom Aleikhem,

Peace
----------------------- Student of Allah

Salaam SoA,

I really don't have any knowledge on this subject so excuse me if I ask the wrong/stupid questions.
But I really like to know the answers as I think it is a interesting subject.

I guess according to this theory all species undergo evolution (correct me if I'm wrong because I am only guessing this).
I was wondering if scientist created some model to predict how the human race will look like in let's say 100,000 years or 1,000,000 years from now. If yes, do you have any link or photo?

Second question is Are there according to this theory also groups within a specie who evolves quicker or slower then the rest of it's specie.
If yes, is the human race one of them? And if again yes, then what race at the moment is considered to be evolved the most and what race is considered to be behind.

Thank you for your answers.

Salaam,
Bender

good_logic

Peace Student of Allah.

Finally Here is another argument from the point of " intelligence design" through genetics

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=40cOy-i_7zM

No doubt we will discuss after you have a look.

Thank you and peace to you.

Jafar

Salaam SoA,

I really don't have any knowledge on this subject so excuse me if I ask the wrong/stupid questions.
But I really like to know the answers as I think it is a interesting subject.

It's interesting, allow me to jumped in..

I guess according to this theory all species undergo evolution (correct me if I'm wrong because I am only guessing this).

All things undergo changes a.k.a evolution.. including planets, stars, galaxy and this entire perceivable universe.

I was wondering if scientist created some model to predict how the human race will look like in let's say 100,000 years or 1,000,000 years from now. If yes, do you have any link or photo?

There are people who created a model of how 'human' will look like, but I really doubt the correctness of such model.

In order to create a model (which means mathematical model) of predicting the future (a.k.a predictive analytic) we need to make assumption that some variable are constant. Given that changes / evolution could happen in all things, and the changes in human are closely related to the changes in their environment, it will makes predicting the changes of human (or other being) in far distant future very difficult to be precise.

There are possibilities of e.g. nuclear explosion, gigantic meteoric impact which pose radical changes in environment that human capability of adaptation just can't cope to it. In other terms, human will become extinct, just like the dinosaurs.

Second question is Are there according to this theory also groups within a specie who evolves quicker or slower then the rest of it's specie.
If yes, is the human race one of them? And if again yes, then what race at the moment is considered to be evolved the most and what race is considered to be behind.

"Evolving" is not a race or competition )
Thus there's no "faster" or "slower", "advanced" or "behind" )
And if you think hard enough, your 'mindset' about 'competition' / 'advanced or behind' is also due to the 'evolution'. You inherit that from your ancestor who lived in a very 'competitive environment' where only the 'fittest' will survive.

If you live in tropical area with hot and sunny climate, definitely the skin of your progeny will become darker, because darker skin provides more protection thus more beneficial for the survivability of your progeny.

Another Example
Compared to Europeans. Meso-Americans are more resistant to malaria but they're less resistant when they're being infected by influenza virus. Meso-Americans have faced malaria for many centuries yet they were introduced / exposed to influenza virus just recently.

To the europeans it's a 'total joke' when 'people dies because of influenza', to them it's just not possible!
To the meso-american it's a 'total joke' when 'people dies because of malaria', to them it's just not possible!

When europeans mate with meso-americans, their children most probably will inherit the resistance to both malaria and influenza. And that's how they 'evolve', the generation of 'european and meso-american hybrid' will become 'better' generation than their ancestor or 'pure european' and 'pure meso-american', in terms of resistance to malaria and influenza disease.

Salam / Peace

Bender

It's interesting, allow me to jumped in..

Salaam Jafar,

Sure jump in )

All things undergo changes a.k.a evolution.. including planets, stars, galaxy and this entire perceivable universe.

I am not talking about that kind of evolution that is not that interesting.
I am more interested in the evolution between a specie and it's progeny, and not the evolution a specie/thing experience it self because of aging.

There are people who created a model of how 'human' will look like, but I really doubt the correctness of such model.

In order to create a model (which means mathematical model) of predicting the future (a.k.a predictive analytic) we need to make assumption that some variable are constant. Given that changes / evolution could happen in all things, and the changes in human are closely related to the changes in their environment, it will makes predicting the changes of human (or other being) in far distant future very difficult to be precise.

There are possibilities of e.g. nuclear explosion, gigantic meteoric impact which pose radical changes in environment that human capability of adaptation just can't cope to it. In other terms, human will become extinct, just like the dinosaurs.

Of course I was not talking about changes because of radiation or other impacts, we are only talking about natural evolution without disasters.
So from all the data we have about our ancestors and ourselves, is it possible to see a pattern?

By the way what about trees, flowers, plants, grass etc? Is the grass or the apple-tree from 10 million years ago different from now?

"Evolving" is not a race or competition )
Thus there's no "faster" or "slower", "advanced" or "behind" )
And if you think hard enough, your 'mindset' about 'competition' / 'advanced or behind' is also due to the 'evolution'. You inherit that from your ancestor who lived in a very 'competitive environment' where only the 'fittest' will survive.

If you live in tropical area with hot and sunny climate, definitely the skin of your progeny will become darker, because darker skin provides more protection thus more beneficial for the survivability of your progeny.

Another Example
Compared to Europeans. Meso-Americans are more resistant to malaria but they're less resistant when they're being infected by influenza virus. Meso-Americans have faced malaria for many centuries yet they were introduced / exposed to influenza virus just recently.

To the europeans it's a 'total joke' when 'people dies because of influenza', to them it's just not possible!
To the meso-american it's a 'total joke' when 'people dies because of malaria', to them it's just not possible!

When europeans mate with meso-americans, their children most probably will inherit the resistance to both malaria and influenza. And that's how they 'evolve', the generation of 'european and meso-american hybrid' will become 'better' generation than their ancestor or 'pure european' and 'pure meso-american', in terms of resistance to malaria and influenza disease.

I never mentioned something about competition, the question was if there are within a specie races who evolve faster than others.
With other words what race at the moment is the closest to what they consider to be our forefather, and I was talking about the body/bone/skull structure.
I am not that interested in changes in the immune system or skincolor of a human as they are things that can change in a couple of hours/days.

Salam / Peace

salaam,
Bender

huruf

With other words what race at the moment is the closest to what they consider to be our forefather,

Do we have just one only forefather? I doubt it.

And why exclude radiations or catastrophes as agents of evolution?

Salaam

Bender

Do we have just one only forefather? I doubt it.

Salaam

Like I said I really have no knowledge on this subject, I thought (think read it somewhere) the theory says we have only 1 forefather. What means, they think that the humans of today are offspring from 1 race. Well at least that is what I thought the theory says, but I definitely could be wrong.

And why exclude radiations or catastrophes as agents of evolution?

I think it is not interesting for the big picture.

Salaam

Salaam,
Bender

Jafar

I am not talking about that kind of evolution that is not that interesting.
I am more interested in the evolution between a specie and it's progeny, and not the evolution a specie/thing experience it self because of aging.

Changes happened in small gene mutation (for cell based being) which you said "it's not that interesting".
I just told you what might happened in one generation, now imagine what changes can happened in 10 generations, and then 100 generations and then 1000 generations and then 10,000 generations and then 100,000 generations.

Of course I was not talking about changes because of radiation or other impacts, we are only talking about natural evolution without disasters.
So from all the data we have about our ancestors and ourselves, is it possible to see a pattern?

"Disaster", meteoric impact, radiation, climate change happened more often than what human perceived it was to be and it cannot yet be fully predicted. Example Few days ago a snow fell in middle east (egypt, palestine/israel, syria etc..), people get freaked out, everyone think that 'the end is near' / 'sign from God' etc.. Actually it was a normality few thousand years ago. We are entering yet another period of changes in planetary climate.

We do know that human and their hominid ancestor has faced 'near extinction' quite numerous times.
This event is among the example
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Happened around 70,000 years ago and could drive hominid population to very minimum amount.
Coincidentally we see pattern of 'rapid homo sapiens' expansion after 70,000 BP. Rock paintings, stone carvings, remnant of jewelery, all are dated after 70,000 BP.

And who shall come up as 'the survivor' for future 'near extinction' event is very hard to guess.
That's why it's very hard to accurately predict 'future evolution' of any being (not only human).

Let's take another example, let's assume human find a way to terraform Mars. (At present time we do know that there's a presence of ice, snow thus water in mars), and then they colonize Mars. The "evolution path" of human on Mars and human on Earth shall be different. Human on mars probably shall grow bigger and taller than human on Earth due to Mars lower gravity than earth. Yet the virus and bacteria can also evolve to be more deadly than Earth )

By the way what about trees, flowers, plants, grass etc? Is the grass or the apple-tree from 10 million years ago different from now?

Yes definitely, 'wheat' / 'rice' for example is a 'recent introduction', most probably did not exist during dinosaur period.
http//www.livescience.com/28739-jurassic-period.html

I never mentioned something about competition, the question was if there are within a specie races who evolve faster than others.

So far the absolute winner is Virus, they evolve faster than everyone else )
They can adapt to extreme condition, such as no oxygen, high or low temperature and no sunlight.

With other words what race at the moment is the closest to what they consider to be our forefather, and I was talking about the body/bone/skull structure.

It depends on what do you mean by 'our forefather'.
If it's "The Most Recent Common Ancestor" of every human still living today, then definitely it's "Sub-Saharan African".

Current Non Sub-Saharan Africans (Caucasian, Asian etc..) is a product of a hybrid between Homo Sapiens with other Hominid (e.g. Homo Neanderthal, Homo Denisovans etc..)

http//www.ted.com/talks/svante_paeaebo_dna_clues_to_our_inner_neanderthal.html

https//genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

Salam / Peace

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem Good Logic,

Pece Student of Allah.

Thank you for your post.

Please have a look here

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHUtMEru4pQ

And

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuDDmbv1WS8

I have based my understanding on recent scientific research on DNA.

Peace to you.

I believe I already provided you with sufficient materials for you to know about speciation. Having said that, I have no idea why you are bringing in a religious propaganda into this. When it comes to intelligent design, you should look into the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case. Intelligent design theory is inherently religious and depends on Argument from ignorance. If you are interested, you can watch the NOVA documentary on youtube titled "Judgement Day Intelligent Design on Trial". This documentary is based on that Dover trial and should help you see how shamelessly pathetic intelligent design is. There is a reason it has no place in the scientific arena.

And I have no idea what "recent DNA studies" you are talking about. Do you know what what you are suggesting is a Nobel Prize winning thing? Overturning 150 years of an established scientific theory is no small matter. This would not have gone unnoticed by the entire academic arena. What are you talking about?

Peace Student of Allah.

When I said " impossible" for a species to become another ,I was talking mathematically

i.e probability. Perhaps RK was ahead of his time as far as DNA IS CONCERNED

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE

God certainly knew the future.He created Science and Mathematics.

Peace to you.

No, RK didn't know anything. Please go read my earlier post where I dissected what he was saying about statistical improbability. His was one embarrassing failure. I have already written in detail on that post so I won't repeat myself here.

Peace Student of Allah.

Finally Here is another argument from the point of " intelligence design" through genetics

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=40cOy-i_7zM

No doubt we will discuss after you have a look.

Thank you and peace to you.

This is not how science works. Nobody cares what a certain someone thinks is the case. These ID(Intelligent Design) people still have the burden of proof on them. They have to go through the same scrutiny every other work of scientists had to go through to be accepted. What they are proposing can be boiled down to arguments from ignorance. "I don't know how this could have happened, therefore GOD/Intelligent Designer did it!!". You are not allowed to argue that you can not think of a way how lighting strikes the earth, therefore Zeus is throwing them.

What you are doing is picking and choosing based on whatever you already believe. This is not honesty. There is no debate regarding this in the scientific/academic arena. The time for anybody to believe these ID people is after they have gone through the peer review process and came up with a proper scientific theory based on evidence. Do you think that there is some global conspiracy going on where virtually all relevant institutions and scientists are conspiring against ID?

Peace
-------------- Student of Allah

good_logic

Peace Student of Allah.

Thank you for your post.

First ; What is DNA?
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Nearly every cell in a person?s body has the same DNA. Most DNA is located in the cell nucleus (where it is called nuclear DNA), but a small amount of DNA can also be found in the mitochondria (where it is called mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA).

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.
DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix.
The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder?s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.
An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell.

INFORMATION = COMMUNICATION= INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATING THE INFORMATION!

In other words there is a program in each cell giving instruction to it. i.e how fast, small, big what shape... to grow and when to stop growing....Who is the programmer?

Science is also evolving, " intelligent design " is gathering momentum, no doubt.The more they find about DNA, the more nails in the coffin of " chance design".

Peace to you.

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem Bender,

Salaam SoA,

I really don't have any knowledge on this subject so excuse me if I ask the wrong/stupid questions.
But I really like to know the answers as I think it is a interesting subject.

Don't worry, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people. P Just kidding.

I guess according to this theory all species undergo evolution (correct me if I'm wrong because I am only guessing this).

Yes, every species is subject to evolution.

I was wondering if scientist created some model to predict how the human race will look like in let's say 100,000 years or 1,000,000 years from now. If yes, do you have any link or photo?

If you understood what the theory of evolution is, you wouldn't have asked this question. You do have an understanding of mutations, right? There can be neutral mutations, favorable mutations and harmful mutations. Lets say that your parents had 6 children including you. None of you guys are the exact copy of either of your parents. On top of that, you guys only look a bit similar, but not same. The differences that you guys have can turn out to be favorable for all or some of you when it comes to survival and therefore reproducing and giving birth to the next generation. Mutations can give rise to traits that can be effect the evolution of a species. There is also natural selection. Here is a simple way to understand it

Imagine that you have a lot of deer and tigers. Lets imagine a simple scenario where a tiger is chasing these deer to eat them. On average, the slowest ones will end up being eaten more than the fastest ones. This has the effect of giving the faster bunch of deer more chance of survival thus reproduction. So the next generation will have more fast running deer compared to last generation. This is also true for from the point of view of the tigers. The ones that are the worst at hunting deer will have the lowest chance of survival thus leaving less offspring behind. Therefore the next generation of these tigers will have more of the "winners" compared to losers. So these deer and tigers will evolve parallel to each other.

That is just one example of natural selection improving a trait of a species without anyone having to do it for them. Now, when it comes to natural selection, there can be a lot of different environmental pressures. A change in weather can favor a specific type within a species to live over another type within the same species. There are so many things in the environment that can change over time. These changes will end up being favorable for some types and harmful for some. Depending on these, only the types that are fit for their environment gets to be happy and carry on their business.

So, having said that, now it should be easy for you to see why nobody can tell you what ANY species will look like after a 100,000 years. To say that, we have to know what selection pressures the species will undergo in the next 100,000 years. We don't know what specific mutations will take place in the reproduction process. Because of that reason, we can not tell you what they will look like.

Second question is Are there according to this theory also groups within a specie who evolves quicker or slower then the rest of it's specie.

For that to happen you have to isolate the group. For example, move one group to Europe and the other group to Africa and don't let them interbreed. Stop gene flow within these two groups.

If yes, is the human race one of them? And if again yes, then what race at the moment is considered to be evolved the most and what race is considered to be behind.

Yes, human beings are also subject to laws of nature, thus undergo evolution like all other animals.

To ask what race is the most evolved is not a smart thing to do. This question assumes that natural selection and mutations have a "GOAL" in mind. That simply is not the case. A human being is not "more evolved" than a Tarantula. There is no set goal. Where in the process of natural selection and mutations did you see any goals? Every animal is at their most evolved state at a given time.

Now, we can talk about "most evolved" with respect to whatever thing YOU AND I set as a goal. You must know about melanin and skin pigmentation and how that protects people from harmful radiation in certain parts of the earth. So near the equator, where the earth receives a lot of radiation, a white person can be considered to have a less fit skin than a brown/black person. Different races and people from different parts of the world are often immune to unique sets of harmful things. It all depends on where their bloodline is from and where they grew up. When it comes to lets say Malaria, you will find that due to the ancestors of a group evolving under situation where they had to combat Malaria, they have better resistance and tolerance for Malaria compared to another group who's ancestors never faced Malaria. This is not to say that one group is more evolved than another. They are all fit for the specific niches they evolved in.

So, please drop that garbage idea of "more evolved" or "less evolved" from your head. Unless you are seriously suggesting that evolution works with plans for making specific things in the future. Which is not the case. I know where you were probably trying to go with this. If I had to guess, I'd guess that you would have brought up racism. Which is sad. Sad because we all already accept that there are people better looking than us, stronger than us, richer than us, but we never say that "THEREFORE THIS JUSTIFIES MISTREATMENT". Somehow, the same people who understand this can't understand that knowing that one group may have some form of physical advantage over the other is not a justification for discrimination. If one is that worried about racism coming out of evolution, allow me to tell you this

E= mc^2

Let me assume that you weigh 70 KG. Now let me assume that I have a 70 KG bag of Bullsht. Using that equation I can show that assuming a theoretical conversion with 100% efficiency, you and that bag of shit will give out the same amount of energy. Or one can also point out that you and Bullsht is made up of atoms, quarks, etc. Basically the same thing. Now, knowing this, do you think it is justified for me to treat you like shit? So you already understand that how you treat someone has nothing to do with your scientific understanding of reality. Otherwise I feel obliged to ask you if you feel justified in mistreating anyone that you perceive as poor, physically weaker, relatively worse looking than you?

If you want to learn more about evolution, Google is your friend. You can even buy and read books for better in-depth understanding. There are thousands of video materials available on youtube explaining basic principles and ideas.

Sorry for this lousy post. Didn't get the time to make a proper post.

Peace
-------------- Student of Allah

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

Peace Student of Allah.

Thank you for your post.

INFORMATION = COMMUNICATION= INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATING THE INFORMATION!

In other words there is a program in each cell giving instruction to it. i.e how fast, small, big what shape... to grow and when to stop growing....Who is the programmer?

Science is also evolving, " intelligent design " is gathering momentum, no doubt.The more they find about DNA, the more nails in the coffin of " chance design".

Peace to you.

WRONG !!!

This is what happens when you base everything on misunderstanding of things. Information and meaning are two different things. This is how people make up incredible amount of bizarre fantasy and starts believing weird things. The information contained in DNA is not "communication" in the sense that you and I communicate. "XXXX" and "Four" contains the same amount of information. One may mean something to YOU and the other may not mean anything. But you can not say that "XXXX" is not information. Having said that, we use the word information to better understand and make sense of what we find there inside DNA. In creation of protein, DNA does not send "information" to RNA or anything for that matter. The interactions they have are all based on the principles we know from chemistry/physics. They undergo chemical reactions just like ANY OTHER CHEMICAL REACTION. DNA has biochemical potential that are slaves to laws of physics and chemistry not information laws.

Do you understand now why you aren't getting the Nobel prize this year?

Peace
------------- Student of Allah

good_logic

Peace Student of Allah.

Information subject to " Laws of Physics/ Chemistry".

Laws that haphazardly create themselves. Of course these " Laws" always existed.

Peace to you.

huruf

I do not know about the inteligent design, but there is such a thing as quantic evolution.Quantic in the sense that it happens at a a quantic level, which in itself is not a chance event and where de cells choose their next step.

In fact at a quantic level it does support a Lamarckian evolution, that is, that the function creates the organ. That could not be said before a better knowledge of the replication was known due to quantic investigations.

I am afraid I am not a great knower of the thing to explain it myself and I am talking from memory, and also it is not that easy to come accross the information in the web, because there are other things with similar denomination that keep coming up, but I consider that line of thought quite coherent and scientifically sustainable than the "chance" and hazard line. Hazard in my view does not exist. What exists is lack of knowledge on our part of all causes of everything. We call our ignorance hazard, that is not saying anything. It is like when people say that things are due to Nature.

Chance is a human idea, not something we know for a fact. We merely do not know the sequence of causes and effects of whatever and we call it chance because we are not able to intervene in the process knowing fully how we can achieve whatever we want to achieve.

Chance is more of an ideological creature than scientific one. Chance makes us "victims", hopeless victims.

Salaam

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

Peace Student of Allah.

Information subject to " Laws of Physics/ Chemistry".

Laws that haphazardly create themselves. Of course these " Laws" always existed.

Peace to you.

Absolutely no relevance to what we are discussing here. I don't know why you always shift your goal post. You never seem to acknowledge any points made or anything. You simply jump from one thing to another. We aren't talking about physical laws and their origin here.
Well, I didn't hear the scientific experts in the field of physics stating that the laws of physics created themselves or even if they did, they did so haphazardly. What are you talking about? Did you know that these laws break down at a singularity?

I am not even sure if you know that these laws are descriptive laws and are not to be confused with prescriptive/legislative laws. For example

Legislative law

http//www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Tours/England/Cambridge/KeepOffTheGrass.jpg

This kind of a "law" necessitates a law giver. It is prescribed/legislated thus necessitates a law giver. However, the laws of physics are nothing like this. There is nothing like "Thou shall not stop if moving and move when at rest unless acted upon by an external force".

Law without law giver

http//wallsinhd.com/images/medium/a-two_rocks_in_an_archipeligo-1006397.jpg

Notice the gap between the two giant rocks? Lets say that the gap is 500 feet by 50 feet. Can you ever feet any rigid object through this gap if the object has both its width and height over 50 feet? The observation that the gap is 50 feet wide tells you that you can not have the horizontal length of the object over 50 feet. Its a form of inevitability that you can not escape. Will you now say that there was a law giver who wished and said "Thou shall not try to push anything through this gap unless its less than or equal to 50 feet in length"?

If you must be confident about laws of nature, space, time, matter etc., please feel free to go and study the universe along with the scientific community. Do your research and publish your papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. Other physicists will try to replicate your work and validate the results. Without all of that, its no use going around saying or believing that there is a supernatural being that goes around making physical laws. That is just the "God of the gaps" thing in action. When confronted by knowledge, theists often resort to moving their God to the gap in our knowledge. When we didn't know where lightning came from, it was THE GODS who were credited without ANY EVIDENCE. After we figured that out, their Gods apparently stopped throwing lighting and started creating the environment for lightning. Once we explained that, their Gods apparently stopped doing that too and started creating earth, which will be the home of the environment that gives rise to lightnings. The more we learn about the universe, the smaller that gap of knowledge becomes. But just like ALWAYS, indifferent to the 100% successful track record of science, theists just can't stop slapping the "God did it" sticker onto any damn thing they are ignorant about.

Peace
-------------- Student of Allah

good_logic

Peace Student of Allah.

Thank you for your post..

Now can we agree that there are still " theories" out there being investigated by Science?

For example

Physics theories provide the basis upon which all of physics is built. As more theories are presented, experiments test them, attempting to falsify them and ultimately prove them ... but before this process can begin, the theory has to exist.
Fundamentals of Theoretical Physics

Classical Physics Laws
Modern Astronomical Theories
Quantum Physics
A Theory of Everything - Quantum Gravity Theory
Fundamentals of Theoretical Physics

When attempting to develop of physical theory, scientists follow the concepts defined in the scientific method. These are not hard and fast rules, but rather a set of guidelines that remind the scientist that great care must be used in carrying out the study of science

Introduction to the Scientific Method
Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
Idealized Models
Five Great Problems of Theoretical Physics
Classical Physics Laws

Some theories have weathered the test of time and moved from the realm of theoretical conjecture to become a cornerstone of the very foundation of scientific knowledge.

Major Laws of Physics
Introduction to Newton's Laws of Physics
Newton's Law of Gravity
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Laws of Thermodynamics
Modern Astronomical Theories

Some others are still being investigated.
etc... etc..ec..

Now if we agree here that research is ongoing, then I have no doubt that the future will tilt the balance towards " intelligent design" .

Astronomy, Quantum physics, Dianetics ... are fields which have a great deal of questions ... probably because it's so big! From the beginning of the universe until now, the universe is full of questions and scientists continue to search for answers.

Let us keep an eye on developments....
I will keep you posted.

Peace to you.

diamantinehoneybunch

I don't know why materialist atheists have to be so arrogant and boastful while sharing their science views.

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

Peace Student of Allah.

Thank you for your post..

Now can we agree that there are still " theories" out there being investigated by Science?

Yes, we may.

For example

Physics theories provide the basis upon which all of physics is built. As more theories are presented, experiments test them, attempting to falsify them and ultimately prove them ... but before this process can begin, the theory has to exist.
Fundamentals of Theoretical Physics

Classical Physics Laws
Modern Astronomical Theories
Quantum Physics
A Theory of Everything - Quantum Gravity Theory
Fundamentals of Theoretical Physics

Yes, nobody studying nature does not make it not exist. It was there before we gave a damn, it is here now and will be there tomorrow irrespective of our desire to give a damn and study it. But what is your point?

When attempting to develop of physical theory, scientists follow the concepts defined in the scientific method. These are not hard and fast rules, but rather a set of guidelines that remind the scientist that great care must be used in carrying out the study of science

Introduction to the Scientific Method
Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
Idealized Models
Five Great Problems of Theoretical Physics
Classical Physics Laws

Yes. But I don't see your point. May be you are just writing informative things for the sake of clarification.

Some theories have weathered the test of time and moved from the realm of theoretical conjecture to become a cornerstone of the very foundation of scientific knowledge.

Major Laws of Physics
Introduction to Newton's Laws of Physics
Newton's Law of Gravity
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Laws of Thermodynamics
Modern Astronomical Theories

Some others are still being investigated.
etc... etc..ec..

At this point I feel obliged to let you know that the theory of evolution has stood the test of time for 150+ years now. Charles Darwin set the ball rolling and in the past 150+ years we developed it further as new evidence/knowledge came in. All relevant works in the field of Biology, Molecular Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, Geology, Archaeology, etc in the last 150+ complemented and confirmed the predictions made by this theory. It is then no wonder why the scientific and academic arena accepts evolution along with other theories. The only reason I am writing this bit is so that you don't get to make it sound like evolution is just some random new hypothesis that we are unsure about.

Now if we agree here that research is ongoing, then I have no doubt that the future will tilt the balance towards " intelligent design" .

Your logic

Premise Scientific research is ongoing
Conclusion My "evidently wrong idea based on argument from ignorance" is correct as I have strong conviction that my idea is correct.

http//businessjournalism.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Statue-with-head-in-hands-by-Alex-E.-Proimos.jpg

No sir, I beg to differ. Just because everything in science is tentative does not mean that you are allowed to conclude that. Everything we know awaits disproving but that is not to say that therefore any other thing is true or is of comparable nature. Even if something as evidently false and irrational as intelligent design turns out to be right in the future, the time to believe in it is then, not now!! An equivalent example would be someone proving that it is actually the sun that orbits the earth and we somehow made some mistake because of some unknown thing about nature. Now, even if some individual can prove that sometime in the future, we are never justified in believing it now. Do you think I am justified in saying that "I have no doubt that the future will tilt the balance towards " sun orbiting the earth""?

This exposes another dishonest thing about creationism and some theists. They claim that they are seeking "TRUTH" but do their research backwards. They start with conclusion and try to find evidence instead of letting the evidence lead them up to the right conclusion. Below is a cartoon showing this asinine methodology

http//www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/Images/CA230_1Trever.gif

Peace

------------ Student of Allah

good_logic

Peace Student of Allah.

Let me give you a small problem from Evolutionist. Those who believe everything came from a single cell...i.e one species gradually becoming a different species...

For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.

As Darwin himself pointed out in his book, The Origin of Species

. . .he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Darwin, of course, attributed this problem to the imperfection of the fossil evidence, and the youthful state of paleontology. As the discipline matured, and as scientists found more fossils, the gaps would slowly start to fill.

Against the Evidence

But time has not been kind to Darwinism. Paleontologists have certainly found more fossils, but these fossils have only deepened the problem. As the fossils piled up, what paleontologists discovered was not gradual change, but stability and sudden appearance. It seems that most fossil species appear all at once, fully formed, and change very little throughout their stay in the fossil evidence.

This poses quite a challenge for Darwinist paleontologists. One such paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, put it this way

Either you stick to conventional theory despite the rather poor fit of the fossils, or you focus on the and say that looks like a reasonable model of the evolutionary process?in which case you must embrace a set of rather dubious biological propositions.

Large jumps are anathema to good Darwinists because they look too much like miracles. You just can't have, say, reptiles giving birth to birds.

Things get particularly bad with the Cambrian explosion, which paleontologists believe took place about 530 million years ago. In an instant of geological time, almost every animal phylum seemed to just pop into existence from nowhere.

To understand just how big an "explosion" this was, it might help to understand what a phylum is. A phylum (phyla for plural) is the broadest classification of animals there is. As opposed to a single species, like a chimpanzee, a miller moth, or a crow, a phylum takes in a wide variety of organisms.

The phylum that contains humans also contains elephants, squirrels, canaries, lizards, guppies, and frogs. Indeed, it contains every animal with a backbone?and then some.

If the differences within a phylum are vast, the differences between phyla are really wild. As much as a chimpanzee may differ from a fish, it differs even more radically from a sea urchin or a worm. In fact, you could say it's built on an entirely different architectural theme.

That's why the Cambrian Explosion is so troubling for Darwinists. What paleontologists find isn't just the sudden appearance of a few new species. What they find is the appearance of species so utterly distinct they have to be placed in completely different phyla.

Even Oxford zoologist and arch-Darwist Richard Dawkins has remarked, "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

As you can see ,these are Sciientists claims, not mine.

These are very weak facts , I am afraid no conclusions have been drawn from your argument either?

Peace to you

Worse yet, after the Cambrian Explosion, almost no new phyla appear in the fossil record?and many go extinct. By conventional dating, that's a 500 million year dry spell.

This is exactly the opposite of what Darwin would have predicted. According to Darwinism, new phyla are produced by the gradual divergence of species. As species split off from each other, they eventually become so dissimilar as to constitute a whole new body plan. Over time, then, we should see new species slowly appearing, followed by the much slower appearance of new phyla?what Havard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould calls a "cone of increasing diversity."