What Would Scientific Evidence for Guidance in Evolution Look Like?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

It is considered relevant and decisive within the scientific community

And?
ID is not promoted within the scientific community.
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander
You get off your horse, I will get off my Donkey
Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

ID is not promoted within the scientific community.

Then why do you complain about scientists ignoring ID? If ID proponents can’t make a scientific case then you can’t blame the scientific community for ignoring a scientific argument that isn’t being made.

@RichardG

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander

Apparently, that isn’t the case. The ToE can address and explain the genetic data. So why shouldn’t ID?

@RichardG

You get off your horse, I will get off my Donkey

I see no reason to ignore the evidence.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

I see no reason to ignore the evidence.

Well there you go then. you have made up your mind. No discussion possible.

Goodbye

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

Well there you go then. you have made up your mind. No discussion possible.

You accuse scientists of wearing blinkers, and then get upset when scientists refuse to ignore the evidence. Perhaps it isn’t the scientists who are wearing the blinkers.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

You accuse scientists of wearing blinkers,

Absolutely. You have decided what your evidence means. No further discussion.
No other view is “allowed”. No other interpretation of the data.

Until or unless you change that dogma there is no discussion.

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

Absolutely. You have decided what your evidence means. No further discussion.

I have asked you to discuss this evidence many, many times. You won’t discuss it. I have asked over and over for the ID or creationist explanation for this evidence. I have yet to see one.

It isn’t me that is stopping further discussion.

@RichardG

No other view is “allowed”. No other interpretation of the data.

No other view or interpretation is being given.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

No other view or interpretation is being given.

And the world started 30 seconds ago.

It has been given, again, and again, and again, and ignored. I am not going there again. Your view has not changed and, apparently will not change. There can be no discussion while that is the case.

Discussion means listening and trying to understand You do not have to agree, but you do have to understand. I have seen no evidence that you even try.

(I do not wish to continue this)

Richard

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

It has been given, again, and again, and again, and ignored.

No, it hasn’t. Not ever.

@RichardG

Discussion means listening and trying to understand You do not have to agree, but you do have to understand. I have seen no evidence that you even try.

Discussion means addressing the evidence which you refuse to do.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

Discussion means

I was just having a discussion with @Christy about definitions. It would appear that we do not even agree and what constitutes a discussion, we ae so far apart.

I really do want this spat to stop. It is going nowhere.

Richard

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

It has been given, again, and again, and again, and ignored.

No, it hasn’t. Not ever.

Clarifying Intelligent Design

Why Scientists reject Intelligent Design

Article on what Intelligent Design Should mean
Epistemology of Intelligent Design. When will they realize

How many more examples d you want?

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

How many more examples d you want?

In which of those threads is there an explanation for this evidence?

First, there is an excess of transitions (i.e. T<>C/G<>A). Why? Next, why does the spectrum of de novo human mutations match human genetic variation and also match the differences between the human and chimp genomes?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

In which of those threads is there an explanation for this evidence?

I give up!

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

I give up!

I haven’t given up. I am still willing to hear the ID explanation for that data. I am more than willing to continue a discussion. It isn’t me who is stopping this discussion.

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

The evolutionary process is manifested in the macro world not the micro one.

It’s manifested in both.

@RichardG

You are no closer to understanding why or how the deviation (Mutations) occur than they were before Genetics was a thing.

Um, what??? That goes against middle school biology, let alone university level!

@T_aquaticus

If ID proponents can’t make a scientific case then you can’t blame the scientific community for ignoring a scientific argument that isn’t being made.

. . . any more than one should blame the school guidance counselor for the results of the pep squad’s bake sale.

@RichardG

No discussion possible.

When you aren’t interested in evidence, there’s no discussion anyway, just noise.

[Apistos]

@CSTR

I do find more promise in positive cases for design in the universe that do not rely on gaps in our scientific knowledge. An example of this would be the simulation hypothesis or Frank Tipler’s Omega Point Theory. I am not saying I agree with either of these positions, but the fact that they make predictions that can in theory be tested rather than just pointing out gaps in existing theories makes them more interesting to me scientifically than most of what comes out of the ID movement.

Yeahhhhh. We just have to wait a hundred trillion (10^14) years, for a start, when the stelliferous era ends. Maybe sometime before the black hole era (10^40), the in silico minds near absolute zero, not swallowed up, will have achieved that. That’ll test it.

[CSTR (Caleb Strom)]

Actually, in the case of Frank Tipler’s Omega Point theory, there are specific predictions about the expansion of the universe which could be tested with redshift measurements. The current evidence suggests that the universe is not the right shape for the Omega theory to work, since the Omega Point theory requires that the universe will close back in on itself. The current view is that the universe will keep expanding forever, though that may change with JWST measurements. Omega Point Theory is a fairly easy model to test. It is just that it currently fails based on the available data.

[Apistos]

When? Even, especially, seeing that the expansion of space is slowing.

[CSTR (Caleb Strom)]

True, recent evidence shows that the expansion of the universe might be slowing down, which is more promising for the Omega Point Theory.

[Apistos]

How? When? Dyson, a creationist, got there first. It’s all utter nonsense. We’re as advanced[, as complex] as anything gets. We can’t even build a space elevator. [It doesn’t look like anyone has, as it would transform individual star systems.]