Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

Heres a test, get two dogs and see what kind of animals they give birth to. I think it will be a dog? All animal make whats in their kind just as god said. We have seen this and it is repeatable. Now if you want to believe animals can make animals outside their kind you can, but by using science, it is telling us they can't. I'm sticking with science. Thats just a simple test.This message has been edited by Indiana Jones, 04-07-2006 05:01 PMThis message has been edited by Indiana Jones, 04-07-2006 05:02 PMThis message has been edited by Indiana Jones, 04-07-2006 05:04 PM

We're glad you dropped by but your post has nothing to do with the topic and seems to show that you don't have a clue what the Theory of Evolution says.We try to keep posters somewhat on topic, and this thread is in one of our Science forums and is on whether or not ID can be tested at all. Your post has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not ID can be tested.If you would like to discuss the basics of what the theory of Evolution really says, I can try to arrange a mentored discussion between you and one other poster. If that would be of interest to you just reply to this message using the LGRB (the Little Green Reply Button) found in the lower right of each message and I'll try to get it set up for you.Again, welcome to EvC. We're glad you dropped in. At the end of this message will be some links to threads that might make your stay here more enjoyable.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-07-2006 04:17 PM

---

Jar has already ruled this off-topic, but I will add something:

quote:

---

Now if you want to believe animals can make animals outside their kind you can....

---

Actually, the Theory of Evolution agrees that animals do not make animals outside their kind. In fact, it is based on this observation. Do you find this interesting? If so, I invite you to bring this question to the appropriate thread. You might be surprised at what the Theory of Evolution really is.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Wow - Indiana Jones has replied to one of my threads Welcome!

---

The test you propose does not test 'specified complexity', which is the nature of the test I was proposing in the post you were responding to here.

Let me try something different. I suppose you know what enzymes are and how they function. Enzymes are proteins. Proteins cannot be synthesized.It is avery complex proces.We have succeeded in synthesizing peptides. This itself is very complex.Protein synthesis also includes enzymes. Enzymes have very unique features. That is every enzyme has an active center. The sequence of amino acids and their spatial orientation are highly specific. This unique structure of the active site attributes to the specificity of enzymes (substrates).They also have activators. They also have inhibitors. Some of the products of the enzyme action also regulate the rate of the reaction. This applies to one enzyme. For example, inside the cell there are hundreds of such enzymes each one specifically catalysing a particular reaction. Glucose is oxidised to Carbon dioxide and water. This process produces energy for various cellular activities. Glucose enters the cell through the action of insulin. It is converted to Fructose di phosphate. After a series of reactions, it is converted into lactate if oxygen is absent. In the presence of oxuygen, this is converted into pyruvic acid which enters the mitochondria where it is oxidised to carbon dioxide and water. This is a factory within the cell where hormones regulate the inflow of metabolites as well as some enzymes and are transported into various compartments and finally energy is generated in the form of ATP. If man has to simulate this operation, it requires enormous space, chemical engineers to design the plant and mechanical and electrical engineers to construct various parts of the plant and it has to be powered on and regulated.This itself is a complex operation.Inside our body, this is miniaturized at the microlevel. If this is not complex, what will be complex?

So its complex, and?You seem to have answered Ramoss's meta question in that you can't answer his actual question, still. You are making the same mistake you were making last month. Do you not think it might be worth your while finding out what the distinction is between 'complexity' and 'irreducible complexity'(IC), if you plan to base your arguments on IC.TTFN,WK

If you cannot understand what I wrote, I will have to repeat what I said before which is a waste of time and energy.I will say this one more time. Irreducible complexity is the superlative expression of complexity.This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 04-27-2006 08:39 PM

If you had read any of the books by the IDists you would know that this, too, is utterly wrong!In fact, something rather simple can meet the definitions of IC that are given.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-27-2006 08:40 PM

I am not writing anything based on the ID books. I even contradict them. Alright let us assume that nothing in this universe is complex. Everything is too simple and even a fool can understand everything.If everything is so simple, then why is it that no one has ever synthesized a living cell yet? It should not be a problem at all for all our Scientific "genies".

Well of course, in the not too distant future, cells will be synthesises (and possibly it depends on what you mean by synthesised since novel types of cells have certainly been created).But I don't really understand your point in relation to the testability of ID. Because we have not achieved the synthesis of a cell from atomic or molecular components, then this is a test for ID? If (when) such cells are synthesised then we have demonstrated that ID is not correct? Can you clarify how your statement relating to cell synthesis can be seen as being a test ?

In your first post you analogy of Chip v Cell was all about pure storage capacity. (How many copies of the Encyclopaedia Britannica an organism could store.)I’m assuming that Dawkins and, by quoting him, you take ”store’ to mean that if the base pairs could be arranged to code for text and pictures then there is enough base pairs in a human cell to code for the EB a few times over, more in other organisms.As we know to measure the size of a text in terms of bytes for computer storage that give a direct measurement in Giga or Tera Bytes for the ”theoretical’ storage capacity of any organism.If this storage concept is a valid measure of complexity then for ID purposes you will always be able to remove storage capacity. In these terms complexity will only be irreducible if the organism has zero storage capacity, but then of course it would not exist.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-30-2006 06:14 PM

because we havn't yet? what kind of question is that? we are just starting to understand the structures of the cell, what does this have to really do with IC?
if ID is to be thought of as a better theory than the ToE and abiogenesis,it has to answer questions neather of the others can, and answer questions it claims why the others are wrong.
if IC is the reason why ToE is not the answer we have to have an understanding of what IC is first!This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-30-2006 08:47 PM

That's an argument against ID. Thus far we have no evidence that an intelligent designer could design a living cell. Perhaps a living cell is the kind of thing that could only arise via evolution.

My question is not a test of ID. This is a challege to those who insist that there is no complexity inside the cell and even "Irreducible Complexity"This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 05-01-2006 10:22 PM

yes and no.. people question the useage of complexity, what does it mean how do we measure it, what can we measure it agenst? Till you can tell us what complexity is and with it IC the term is meaningless and a faulty argumentThe ball is in your court, YOU have to come up with something, its not our job to prove you wrong, you have to show you are right