What exactly is ID?

We know that intelligence designed software codes. We know of no natural causes that can assemble a series of left handed amino acids into a complex, complimentary and specified informative organization in an abiogenesis model. RNA first models have five problems also. I have read that lateral gene transfer cannot explain higher more complex organisms such as plants.So ID is the result of an exhaustive process science has undergone.

What "software codes" are you referring to? If you are using the phrase to refer to biological systems that can be described through analogy as "software codes" (such as DNA), please provide some evidence that an intelligence designed these. The onus is on you (meaning ID proponents) to provide evidence for this. So you wish then to play "god-of-the-gaps" and say that, because we don't know (yet) of the specifical natural causes for abiogenesis, then there must have been an intelligent agent. This stance is unconvincing. No. ID is tantamount to throwing your hands up in the air and saying "well, it MUST be god then".

quote:

---

It's not my problem you simply asset that it could have gained a new function in that experiment. Nobody said it did gain it. So we have no reason to think it did. All we know it lost one.

---

In other words you claim that you don't need evidence to support your assertions.

quote:

---

Of course they do. Because not all patterns fit that description. And it just so happens that the 50 proteins that make the flagellum do.

---

No, they don't. They just happen to be the materials used to construct an object of that description.

quote:

---

It's a different sub-chapter. Anyway, we were not talking about hose 8 steps. I simply said I would define specification.

---

They aren't steps, they are definitions of terms used in the definition of specification. And that is why the quoted definition of specification was incomplete.

quote:

---

Does the flagellum fit the description of "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller"?

---

Since you aren't using "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" in your calculation it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how many specifications you can dream up. They don't matter until ypu make them the pattern in your probability calculations.

quote:

---

Than stop bothering me and do it yourself.

---

If you don't want to talk about it, or do the work yourself, then just give up on it. As I keep telling you the calculation is based on a fabrication anyway, so even fixing the error doesn't help you.

quote:

---

Both matter. You have to have an event from which one you will read off the pattern that it exhibits.

---

At least you have realised that you can read the pattern off of the event. Good, we are making progress in getting you to understand Dembski's method.
However, once you have the specification, the event itself is of no further relevance.

quote:

---

When, where and how?

---

In Message 368

quote:

---

Now that's too easy. It has a shaft, a rotor, a motor, a stator, it rotates in both directions, and it has a propeller.

---

So it doesn't specify 50 proteins or their structure. If that is a complete description of the E Coli flagellum then why does it leave out every factor used in your calculations ? How does it describe the E Coli flagellum but not any other flagellum ?

quote:

---

Again, if that were ture. Than living organisms themselves are a high probability event. Simply becasue they grow every single time from the embryo. Therefore, by your logic, they are not designed, neitehr is anything else.

---

Which only means that you cannot prove that living organisms are designed by just looking at individual organisms. That doesn't mean that nothing is designed. How would you apply your argument to the Caputo case ? Or to a similar case where 500 out of 500 results favoured a single party ?

quote:

---

And by your logic, I would claim that it is not human intelligence that made those objects, but their material hands. And than I would claim that when you take into account human hands, than a book or a letter is a high probability event. Which is insane.

---

That's not my logic, it's yours. If it's insane that's your problem.

quote:

---

No. If we went by your logic than nothing could be calculated. Not even the human eye, or anything else. Because it all grows from the embryo. Yet, for the billionth time, growth does nto account for the information that makes humans, it only expresses it.

---

And as I keep telling you, you have to calculate THAT information. And you refuse. And now you say that it can't be done or it will give a result that won't show design.
Well that's your problem.

quote:

---

And I'm talking about HIV resistance.

---

Yes, I thought that that was your mistake.

quote:

---

Both mutations are highly prevalent and fixed into their respective populations.

---

To be fixed it has to be more than "highly prevalent". Every copy of the gene in the entire population has to have the mutation. That will not happen for sickle-cell in any plausible scenario.
(And your Wikipedia reference shows rates of 5-14% in European populations for the CCR5-Δ32 mutation, which is not a long way from fixation).

So, the DI are a bunch of liars?Wow, who would have guessed?

Please list all the supernatural causes we know of that can do so.

The fact that ID is a load of crap comes immediately to mind. Thank you for admitting that.So not dying of malaria, or not dying of AIDS, is in fact a biological function. No, it is not in fact identical. Because those are two different things.Perhaps I should explain to you that things which are different are not identical. By definition, yes. That was my point. Oh, splendid. Then in that case you can demonstrate the method by doing no more work than copying and pasting something that you have already written.Go for it.Otherwise, people might begin to think that you're just pretending to know of such a method. They might start to think that you're just bluffing ... that you're a liar with nothing up your sleeve ... that you're bloviating because you have no substantial argument ... that you're a posturing halfwit who cannot even attribute meaning to your words ... that you're a big bag full of hot air who has been punctured and is sinking ... that you are a ludicrous fantasist trying desperately to escape reality ...But instead you assure us that you have already revealed this method where you put a DNA sequence in and get a number of bits out. And all you have to do to prove this is to quote the place where you did so.How fortunate you are.So, tell us all about it.You have a method where you feed a DNA sequence in, and get out a measure of information in bits. What is it?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This does not answer my question.I repeat. If someone designed trees, and designed the sun, and made trees before the sun, would that not be intelligent design?Your apologetics do not begin to answer this question. I did not say that, and I cannot understand what mental contortions allowed you to misunderstand me so thoroughly. At which point I have to wonder whether you are deliberately and cynically dishonest, or whether you are incurably stupid, or whether you are just insane. This does not answer the question that I asked, which I shall repeat.Is common descent an argument for ID? At which point I should ask you again: Who told you this absurd lie and why did you believe them?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Does that assumption bring you closer to a model that matches reality or does it just give you more places to hide fuzziness? Thoughts on the nature of the designer(s) are useless without some sort of real evidence of their existence. The Rosetta Stone tells us who ordered the stone and why, we don't assume that the priests who say they caused the stela to be erected did so themselves but that they had a workforce of able stoneworkers available. The other stonework in the area attests to that. The stone doesn't tell us exactly who carved it, so if you wish to make the point that it was created by an unknown designer you can, but we do know certain properties of that designer: the designer was skilled in carving neat text into stone. Sure it would be nice to know the names of the people who actually carved it, but that information is not available. Do you expect us to throw up our hands and say that we can't know anything about the Rosetta Stone because we don't know the name of the stone carver?In comparison with the first section, we have physical evidence that stone carvers worked in Egypt during the period the Rosetta Stone was made. Ptah himself may have brought the stone into existence fully formed, but we have more believable scenarios available. It appears that your idea of an unambiguous natural explanation must rule out the actions of an entity with unrestrained supernatural abilities. How can the actions of such a being be ruled out when we can simply say that the designer chose to do things in a way that left no evidence?I can't see any way to falsify that position. Frankly I don't see the need to falsify a conjecture that has presented no evidence in support and is construed in a manner to make such falsification impossible. The properties and the limitations of the designer are not given, and there is no way to systematically reconcile the properties of the design with those of an ineffable designer. That was not ad hominem, just straight truth. The Wedge Document and the switchover of "Of Pandas and People" from creationist to intelligent design language give direct evidence that ID is nothing more than repackaging of creationism. If there are people who support ID for purely scientific reasons then I would advise them to cut off all contact with those who have shown themselves as liars trying to hide their religious agenda. People will tend to associate you with the company you keep. I didn't say that Chaos theory is simple, but I do know that as system complexity increases the abstraction of the model must also increase or you're left with unworkable equations. The simple reason why is that there is no way to mathematically define whatever we're saying was designed as a dynamical system in terms which can be used to apply appropriate formulae.Remember, I'm not the one making the claim that Chaos Theory has application in supporting ID, you are. It is the responsibility of those who try to make the case to support it, not just pop off a smart-sounding buzzword that few understand as a trick to make people think there's support for your ideas where none exists. A meaningful answer would have been more helpful, especially considering your complaint about engaging the substance of the argument above. Care to try again?

I am referring to the A,C,G, and Ts found along the spine of DNA as they are sequenced in specified order in order to provide for the structure, functions, and coordination of proteins found in the first living cell. You are entitled to your point of view. I notice you have the word in brackets (yet). This suggests you believe it is only a matter of time before science proves you right. Isn't this nothing more than "faith" in something? I can say your position is tantamount to throwing up your hands in the air and saying "well, there MUST be a naturalistic explanation." Some may now think neither position has an edge but I would beg to differ. I think my position has the edge because I know that intelligence is capable to designing things natural processes cannot.If it wasn't for scientists like Watson and Crick, Stephen Meyer and others would never have been able to articulate the ID position of the complex code in DNA. So did science close previous "god of the gaps" arguments or did it open new ones in the cases of this code and irreducibly complex structures?Also, I remind you, there are other areas of interest where ID has based its arguments on. The fine-tuning of our terrestrial environment and in the physics of the universe and the irregular patterns in the fossil record are other places where ID has arguments.

No, I don't think so. The example does not follow the empirical procedure ID should conform to. Is it design? "Yes". Is it intelligent? It seems to be an unintelligent process but, who am I to question the mind of an intelligence powerful enough to do something like that? I don't know why you would come to these conclusions especially since that was a cut and paste from an evolutionary scientist.If you wish to explain feel free to do so. According to you I could be having mental contortions or I am just cynically dishonest or incurably stupid, or just insane. You're the doctor! What is your diagnosis? I showed you the quote from the "Edge of Evolution". I think common descent could be an argument for either natural processes or ID. We know part of neo-Darwinism is based on random mutations. What does random imply? It implies there was or is no designer. Right? Does this sound crazy?If and when random processes can no longer explain life then, new hypotheses could open up more room for a designer to be involved. You can explain why I am wrong if you wish to do so. You're the doctor. This patient doesn't mind your professional diagnosis being posted on this forum.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I'm not sure where it is going. Nothing wrong with a little history lesson. I don't think hidden implies totally undetectable. I think when something is hidden we could find clues as to where it exists or if it did exist or leave some sort of evidence behind. And I think you are wrong on this one. I think you are guilty of the fallacy by judging ID by your perceived character of certain individuals and not fully judged the evidence in itself. Let the evidence be debated because everyone has a motive but motives are irrelevant to accessing the validity of the evidence. I will agree with you there. I have explained that I do not necessarily believe everything I post but I offer it as an avenue of exploration to anyone who wishes to go there. I thought it was a meaningful answer but I believe (based on your post and especially this quote): I have the impression you are someone who would require physical documention for the existence of the designer(s) in order to believe in one or them. Therefore, my answer would be, "No".., Why would I wish to even continue to try?

Dr. A isn't available right now, he had to leave the office unexpectedly. But I believe what he was trying to stress for you, in his own inimitable way, is that in many many well-attested cases it has been seen that a number of people who have attached themselves to the ID movement do not act in an honest manner. You are going to need to sift the wheat from the chaff very carefully when using these sites, even when they appear to be quoting real scientists. Aren't these exact places, very conveniently, the areas where such "gaps" appear? And these gaps are then systematically closed. Isn't it a little disrespectful to any real deity that might be out there to continually associate him with things that are soon to be explained away, thereby only casting further doubt on his person? There are two kinds of faith, that espoused by Luther, consisting of blind belief; and that advanced by Paul, in which belief is a tool to get at the evidence for things unseen. The one is delusion, the other a concise summary of the scientific method. These gaps do close. Believe it!

What evidence do you have that the first living cell contained DNA? Besides, you still haven't told me about your supporting evidence for the conclusion that an intelligence designed DNA. If you mean "faith" in the sense of "a high level of confidence based on its previous track record", then yes, but since the primary definition of faith is "belief without evidence", then no, I wouldn't call it faith. It may be that science never explains abiogenesis completely. That does not mean "god did it". Ah but you see, that's what science does - it says "well there must be a naturalistic explanation" - if it did not do that, it wouldn't be science, it would be religion. You base your concept of intelligence on mankind. Wouldn't you think a supreme being would have an intelligence beyond your imagination? If "he" did have such an intelligence, don't you think he could've done a better job at design? We are so very prone to disease and decay - this designer doesn't seem so intelligent after all.

If you can think of a more simple model for protein replication starting from something else other than DNA them I am sure science would love to hear about it. I don't see them parading the old theory on origin of life from the Russian scientist Aleksandr Oparin. I think the Stanley-Miller experiment has gone out of favor also.Science believes but, has not proven, the minimal complexity for the most simple of cells would have at least 250 to 400 genes. I believe intelligence best explains it. We know intelligence can assemble complex machinery. You apparently believe naturalistic theories will one day explain it. Well then, "May your science serve you well." Ah, the perfection argument. I believe in adequacy and not perfection. When you are dealing with perfection, how perfect does perfect have to be? Once something is perfect then, what are its capabilities? Once its capabilities are established then, can't it out do itself because it is perfect?I think we have deviated from design here in America and may other places around the globe. I eat a lot of raw food and my body has been tested and found to have over three times the antioxidants the average American has. When most people get older they can't digest their food because they have worn their systems out. For one thing their bodies don't produce as much hydrochloric acid than they once did.

That's OK. I still have the ability to choose my own doctor here in the states but not for long. I hope Master Yoda will forgive me. I think the whole debate can be simplified into naturalism vs. something beyond it.