Does complexity require intelligent design?

An alternative theory is that the designer used the same techniques and materials to create different life forms, just as we use steel to create buildings and automobiles. Knowledge gained and verified by exact observation, organized experiment, and analysis? It may not fit all those criteria, however there are other theories that do not meet them either, that have gained common acceptance. For instance the "Big Bang" theory. I disagree, logic involves reasoning and inference, and some conclusions may be implied, especially when there is no direct evidence contradicting them. That every effect that we have observed has had a cause, does not state that we have observed everything that has happened, and does not preclude the possibility of something existing without a cause. The why do we exist question can be rephrased as: "Why does anything exist?" The evidence that suggests a definite starting point in time for the expanding universe implies a creative, or causative force. I should have made myself easier to understand, forgive me. My point was that the complexity of the simplest living cells is far beyond our ability to assemble, even with the technology to create virtually any environment and any combination of chemical compounds, so to assume that chance produced the same incredibly complex, interdependent, life forms, is not logical. Is that silly?

We're not talking about "materials", though; we're talking about genetic errors and mistakes being passed down through generations. There's no reason for a designer to copy his own mistakes from one organism to another, now is there?The shared function argument simply doesn't apply here because what we're detecting are homologous, plagarized errors. No, it really doesn't. Yes, it's silly. Natural selection acting on random mutation is considerably more creative than human intelligence. That's why we've learned to apply those processes to the design process.

I'm making an effort to stay on topic. I will at some point enter the fray again, perhaps in Schraf's new thread. It is rather difficult to respond to so many different debaters at the same time.

I would really like to discuss the causes and the theory but it will have to be in another thread, and my free time limits me to participating in one at a time.

Coded material fed to a computer or communications system. Specifically the information that controls the formation, development, and the 5000 or so chemical processes necessary for each cell to perform it's specialized function, and repair and reproduce itself.

This betrays a misunderstanding of cellular processes. "Information" does not control this function; rather, genetic sequences of nucleotides do, by chemically catalyzing the formation of the proteins in question.

"...Evolution cannot be tested, yet as you see it has many faithful believers asserting it is a "proven" theory..."Who says evolution can't be tested? It is tested all the time. Scientists propose theories and then look for evidence that supports or discredits their theory. For example, anthropologists theorize that if evolution is real, there should be a fossil record showing steps in the evolutionary path. While not every piece of every evolutionary path has been found, many steps that appear to be part of many evolutionary paths have been found. This is an example of testing evolution."...Regardless of the claims made elsewhere in this thread, when that code is tampered with, the observed results are always deleterious..." Always? Genetic manipulation in plants has produced pest resistant hybrids, and protein enhanced grains. You can argue about GenMod foods being deleterious in the long run, but right now there is no proof that these examples are dangerous."...There is no evidence of a mutation causing perfect eyesight or super strength..."This assertion has been directly refuted, which I think is kinda funny, but I did know about the super kid. My thought is that a mutation would not have to cause perfect eyesight to be an improvement, would it? Simply an improvement over the likely eyesight that a kid would have due to the genes of their parents could be an example of a beneficial mutation..."...The information contained in the simplest of life forms is so complex that it led Sir Fred Hoyle to conclude that life could not have risen by chance on this planet..."And a good magic trick can convince a four year old that quarters can be pulled out of their ears. Just because Sir Hoyle was stumped doesn't provide proof of ID, it just provides proof of the limits of Sir Hoyle and his research methods.My question is this, you start to examine the simplest forms of life. You learn how they reproduce, you learn about their chemical make-up, you do your best to learn about previous generations of the species, and so on. While the researcher may posit questions they are unable to answer, that is not evidence of the divine. I am looking for an example where a question is answered with an specific indication of divine means. What I see presented are claims that lack of another answer confirms the divine... That is a very different claim."...And I was postulating that His existence fits best with the evidence that we have..."Huh? Every person you have ever known was born from the sexual union of two other humans. So, how does that empirical evidence support the idea that the first two humans were created divinely? Everywhere we look in the universe we see examples of the birth, life and death of stars, planets and solar systems. Where have we ever seen the hand of God at work?"..Im glad that someone agrees with me about morality. Sometimes I think that my positions get attacked on this site merely because they are my positions..."I truly hope that your positions are not attacked, but that your assertions are challenged by evolutionists and creationists, whenever they seek more understanding.Citizzzen

---

The message is ended, go in peace.

I think that in a thread discussing ID the term 'plagiarised' adds an unneccessary note of anthropomoprhism to the processes of evolution.TTFN,WK

I was under the impression that was the technical term. I'm amienable to correction on this issue, however.

You may be right, I may just have never come across it personally. A quick scan of google and Pubmed haven't shown anything, but that is hardly conclusive.Is there a particular context in which you are familiar with its use?TTFN,WK

Well, if I understand what you and the frog are jumping through, I would think that that "plagerized" DOES add a sense of anthropomorphism (but perhaps I didnt follow this thread back far enough).I was looking at Nelson and Plantick's SYSTMATICS AND BIOGEOGRAPHY once again and in trying to square the triple use of CROIZAT, HENNIG, and POPPER by these authors it is clear IN THAT CONTEXT (of what evolution is) this-that, while Popper (in Evolution and the Tree of Knowledge in OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE an evolutionary approach)

quote:

---

Now it is important that the simulated explanation - that is, Newton's theory - may be described as an approximation to Einstein'stheory and to the truth. The theory of natural selection proceeds in a similar way. In particular case it starts from a simplified model-situation - a situtation consisting of certain species in certain environmental conditions - and it tries to show why, iin this situation, certain mutatyions would have survivial value."

---

p269Oxford1972to me at least, that, whatever the physical relation of Newton and Einstein are to change biologically, plagerized"" goes beyond what is needed to have been said in CRITICISM, because if a "mutation" in this same sense of 'truth' is a "mistake"(it) might indeed make sense in the model but not the simulation etc. I just register my point though (Nelson and Platnick think that time is tested by form and space by time but I hold to form by time and time by space, but some of this WOULD depend on what Kuhn said about the same physically (that in analogy the mutation would not be a "mistake". Boyd disagreed)). I dont know without feedback if this is exactly what yous' guys are talking about?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-06-2005 08:34 AM

I think that you are taking your analysis to a somewhat more abstruse level than what Crash and I were discussing.Certainly if one thinks of mutations as mistakes, in spelling for instance, then there is a clear analogy between tracing the plagiarism of a text from mistakes common to the original and the copy, but this is still an analogy and not a technical description of the comparison of 2 genetic sequences.TTFN,WK*added by edit* there is a FAQ at TalkOrigins which discusses this analogy in some detail.This message has been edited by Wounded King, 04-06-2005 10:33 AM

Yeah, this context. Molecular biology. Like I said I could be wrong. I'll see if I can find the usage in one of my wife's textbooks later on.

There is no reason for a designer to copy mistakes from one generation to another but there is for an undesigner if one took the notion of ID at the level where 1-D time symmetries are not cashed out FIRST in terms of the fossil record as Nelson did for divine Providence in Lyell @ natrual process of endemism&this will be particularly evident in molecular biology.If one had accepted the comparisons I made
EvC Forum: How can evolution explain body symmetry?
of the 1D Fibonacci substitution system to Echinoderm ontogeny and phylogeny then an undesigned mistake that might alter the 1-D substitutions might be passed on in the simulation that WOULD thus model the change out of "thin air" but NOT by GOD. This is the same response to Geneger in the above thread We would have to discuss the god of Newton's General Scholium, the elsastic and electric Spirit, and Mathematical Additions by Cantor to Kant's "categories" of science(and geometric and algebraic analogies per Sausarrian signs etc) for any copyerrror transmission vs plagerized distribtion etc etc.The "plagerism" analogy works if FORM is tested by time ONLY if the above model IS. You all question that what I present IS. So I'll take the opposite in the mole bio case and say that TIME is tested by FORM but then palgerism as NOT an analogy, I was willing to consider, is but a duplication or copy only and there is no way "to trace" across dittos the plagerized vs the mistakes unless the 1-D temporalities be admitted which Nelson cashed out using Popper which can only be returned by the approixmation which we said is on too abstruse a level that is not the ID level but instead are cashed IN by popular notions and we are back at my contribution seemingly a plagerized version of reality rather than the futuristic contribution it is not.Now I see why you thought no one would be begrudged by avoiding my contributions and now I see that you were mistaken.There is a difference between the undesigned and not designed by carbon. One can even INTEND a shared function by cashing out instead 1-D symmetry temporally per endemism and find homologies in the relation of space tested by time or time tested by space as functionality across materials provided the relation of space and translation in space is not counterindicated. This the need for actual sequences to discuss further. But materials and genetic mistakes might acuire the same logic where triple errors are possible.Yes ID would be "beyond" science. but the expansion of science to meet ID seemed to be missed by a less intricate analysis. It seems to me that ALL the reasons for people reading the 74 SYSZOO article dissing centers of origin by Nelson and Croizat (which Croizat later repudiated) lay in the linguistic use of rejecting special creation by divine Providence as some others were using Lyell to do during the 1800s. The interconversion of material and plagerized material certainly works witout creationism.The space testing time might introduce mutations in forms testing approximations of time testing form provided the statstical realtion of the attributes across generations are fixed by a ratio. In that way the model and simulation can be the same thing. They might not be.Now it true that if one starts with Pink's species one is not necessarily involved with Nelsons' as I have worked up but Xevolutionist would still have his/her point. The issue is however suffiency not absolutely. I fugured this out by following the negatives against Xevolutionist not the postitives in that point.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-06-2005 11:34 AM

Where do you get that we have the technology to create ANY environment and ANY combination of chemical compounds? Or even if we did have the technology, which we don't yet, we haven't even scratched the surface of what is possible. If we were done "creating virtually environment and any compound" then there wouldn't be much use for the science of chemistry, would there? Everyone would be a chemical technician reading recipes. We are steadily progressing to the point where we can synthesize things that resemble cells, but we can't get anywhere near synthesizing the genome of even the simplest life forms. Peptide synthesis is making progress, but getting above a 20-mer peptide is very difficult. So far synthesizing (de novo) whole proteins is impossible for us without using some existing cellular machinery. We also couldn't possibly synthesize a ribosome today, even though we want to really bad like. The best we can do is to synthesize some part of a protein, nucleic acid, or other macromolecule.