A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

John Paul has been asked before if there is even one case where ID can identify "design" in nature, if the answer hasn't been previously known or assumed. So far, he's been unable to find one.Can anyone do this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
... Each 'interpreter' brings their own context,
history, etc. to the interpretive act. ...

---

Indeed. There are approximately 600 interpretive organizations (denominations) of Christianity with more than a hundred English language translations of the Bible from which to choose.Some denominations have produced Bible "translations" of their own, tailored to their specific doctrinal needs. These so-called "new" translations change words and meanings; and squeeze out small, washed, brains which come here to beat the bleaching bones of that proverbial dead horse.

Interesting discussion you had a while ago. Im a creationist.
A good definition of microevolution and impossible macroevolution would be this:Every individuals in a created kind have the same protein transduction pathways, one spieces might have LOST a protein transduction pathway or the protein transduction pathways might be linked to each other by mutations. (Testosterone give rise to a mane in lions but not to other cats.)That is for example protein chains producing cells that have even more different protein system.There might be arised dubble genes or one or a few extra proteins acting together with these ordinary vitally important systems. An extra protein change the regulation. That protein might cause a shortnosed dog like a pekingese, like a cat.But the cats have a more flexible spine. This might be due - (I dont know. But I would like to know) - to many different proteins acting together. If the cats have this protein system and the dogs doesnt, it shows 2 different kinds.I discuss this more at the evolution-forum.

If we could pinpoint an event where the likelyhood of many of the different kinds of organisms coming to be would dramatically increase from close to zero to close to 100 percent then that would be a design or creation event IMO.But then I guess most everything would look designed to some degree by such a theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
If we could pinpoint an event where the likelyhood of many of the different kinds of organisms coming to be would dramatically increase from close to zero to close to 100 percent then that would be a design or creation event IMO.

​

But then I guess most everything would look designed to some degree by such a theory.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

I don't like the use of chance in the above, and the sudden
emergence of man kinds would just be am emergence event.Now if ALL kinds appeared at the same time, we might have a
suggestion of arrival that would indicate creation.

This is a good link for those deists out there. If you want to see a good argument against ID then read this Page not found | Skeptical InquirerRead the whole post if you wish but I'd like to point out this specifically:This is in reference to Behe's problem with cell functions."The problem with this statement is that it is contradicted by the available literature on comparative studies in microbiology and molecular biology, which Behe conveniently ignores (Miller 1996). For example, geneticists are continuously showing that biochemical pathways are partly redundant. Redundancy is a common feature of living organisms where different genes are involved in the same or in partially overlapping functions. While this may seem a waste, mathematical models show that evolution by natural selection has to produce molecular redundancy because when a new function is necessary it cannot be carried out by a gene that is already doing something else, without compromising the original function..."Great website to check out. There are quite a few refutations of ID and IC in the site."Evolution is a fact: It is the mechanism that is debatable."

RC: So...does 1 + 1 = 2?It depends on the math you are using. There is a branch of mathematics where 1 + 1 does not equal 2. I apologize that I don't remember the branch of mathematics where this is true and I can't find the reference for this(its late im tired ). Any mathmaticians out there who know?[This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-08-2003]

Dear DBlevins,DB to Sonnike:
Is it me or is the argument from design answer getting old?PB: It is you.Concerning your mail:DB:
This is a good link for those deists out there. If you want to see a good argument against ID then read this
Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer
Read the whole post if you wish but I'd like to point out this specifically:DB: This is in reference to Behe's problem with cell functions.PB: Didn't know Behe had a problem with his cell functions.DB: "The problem with this statement is that it is contradicted by the available literature on comparative studies in microbiology and molecular biology, which Behe conveniently ignores (Miller 1996). For example, geneticists are continuously showing that biochemical pathways are partly redundant. Redundancy is a common feature of living organisms where different genes are involved in the same or in partially overlapping functions. While this may seem a waste, mathematical models...PB: math is like evolutionism: a tautology. [And it is no science, at least, according to the evo's on this board. It is an art, so they say.]DB (cont): ...show that evolution by natural selection has to produce molecular redundancy because when a new function is necessary it cannot be carried out by a gene that is already doing something else, without compromising the original function..."Great website to check out. There are quite a few refutations of ID and IC in the site.PB: Great website full of outdated information, you mean. The most compelling evidence for design ARE genetic (molecular) redundancies (GR). Since you are new here: GR are not associated with gene duplications and are not mutating with an increased rate compared to essential genes. Thus, evolutionary predictions are clearly not true, and GR stand as clearcut evidence for design. If you wanna know more about this topic, I recommend to read my threads and all scientific references therein.D: "Evolution is a fact: It is the mechanism that is debatable."PB:
"Genetic variation is a fact: the mechanisms that perform this are present in the genome. Evolution from microbe to man is a fairytale".
The problem with evolutionists is that they only have one term for several unequal phenomena: evolution. Change of a nucleotide: evolution. Deletion of DNA region: evolution. Duplication of a region: evolution. Selection against mutation carriers: evolution. Selection of antibiotic resistant micro-organism during permanent constraint: evolution. Changing gene frequencies in populations: evolution. And then they start to extrapolate. If this than also microbe to man: evolution. The fossil record: evolution.
If evolutionism was a science they would have discriminated between the two mechanisms. They don't since it is convenient to point at the one mechanism as proof for the other.
However, microbe to man evolution is a never observed inference --not even a good one-- from the fossil record, it is not backed up by what we now know about genomes, since all the mechanisms that induce variation are already pre-existent in the genome.And who are the preformationists you talked about in another thread. All characteristics preexisting in the genome, I assume. But who wrote on the topic?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-08-2003]

quote:

---

The problem with evolutionists is that they only have one term for several unequal phenomena: evolution.

​

Change of a nucleotide: evolution.
Deletion of DNA region: evolution.
Duplication of a region: evolution.

---

No, mutations all.

quote:

---

Selection against mutation carriers: evolution.
Selection of antibiotic resistant micro-organism during permanent constraint: evolution.

---

No this is selection.

quote:

---

Changing gene frequencies in populations: evolution.

---

OK ... now that's a modern definition of evolution. I still
prefer 'trait frequency', but I'm in a minority I think

quote:

---

And then they start to extrapolate.

---

The problem with extrapolation being ...?

quote:

---

If this than also microbe to man: evolution.
The fossil record: evolution.

---

The fossil record isn't evolution ... it is as evolution
would expect to find it. ie. it supports the evolutionary
theory.Microbe to man is a reasonable extrapolation given the
developmental trends seen in fossil data.

quote:

---

If evolutionism was a science they would have discriminated between the two mechanisms. They don't since it is convenient to point at the one mechanism as proof for the other.
However, microbe to man evolution is a never observed inference --not even a good one-- from the
fossil record, it is not backed up by what we now know about genomes, since all the mechanisms
that induce variation are already pre-existent in the genome.

---

What like radiation, chemical mutagens, viral agents, and that
sort of thing?You say that microbe->man evo. has never been seen ... but
then tell us what was in the first genome(s). You have much
less evidence for your case than evo. does for its.

quote:

---

The most compelling evidence for design ARE genetic (molecular) redundancies (GR). Since you are new here:
GR are not associated with gene duplications

---

I still do not understand why this is of relevence to
the design argument.There are segments of DNA within genomes which, if removed
do not effect the viability of the organism. This has been
shown. RNA interference can even produce such an effect
either temporarily (as in experiments with mice with glowy liver
cells) or permanently (as with attempts to make violets more
violet by genetic engineering).If we can accept that nucleotide bases can be added to DNA
sequences by copy errors even without gene duplication, then
what more do we need?If evolution is to occur at all there must be some function
which is not required for life, but that may provide an
advantage to life in some situations ... ooh we do ... we
have GR's!!!

quote:

---

and are not mutating with an increased rate compared to essential genes.

---

Why should they? Selective pressure?What about selection of another gene on the same chromosome?
I keep asking that and you keep ignoring it.

quote:

---

Thus, evolutionary predictions are clearly not true,

---

Which evolutionary predictions?

quote:

---

and GR stand as clearcut evidence for design.

---

They are required for evolution to work, and thus say nothing
about the design Vs. development argument.

Dear peter,As recently demonstrated GR are rather for backup than for a evolution. (Gu et al, Nature, 2 January 2003). It once more demonstrates evolutionism to be wrong. There is no evolution from microbe to man, there is GUToB.Best wishes,
Peter

The objection to Gr as design evidence still stands.If you have two genes which do they same job, one can
get altered without causing a dead critter.That is a requirement for evolution, surely?

Hi, I'm a twelve year old eigth grader looking for info for a project. My chosen subject is the okapi. I was wondering if you guys could help me out. I would like to know how the okapi originated, is a cross between a zebra and giraffe? Or is it the result of some wacky experiment?? Or cross-breeding?? Any info would be appreciated!!
THANKS

Did you even try Google? It's merely one of what they call "search engines", which enable you to find information on the web.Seriously, I imagine a lot of people here are a lot like me; "armchair" biology fans. You may wish to speak to a comparative zoologist with a specialization in ungulates. Also okapi aren't particularly on-topic for this thread.(From what I've seen of okapi it seems like they could be some kind of giraffe predecessor, or at least a more direct decendant of their common ancestor. Of course, I have no evidence beyond visual similarity to make such an assertation. Merely a suggestion to a line of research inquiry.)

This thread seems to have run its course. As always, it can be reopened by request in the Suggestions forum.