Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Study of Intelligent Design Debate
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 210 (1460)
01-02-2002 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by derwood
01-02-2002 9:23 AM


SLP:
As for the notion of no 'junk' DNA, this is 'technically' correct - just like creationists are 'technically' correct when they say that the appendix has a function. It is the correlaries drawn form these technically correct claims that cause the problems. Creationists say that because the appendix does something, it cannot be vestigial.
John Paul:
The problem with calling something 'vestigial' is that you have to know (and show) what the original function was. Good luck. Also you have to show that the original function wasn't present in the original humans. That is especially if you want to use the 'vestigial' argument as evidence from common descent from non-human organism(s).
More on 'junk' DNA
Much DNA just "junk" -- or is it?
ID Freindly Evolution
SLP:
So, while 'junk' DNA may serve a (many?) function(s), it is also fairly clear that it has no (known) impact on phenotype.
John Paul:
It is not that clear at all.
SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...
John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.
ID fits the evidence much better than materialistic naturalism does. So why does it bother you so much?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 9:23 AM derwood has not replied

RetroCrono
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 210 (1462)
01-02-2002 10:13 AM


Lets get back on track of an ID here. The junk DNA topic would be best at its own topic.
So...does 1 + 1 = 2?

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 10:26 AM RetroCrono has not replied
 Message 203 by DBlevins, posted 02-08-2003 3:29 AM RetroCrono has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 210 (1463)
01-02-2002 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RetroCrono
01-02-2002 10:13 AM


Retro Crono:
Lets get back on track of an ID here. The junk DNA topic would be best at its own topic.
John Paul:
Actually 'junk' DNA has ID implications:
When "Junk" DNA Isn't Junk
Here's the last paragraph from that link:
"The roles of non-coding DNA are so numerous and pervasive that evolutionary studies are now looking at these sequences for patterns of "concerted evolution (67)." In summary, the non-coding DNA, contrary to statements by evolutionists, is not useless, but is, in fact, required for genomic functionality, therefore providing evidence of intelligent design. The "junk" DNA is really some rather amazing "junk." " (emph. added)
Retro Crono:
So...does 1 + 1 = 2?
John Paul:
I remember in high school in a class called 'Introductory to Analysis', we had to write a proof for 1 + 1 = 2.
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RetroCrono, posted 01-02-2002 10:13 AM RetroCrono has not replied

RetroCrono
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 210 (1465)
01-02-2002 10:40 AM


I'm still not exactly clear as to why junk DNA proves or dissaproves an ID. Why does such a small detail matter when trying to get an understanding of the unknown? I like to try look at the big picture.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 10:58 AM RetroCrono has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 210 (1469)
01-02-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by RetroCrono
01-02-2002 10:40 AM


RetroCrono:
I'm still not exactly clear as to why junk DNA proves or dissaproves an ID.
John Paul:
It doesn't 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. Science isn't about 'proof'. It can, however, be used as evidence for ID and against common descent as depicted by the current ToE.
RetroCrono:
Why does such a small detail matter when trying to get an understanding of the unknown? I like to try look at the big picture.
John Paul:
It is from the specified complexity of DNA, RNA and the living cell that we infer ID. It is the details (read Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box') that allows us to see the huge obstacles that face Darwinian step-by-step processes. It is at the molecular level where ID is most apparent.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RetroCrono, posted 01-02-2002 10:40 AM RetroCrono has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 1:14 PM John Paul has not replied

PhiGuy
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 210 (1473)
01-02-2002 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
01-01-2002 1:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
There's little to argue with here, but how do you progress from the subjective impression of design to objective evidence for design?
--Percy

IMHO, there's an abundance of objective evidence for both design and the Designer. If I show you a silk flower, you would undoubtedly conclude it was the result of intelligence and design, right? Stop there, however, and ask yourself, "How and why did I come to that conclusion?" Now suppose I show you a real flower, with all the same characteristics of the silk flower, but with all the incredible added systems and technologies that we describe as "life." The real question then is why anyone would accept the silk flower as having been designed, but not the real flower. The answer isn't in the characteristics of the flower itself, but rather in one's ability, or willingness, to recognize the designer.

Let's take it a step further. Suppose with advances in genetic research that we are one day able to produce a real living flower, identical to the one found in nature, from nothing but the raw elements of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc. Would you still then declare this manufactured flower to be a product of intelligence and design and nature's flower to be the product of chance? The answer, again, is not found in the object itself but in your underlying beliefs about the designer.

To illustrate, suppose again I showed you a real flower today and said I had created it myself from hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc. You would not believe that the designer and creator was in fact me because you do not believe that I have the capability to accomplish such a feat. If you do not believe in a God who the capability to accomplish such a feat, neither will you believe that life is the result of His intelligence and design.

If you conclude that life is not the result of intelligent design, is it then because of the lack of evidence of design in life or is it because of the lack of belief in the Designer of life? If it is in fact your subjective beliefs about God that influence your objectivity in judging design and intelligence in the world around you, seeing silk flowers as designed but real flowers as not, then the real issue at the heart of this debate becomes finding a way to eliminate all of the naturalistic or atheistic preconceptions and teachings that influence us.

In my experience, once you can accept that God could be our creator, and seek to grow in that understanding rather than to reject it or rationalize it away, you will find all kinds of evidence of design and the Designer that you would readily accept as "objective" in any other pursuit. To keep the discussion here short, here are a few links to illustrate my point:

On Objectivity and Evidence: Seeing God in a Bubble Chamber Not a Shred of Evidence for God

On Design: Technology in nature "Unnatural selection"

On Faith: Mind over Matter Contact


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 01-01-2002 1:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 01-04-2002 12:30 PM PhiGuy has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 37 of 210 (1475)
01-02-2002 1:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
As for the notion of no 'junk' DNA, this is 'technically' correct - just like creationists are 'technically' correct when they say that the appendix has a function. It is the correlaries drawn form these technically correct claims that cause the problems. Creationists say that because the appendix does something, it cannot be vestigial.
John Paul:
The problem with calling something 'vestigial' is that you have to know (and show) what the original function was. Good luck.
Let's try an experiment. There are three extrinsic muscles attached to the base of the pinnae. These are called the auricularis muscles. They are skeletal (i.e. voluntary). Can you voluntarily contract yours? Some people can. Usually, folks can only contract their posterior auricularis, which causes the pinna to retract slightly. Most folks cannot even do that. Of course, not all voluntary muscles are stricly voluntary - many are co-opted by the CNS when reflex activity is involved.
Anyway, the same set of muscles can be found attached to the pinnae in nearly all mammals that I know of. Dogs, cats, bats, cows, etc. - all can voluntarily move their ears in a much larger range of motion that even the ear-wiggliest person can. In addition, their auricularis muscles reflexively change the orientation, and to an extent, the shape of the pinnae to assist with 'echo location'. We cannot do this. We have to turn our heads.
The existence of the auricularis muscles in humans is good evidence of vestigiality. I once had an anti-Darwinist present 'evidence' that the auricularis muscles were not vestigial. He produced a clinical report of a young man that was born with his posterior auricularis muscles attached to his pinnae well at the base, and this was thought to be responsible for the poor kid's ears sticking out like airplane wings. The anti-Darwinist concluded that, therefore, the posterior auricularis muscles have a definite function - preventing the ears from sticking out in a cosmetic nightmare fashion - and so cannot be vestigial.
Also, George Howe, co-author of the creationist book "Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional" wrote on the CARM evolution discussion board that because he can wiggle his ears such that when he is wearing glasses, he can focus a bit better, that there was evidence of function and therefore, no vestigiality. He wrote so only half-jokingly, but before he had 'admitted' this, several creationists had agreed with him.
So, as for 'knowing' and 'showing' original functions, the creationist is merely placing unrealistic demands on the scientist. Are such demands encumbent upon those espousing ID or some other version of creationism? Let's see....
quote:
More on 'junk' DNA
Much DNA just "junk" -- or is it?
ID Freindly Evolution
I am at a loss as to explain why you chose those links. Did you even bother to read them? They contradict each other on many points. From:
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/junkdna031901.htm
The junk comes in several varieties, the most common of which are repetitive segments. There are short repetitive segments, such as the pieces that Schmid studies, consisting of 272 base pairs; and there are long repetitive segments of 6,000 base pairs. Both segments pop up repeatedly in human DNA, collectively accounting for 20 percent of the entire genome, Schmid said.
Yet from http://www.idthink.net/arn/shap/index.htm:
And what plays the crucial role in this organization is the repetitive DNA (commonly called "junk DNA").
So, is junk DNA just repetitive segments, as Mike Gene clearly indicates, or are repetitive segments just one type of ‘junk’? The distinction is important.
Gene also condescendingly writes:
In the future, the non-teleological revisionism will try to make it seem as if non-teleologists have always known "junk DNA" wasn't junk. Every time you see a non-teleologist using junk DNA in this way, copy and save it, for history's sake.
And yet what do we see in the ARN article?
The idea that the junk may not be junky hearkens back to the early days of molecular biology. The prevailing view once was that all DNA was useful to the body. Then, two different teams of scientists published commentaries in the journal Nature in 1980 suggesting that some DNA is "selfish" -- that it exists simply for the sake of existing.
It seems that for at least 21 years, real scientists have suspected — even ‘known’ — junk DNA wasn’t simply ‘junk’.
Instead of saving such claims for ‘history’s sake’, I suggest keeping the self-serving rantings of ‘teleologists’ for history’s sake.
The following appears in the ARN article:
The men who popularized the notion of junk DNA believe in it yet. "There are people who still believe that most of the DNA is useful," Orgel said. "I say, 'Fine, go find what it does, and we'll call it something else, but I think you're wasting your time.' "
I include this because, as anyone that has lurked or participated at ARN should know, many anti-Darwinists like to quote Orgel, especially when it comes to his work on abiogenesis. I wonder — will they hoist him upon a pedestal for his claims about junk DNA as well?
quote:
SLP:
So, while 'junk' DNA may serve a (many?) function(s), it is also fairly clear that it has no (known) impact on phenotype.
John Paul:
It is not that clear at all.
Great. Then it should be no problem for you to show us evidence that junk DNA does in fact impact phenotype. Perhaps I should rephrase — it is clear that it has not been established that junk DNA has an impact on phenotype.
quote:
SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...
John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.
He was? Please cut and paste the evidence form that article demonstrating as much, for I could find no such implication. You should mean he was going to write a paper on it. Mike Gene does not do research, certainly nothing pertinent to the issues at hand (he is supposedly some sort of technician). But your take on his essay shows me that you didn’t read it very closely.
Of course, if he really was going to do the research, could you show me where in your link he outlines his experimental design — premised on ID, of course? I mean, if one is going to do laboratory research, one typically has some preliminary work already done and has outlined an experiment to do prior to doing a literature search. At least that is the way I did real research. You build on what has already been done — so what had been done using his teleolgical framework? What research has been done using this framework? His ‘prediction’ was made about 2 years ago — surely, he must have something concrete to show in all that time
Does HE 'know' that transcriptional proofreading is the product of Intelligent intervention? Does he show it?
quote:
ID fits the evidence much better than materialistic naturalism does. So why does it bother you so much?
Yes, of course it does. ID ‘explains’ everything. In fact, it even explains the inexplicable. No '‘naturalistic’ answer to some biological question right now? ID is the answer. Doesn’t make sense? Well, who are we to know the mind of the Designer (thank you Billy Dembski).
When that sort of explanation is given, of course it explains everything better.
Why does it ‘bother me’? It doesn’t. Things that do not exist do not bother me at all. What bothers me — if that is the right phrase — is that so many people proselytize this sort of non-explanation as THE explanation and call it scientific.

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 38 of 210 (1477)
01-02-2002 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by John Paul
01-02-2002 10:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
RetroCrono:
I'm still not exactly clear as to why junk DNA proves or dissaproves an ID.
John Paul:
It doesn't 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. Science isn't about 'proof'. It can, however, be used as evidence for ID and against common descent as depicted by the current ToE.
Please expand on this. How, exactly, is junk DNA evidence for ID and against evolution? If you KNOW this, please SHOW this...
quote:
RetroCrono:
Why does such a small detail matter when trying to get an understanding of the unknown? I like to try look at the big picture.
John Paul:
It is from the specified complexity of DNA, RNA and the living cell that we infer ID. It is the details (read Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box') that allows us to see the huge obstacles that face Darwinian step-by-step processes. It is at the molecular level where ID is most apparent.
'Apparent', apparently, is in the eye of the beholder. How is specified complexity determined?
After the fact. Taking an extant gene/protein/mechanism/cascade and declaring it to be specified complexity is an illusion. In order for extant gene/protein/etc. to be declare dot have been introduced as-is, we must KNOW this and be able to SHOW this.
1. How -exactly - is it KNOWN that genes, etc. are examples of specified complexity?
How is it KNOWN that these genes, etc. were 'desinged' as-is - that they were always as they are?
2. And how are the answers to #1 SHOWN?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 10:58 AM John Paul has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 39 of 210 (1478)
01-02-2002 1:41 PM


As an aside, I would be a bit cautious in referring to the 'work' on the godandscience.org site.
Much to my astonishment, the author - lab tech Richard Deem - STILL has an extremely deceptive bit on his website, despite the fact that I pointed it out to him nearly 3 years ago!
On his page:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/news.html#07
on the very bottom thetre is a blurb entitled "Molecular Biology Fails to Confirm Darwinism."
In this blurb, he refers to this article
Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112.
Deem quotes Sharp "Attempt to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success."
Deem, however, leaves out several key points.
Here is a post that I made at the BOTCW board about a year ago, after again seeing Deem's site:
*************************
Richard Deem, Apologist, at http://www.jps.net/bygrace/evolution/news.html#07 writes:
Molecular Biology Fails to Confirm Darwinism
Although molecular biology has been used to hasten research in many fields of biology, it has failed to confirm the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwinian theory. According to Dr. Paul Sharp, "Attempt[sic] to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success."
7.Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112.
The page this appears on is dated March 29, 2000. This is especially interesting to me because more than a year ago, I contacted Deem, for the second time, to inform him how deceptive and dishonest his characterization was (is).
You see, as I write this, I am looking at two things — the same 2 things I was looking at when I challenged Christian Apologist and lab tech Deem more than a year ago —
A photocopy of the Sharp article and a reprint of the research article that Sharp referred to from the same issue of Nature. Yes, Sharp did write: "Attempts to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success." But he also wrote, and Christian Apologist Deem fails to mention, this: One apparent success concerns the enzyme lysozyme in Primates., referring to a paper in that very journal. More importantly, Deem deceives by omission — as I mentioned, the Sharp article is from the news section of Nature, it was not a research report itself. It provided, as these essays usually do, a bit of background for an actual research report in the journal. And that is the other thing I am looking at — the actual paper titled Episodic adaptive evolution of primate lysozymes, Messier and Stewart. 385:151-154, 1997. This Deem fails to mention at all. Nor does Deem anywhere mention the other bits of molecular evidence for selection.
I first broached this topic when Deem appeared on the old Internet Infidels Evolution Discussion board some 2 years ago. He provided links to his site, boasting about how well documented his ‘essays’ disproving ‘Darwinism’ were. I pointed out the Sharp deception at the time — he ignored it. The subject came up again some time later, when another discussion board poster referred to Deem’s site. I visited, only to see the same disinformation being presented. I wrote about it on a discussion board, and Deem made a brief appearance, claiming to have ‘corrected’ his error, but still insisting that he was right. Visiting his site, I saw a half-baked attempt to cover his tracks. A quickly written, typo-riddled addendum claiming that there was an article in the journal, but that it still didn’t ‘prove’ Darwinism.
I gave up, and had completely forgotten about it until I read creationist-engineer Fred Williams refer to one of Deem’s ‘well referenced’ articles in an email/online debate at his propaganda web site ( http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/bdka_mypost2.htm : Here's a well referenced online article refuting junk DNA.).
I went to the link, and checked out Deem’s (very impressive) site. And to my surprise, the ORIGINAL bit of disinformation was again present!
How can one characterize this other than as a bit of propagandistic nonsense? Of disinformation? Of LYING for Christ? He KNOWS that the wording of that asinine little blurb is misleading — indeed, if he did not, he would not have changed it once.
It is extremely informative that this self-described Apologist feels the need to lie and mislead to sway the flock.
***************************
Reading the site today, I see that Deem has actually removed his addendum, leaving the original misrepresentation intact. This is not an isolated event:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gencode.htm
from the introduction:
(Note from the owner of this site: When this page was initially placed on the internet, Richard Deems removed from his internet pages, the paper which the below criticized. Now it has come to my attention that Deems has placed the old, flawed and uncorrected paper back on the internet. I have changed the link below to make sure that the reader can see the original document. It is sad that Deems does not seem open to change.--GRM)
Seems Deem is more interested in the ends than the means...
The Evolution Fairytale [/URL] - Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-02-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 2:18 PM derwood has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 210 (1479)
01-02-2002 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by derwood
01-02-2002 1:41 PM


SLP:
So, as for 'knowing' and 'showing' original functions, the creationist is merely placing unrealistic demands on the scientist.
John Paul:
Not at all. If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it. I have no problem with alleged vestigials. Why? Because there is no way of knowing what the original function was and there is no way of telling if that original function existed in the originally Created Kinds.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...
John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
He was? Please cut and paste the evidence form that article demonstrating as much, for I could find no such implication.
John Paul:
from Using ID to Infer Molecular Biology:
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out. As it happens, I did a literature search after coming up with this hypothesis and indeed discovered there is some good evidence of proofreading during transcription."
That does it for me.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID fits the evidence much better than materialistic naturalism does. So why does it bother you so much?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, of course it does. ID ‘explains’ everything. In fact, it even explains the inexplicable. No '‘naturalistic’ answer to some biological question right now? ID is the answer.
John Paul:
Tell you what- until a purely 'naturalistic' answer comes along, it is safe to infer ID.
Materialistic naturalism has been weighed, measured and found wanting.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 1:41 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 2:33 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 2:40 PM John Paul has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 210 (1480)
01-02-2002 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by John Paul
01-02-2002 2:18 PM


SLP:
Please expand on this. How, exactly, is junk DNA evidence for ID and against evolution? If you KNOW this, please SHOW this...
John Paul:
from Pseudogenes, are they non-functional?
"The persistence of pseudogenes is in itself additional evidence for their activity. This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly. Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would also expect that ‘old’ pseudogenes should be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations. Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RetroCrono:
Why does such a small detail matter when trying to get an understanding of the unknown? I like to try look at the big picture.
John Paul:
It is from the specified complexity of DNA, RNA and the living cell that we infer ID. It is the details (read Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box') that allows us to see the huge obstacles that face Darwinian step-by-step processes. It is at the molecular level where ID is most apparent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
'Apparent', apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.
John Paul:
I guess that is why guys like Dawkins states "The apparent design is illusory." It is even apparent to an devote atheist. All he can do is say it's 'illusory' as if he knows what he is talking about. Of course he says that because of philosophical differences. Apparently you seldom (if ever) work on designing complex systems. If you had you would see exactly what Behe is talking about in Darwin's Black Box.
SLP:
How is specified complexity determined?
John Paul:
If something is complex, is specified and has a small probability of occurring by chance, then it exhibits specified complexity. DNA & RNA fit that bill. So doesn't life in general.
Tell you what- show that DNA can originate naturally and you will have shown there is no need to infer ID. Do the same with RNA and life and you will have shot down ID.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 2:18 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 3:00 PM John Paul has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 42 of 210 (1481)
01-02-2002 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by John Paul
01-02-2002 2:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
So, as for 'knowing' and 'showing' original functions, the creationist is merely placing unrealistic demands on the scientist.
John Paul:
Not at all. If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.
Interesting... I shall make good use of this.
quote:
I have no problem with alleged vestigials. Why? Because there is no way of knowing what the original function was and there is no way of telling if that original function existed in the originally Created Kinds.
And the dodge goes full-circle. 'Original function' is just another layer of criteria lobbed on by the goal-post shifting creationists.
From the Harcourt online scientific dictionary:
vestigial [ve stijl] Biology. 1. remaining as a vestige 2. small and imperfectly developed.
I think my example clearly falls under category 2.
Of course, as for the created kinds bit:
If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.
So please substantiate the reference to 'created kinds' with verifiable documentation.
quote:
SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...
John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
He was? Please cut and paste the evidence form that article demonstrating as much, for I could find no such implication.
John Paul:
from Using ID to Infer Molecular Biology:
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out. As it happens, I did a literature search after coming up with this hypothesis and indeed discovered there is some good evidence of proofreading during transcription."
That does it for me.
"What if I did this? "
That does it for me.
Your quote above does not in any way, shape or form support your claim above:
"He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position."
Please try again.
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ID fits the evidence much better than materialistic naturalism does. So why does it bother you so much?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, of course it does. ID ‘explains’ everything. In fact, it even explains the inexplicable. No '‘naturalistic’ answer to some biological question right now? ID is the answer.
John Paul:
Tell you what- until a purely 'naturalistic' answer comes along, it is safe to infer ID.
Not in science. In science, one infers what there is good evidence for. What you are doing is taking the ignorant man's out - it is a logical fallacy and a poor way of doing science. "Until you prove blue fairies push the sun around the cosmos, I will infer that it is red fairies."
quote:
Materialistic naturalism has been weighed, measured and found wanting.
Well, I guess that ends that.
Now, since you are so familiar with the workings of ID, creation, and science, please outline the criteria for positing Intelligent Intervention in biological research.
That is, at what point during research should the conclusion of ID be warranted? And what if, in the future, a naturalistic explanation is discovered for what had previously been relegated to the Designer?
Would that effectively be a falsification of ID? if not, why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 2:18 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 3:12 PM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 43 of 210 (1483)
01-02-2002 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by John Paul
01-02-2002 2:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
Please expand on this. How, exactly, is junk DNA evidence for ID and against evolution? If you KNOW this, please SHOW this...
John Paul:
from Pseudogenes, are they non-functional?
"The persistence of pseudogenes is in itself additional evidence for their activity. This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly. Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would also expect that ‘old’ pseudogenes should be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations. Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known."
I guess this means that YOU cannot explain your own 'beliefs.'
It would appear that the author of that 'trueorigin'[sic] article has, as is often the case, foisted additional abilities upon evolution, then claimed that they have not been utilized (removing pseudogenes). How would one look for an 'old' pseudogene that has been "scrambled beyond recognition"? If it was "scrambled beyond recognition" would it not be IMPOSSIBLE to identify? Pierre's essay is really just a synopsis of creationist "John Woodmorappe's" article linked in the essay. Woody first defines pseudogenes so as to include things like ALU sequences and all transposable elements, then, explaining that some of these elements have been discovered to perform functions, declare all pseudogenes (possibly) functional.
All athletes are professional basketball players.
Professional basketball players make millions of dollars.
There is a professional soccer league in this country.
Therefore, the professional soccer players make millions of dollars.
The naivete of Pierre's (and Woody's) conclusions are staggering. Strawman wrapped in a logical fallacy stuffed into an erroneous defintion.
Perhaps you can simply explain your position, and perhaps support it with a link, rather than simply posting links left and right.
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RetroCrono:
Why does such a small detail matter when trying to get an understanding of the unknown? I like to try look at the big picture.
John Paul:
It is from the specified complexity of DNA, RNA and the living cell that we infer ID. It is the details (read Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box') that allows us to see the huge obstacles that face Darwinian step-by-step processes. It is at the molecular level where ID is most apparent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
'Apparent', apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.
John Paul:
I guess that is why guys like Dawkins states "The apparent design is illusory." It is even apparent to an devote atheist. All he can do is say it's 'illusory' as if he knows what he is talking about. Of course he says that because of philosophical differences. Apparently you seldom (if ever) work on designing complex systems. If you had you would see exactly what Behe is talking about in Darwin's Black Box.
And apparently you seldom (if ever) perform any research in the field of biology, especially as it pertains to genetics/systematics. And of course you claim that there is Design due to your philosophical underpinnings. I guess that means that you and Dawkins are tied, zero zero.
Does Behe work on designing complex systems? If not, how was it that he concluded design? Of course, you engineering types won't like what Wolfram has to say about such things...
quote:
SLP:
How is specified complexity determined?
John Paul:
If something is complex, is specified and has a small probability of occurring by chance, then it exhibits specified complexity. DNA & RNA fit that bill. So doesn't life in general.
Yes - after the fact. Please explain how DNA is:
complex
specified
AND
has a small probability of occurring by chance (how does an organic molecule 'occur'?)
I think you are confusing "DNA" with the sequence of DNA in a genome.
If so, then your argument is indeed post hoc. If not, then I have no idea what you are talking about.
quote:
Tell you what- show that DNA can originate naturally and you will have shown there is no need to infer ID. Do the same with RNA and life and you will have shot down ID.
Why should I have to 'prove' anything to you? You are the one claiming that DNA/RNA are coomplex and specified and so must have arisen by Design.
According to YOU:
If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.
I have made no claims regarding the origin of DNA/RNA or anything else.
You have.
Now please substantiate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 2:33 PM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 210 (1484)
01-02-2002 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by derwood
01-02-2002 2:40 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
So, as for 'knowing' and 'showing' original functions, the creationist is merely placing unrealistic demands on the scientist.
John Paul:
Not at all. If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Interesting... I shall make good use of this.
John Paul:
Most likely not to support your claims.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem with alleged vestigials. Why? Because there is no way of knowing what the original function was and there is no way of telling if that original function existed in the originally Created Kinds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
And the dodge goes full-circle. 'Original function' is just another layer of criteria lobbed on by the goal-post shifting creationists.
From the Harcourt online scientific dictionary:
vestigial [ve stijl] Biology. 1. remaining as a vestige 2. small and imperfectly developed.
I think my example clearly falls under category 2.
John Paul:
Gee whiz huxter, I never see you bring that up when Pat posts that vestigial means it no longer has its original function. But either way you still have to show that the original humans had that 'small & imperfectly developed' whatever. Ya see a human evolving into a human is not beyond the scope of the Creationists' PoV.
SLP:
Of course, as for the created kinds bit:
If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.
So please substantiate the reference to 'created kinds' with verifiable documentation.
John Paul:
Again? How many times to you have to be linked to something?
Baraminology
Ligers & Wholphins- what's next?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...
John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
He was? Please cut and paste the evidence form that article demonstrating as much, for I could find no such implication.
John Paul:
from Using ID to Infer Molecular Biology:
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out. As it happens, I did a literature search after coming up with this hypothesis and indeed discovered there is some good evidence of proofreading during transcription."
That does it for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
"What if I did this? "
That does it for me.
Your quote above does not in any way, shape or form support your claim above:
"He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position."
John Paul:
Sure it does. I can't help it if you have a reading comprehension problem. What do you think this means?
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, of course it does. ID ‘explains’ everything. In fact, it even explains the inexplicable. No '‘naturalistic’ answer to some biological question right now? ID is the answer.
John Paul:
Tell you what- until a purely 'naturalistic' answer comes along, it is safe to infer ID.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Not in science. In science, one infers what there is good evidence for.
John Paul:
Well then, that settles that. There is NO evidence, good or otherwise, that DNA, RNA or life could originate naturally. So by your logic we are right to infer ID. Thanks.
SLP:
What you are doing is taking the ignorant man's out - it is a logical fallacy and a poor way of doing science. "Until you prove blue fairies push the sun around the cosmos, I will infer that it is red fairies."
John Paul:
What you are doing is proving just how a small mind works. Thanks again.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 2:40 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by mark24, posted 01-02-2002 7:31 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 53 by derwood, posted 01-03-2002 1:26 PM John Paul has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 45 of 210 (1486)
01-02-2002 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by John Paul
01-02-2002 3:12 PM


I can't wait for the work on baramins to be completed.
I wonder what baramin the Giraffe will be under?
Soooooooo. How did those arterial valves evolve? The Onyx doesn't have them? Or perhaps, how did the Onyx lose its valves in a mere 4,500 years. Since genetic materiel is going to be used to classify, its going to be interesting to see how they squirm out of this one. The Onyx is genetically close to the Giraffe, so, how do we rationalise putting them in different baromins, whilst using the same data to put other organisms in the same baromin?
They're going to screw up somewhere & we're going to say, hey, those creationists can't explain how such & such evolved/adapted, God/ID must therefore be false. Sound familiar? Would you accept that rationale?
Life on this planet is EXTREMELY varied, if one example of a baramin has some particular adaption that they never thought of, then evolution MUST be true, because the adaption evolved from a kind that never had the adaption.
They should have left classification well alone, they're going to get crucified.
Like I say, I can't wait.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-02-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-02-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 3:12 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by John Paul, posted 01-03-2002 7:20 AM mark24 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024