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:   Does complexity require intelligent design?
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 171 of 229 (196802)
04-05-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by crashfrog
03-21-2005 9:20 PM


29 evidences
Microevolution is variation within species, and yes it is not really evolution, but it is the only type of change observed, therefore many evolutionists call this evolution.
It's difficult to refute this statement since I don't know what "macroevolution" is, exactly. But there is this page:
"29+ evidences for macroevolution"
Interesting that macroevolution is referred to so many times in the site you referenced, and you still don't know what it is. Most of the fossil evidence cited as examples of complete records of transition are not complete at all, and much of the "evidence" consists of fragments of bones. I've already discussed the whale tale and if you carefully examine what actually exists in the fossil record, it falls far short of qualifying as a complete record, the only connection between most of the cited evidence is imagination.
This message has been edited by xevolutionist, 04-04-2005 11:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 03-21-2005 9:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by AdminNosy, posted 04-05-2005 1:38 AM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2005 2:37 AM xevolutionist has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 172 of 229 (196815)
04-05-2005 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Citizzzen
03-22-2005 4:15 PM


Re: Ok, never say never...
Welcome back citizzzen, are we the only ones who want to discuss this topic?
"...What is scientifically wrong with postulating the existence of an unknown thing..."
Two things are. One, does it fit the evidence that you have, and two can this postulate be tested?
I think testability is optional, because how can you test something that only happened once? There is evidence that supports the "Big Bang" theory of the origin of the universe, and as I mentioned in a previous post, I believe that supports my position.
Evolution cannot be tested, yet as you see it has many faithful believers asserting it is a "proven" theory.
The evidence that DNA is a code conveying specified, complex information vital to each cell in every living thing is undeniable. Regardless of the claims made elsewhere in this thread, when that code is tampered with, the observed results are always deleterious.
There is no evidence of a mutation causing perfect eyesight or super strength.
Can anyone provide me with an example of a line of scientific inquiry that was based in observable reality, but that ultimately led conclusively to the need for an ID?
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.
..." Postulating the existence of a non-proven in order to support a scientific theory is fine. But to postulate one in order to provide emotional comfort is not science.
And I was postulating that His existence fits best with the evidence that we have. That darn Aristotle guy apparently was one of the first to arrive at that conclusion by reason alone, and at that time the complexity of the universe was not yet known.
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.
This message has been edited by xevolutionist, 04-05-2005 12:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Citizzzen, posted 03-22-2005 4:15 PM Citizzzen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Wounded King, posted 04-05-2005 4:52 AM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 177 by Ooook!, posted 04-05-2005 6:14 AM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 179 by Loudmouth, posted 04-05-2005 5:45 PM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 187 by Citizzzen, posted 04-05-2005 11:12 PM xevolutionist has replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 180 of 229 (197087)
04-05-2005 8:49 PM


on topic
I will limit my replies to the topic of ID for the remainder of this thread. When this conversation is concluded I will join another thread where evolution is the subject of discussion.

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 181 of 229 (197099)
04-05-2005 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by pink sasquatch
04-01-2005 3:52 PM


Re: triple jumps in logic
In other words, looking at the DNA of two individuals we can determine whether they shared a parent or grandparent, that is, whether or not they share common ancestry.
The same thing can be done with species, and has been done. Using the same strategy as is used to determine if a man parented a child, we can determine if, for example, chimps and humans share a common ancestor at the species level.
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.
Okay. But the important question isn't whether or not they believe in creation or ID; it is whether or not they believe creation or ID is science.
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.
Back to the ole self-contradicting logic again - things can't always exist except for the thing that always existed. If you accept that something always existed, than there is no logical or evidenciary reason to assume that the eternal thing is intelligent and creative, when it could just be matter and natural law.
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.
You keep making these irrational jumps in logic; as in here, where you essentially state:
We cannot use intelligent design to create life, therefore life must have been planted here by an intelligence.
Don't you see how silly that sounds?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-01-2005 3:52 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2005 10:13 PM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 195 by gnojek, posted 04-06-2005 1:19 PM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 196 by Loudmouth, posted 04-06-2005 1:34 PM xevolutionist has replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 183 of 229 (197104)
04-05-2005 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by kjsimons
04-01-2005 12:38 PM


Re: mutations
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by kjsimons, posted 04-01-2005 12:38 PM kjsimons has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 184 of 229 (197107)
04-05-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Quetzal
04-02-2005 9:44 AM


declining species
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Quetzal, posted 04-02-2005 9:44 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Quetzal, posted 04-09-2005 8:35 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 185 of 229 (197111)
04-05-2005 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by JonF
04-04-2005 3:04 PM


Re: science
Sure. Easy. Frst tell us which particular definition of "information" you are using, so we can select an appropriate example of it increasing.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by JonF, posted 04-04-2005 3:04 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2005 10:54 PM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 202 by JonF, posted 04-08-2005 12:14 PM xevolutionist has replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 198 of 229 (197655)
04-08-2005 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Wounded King
04-05-2005 4:52 AM


Super baby?.
Wow, holding almost 14 pounds up. Hardly what I would call super, but I don't doubt that he has a mutated gene. Whether or not it is advantageous remains to be seen. When he passes this trait on, if it doesn't adversely affect his reproductive ability, we will see. It's a little early to be citing this as an example of random beneficial mutations. Anyway, I think this is off topic, and I'm limiting my replies to ID. I think this is related, but in a roundabout way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Wounded King, posted 04-05-2005 4:52 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by NosyNed, posted 04-08-2005 10:19 AM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 04-08-2005 2:08 PM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 214 by Wounded King, posted 04-10-2005 7:07 AM xevolutionist has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 200 of 229 (197663)
04-08-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Ooook!
04-05-2005 6:14 AM


Re: Ok, never say never...
Why is it that when IDists talk about all mutations taking away 'information' (whatever that is), they always overlook the process of gene duplication. This changes the genome (ie is a mutation) and can never be considered deleterious because it obviously adds to the genome.
I'm not overlooking it. It sounds very reasonable but every example I've seen described shows the problems associated with tampering with the designer's codes. A very short search found this example on a {pro evo} site about genetics. I'll paste the link below, but this is the first time I've tried this.
From web site:
"Duplications are a doubling of a section of the genome. During meiosis, crossing over between sister chromatids that are out of alignment can produce one chromatid with an duplicated gene and the other (not shown) having two genes with deletions. In the case shown here, unequal crossing over created a second copy of a gene needed for the synthesis of the steroid hormone aldosterone.
However, this new gene carries inappropriate promoters at its 5' end (acquired from the 11-beta hydroxylase gene) that cause it to be expressed more strongly than the normal gene. The mutant gene is dominant: all members of one family (through four generations) who inherited at least one chromosome carrying this duplication suffered from high blood pressure and were prone to early death from stroke."
http://users.rcn.com/...tranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Ooook!, posted 04-05-2005 6:14 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-08-2005 10:55 AM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 217 by Ooook!, posted 04-10-2005 5:59 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 205 of 229 (197886)
04-09-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by crashfrog
04-01-2005 3:38 PM


unique
Because its a polar molecule. In fact all polar molecules act this way; water is not unique in this regard. (Didn't I cover this once before?) Water's polarity is also the reason its such an efficient solvent.
The list below doesn't even mention the surface tension and capillary action that are cited in most texts as being unusual.
I. Physical properties:
most common liquid on the planet
only common inorganic liquid
exists in all 3 physical states (solid, liquid, gas) on Earth's Surface
excellent solvent for ionic and polar compounds
very high dielectric constant
highest surface tension of any liquid except mercury (at STP)
thermal properties:
Specific Heat = 1 cal / gm
Latent heat of fusion = 80 cal / gm
Latent heat of vaporization = 540 cal / gm (at 100o C)
expands upon freezing by about 11%
These values are all anomolous, and are among the highest values for these parameters for any known substance.
So tell me, what other polar molecules have all, or most of these properties? I did about an hour's research and found that we don't know why water retains heat the way it does, and holds more compounds in solution than any other liquid.
That's your evidence? That, because intelligence cannot create life no matter how hard it tries, that life must be the product of intelligence? Does that really make sense to you?
That since we are unable to intentionally duplicate under controlled conditions a hypothetical process that supposedly occurred by chance, then the likelyhood of it occurring naturally is impossible.
Time plus opportunity does not guarantee that an event will occur. If we physically manipulate a rubic's cube using visual observation, and mental processes to guide our manipulation, then it is possible to solve the puzzle. A person lacking only one sense, vision, may never be able to solve the puzzle, regardless of the number of times he manipulates it, even a billion times a billion. We can organize playing cards in any sequence we desire with our intelligence, observational and physical dexterity, but a billion tornadoes will not ever lay them down perfectly aligned in descending order according to suit, on a card table.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 3:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2005 11:40 AM xevolutionist has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 207 of 229 (197906)
04-09-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by crashfrog
04-04-2005 3:47 PM


Inference, information
But here's the thing. The drawings are based not on the same idea, but on two different ideas - the idea that you can infer heredity through genetics, and the idea that you can infer heredity through morphology.
So inference is perfectly acceptable in one model, but not in another?
I don't know what information is, exactly, but mutations do produce novel genetic sequences. And its the sequence that determines the result of the gene.
Information consists of the genetic code that determines all the processes necessary for life. The predetermined sequences can be compared to the words in a book. If you change the word "stop" to the word "spot" it doesn't convey the same meaning.
"Corrupted" information is new information. Anything that appears that wasn't already present is new. And DNA sequences don't really "corrupt", they simply change.
If the previous sequence was functioning correctly to produce a specified function, any change would seem to remove a desirable component for an unwanted one in cellular processes, since every process is related to, or complements, other processes in the cells.
If you investigate the link I referred to on the post referencing gene duplication, you will see that every example cited had harmful results, not just the one I showed. Although the researcher did say that beneficial results were possible, no examples were provided there or on any of the other articles and papers I had time to check, with the exception of a type of yeast strain, although no particulars were given as to the actual "improvement."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2005 3:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2005 9:36 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 208 of 229 (197910)
04-09-2005 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by pink sasquatch
04-04-2005 6:07 PM


Re: out of curiousity...
The genetic tree of life that you summarily dismiss as a "drawing" uses the same strategy as DNA-based paternity testing. Please respond to message 164 in this thread, where I outline more of the details.
Why do you immediately accept one and reject the other when they are the same process?
The complexity of the genetic code is evidence that abiogenesis is impossible. As I am limiting my discussions in this thread to ID related topics, the similarities of dna in most life forms show only a similar methodology of creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-04-2005 6:07 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 209 of 229 (197922)
04-09-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Loudmouth
04-05-2005 5:45 PM


Re: Ok, never say never...
How can you test for paternity when conception only happened once? How can you test for the presence of the suspect at a crime scene if the crime only happened once? Do we have to reanimate a corpse and have it rekilled to find out how the person was murdered in the first place?
Actually paternity testing is not an absolute certainty. Usually 99.9 % is good enough for a judge to rule, but what about identical twins? Either one would test the same, but only one could be the father.
For example, let's say that I hypothesize that John murdered Mark. At the crime scene I find two blood types. From this I predict that both John's blood and Mark's blood will be a match to the blood found at the scene. Sure enough, my prediction is born out. The murder only happened once, but I can test the evidence continually.
And suppose John has a twin brother, or John's blood was stolen from a testing facility where he was having lab work done, or John and Mark were both using IV drugs an hour before the murder? When you want to find evidence to support your theory, you tend to find it, even when there are alternative possibilities. Interestingly, researchers found that scientists looking for a specified result, even using modern research methods, tended to skew the results in favor of their theory, unknowingly.
If I showed you mutations that have lead to beneficial outcomes, would you agree that life is not designed? If not, then why even make the argument you have just made?
The theory of ID does not necessarily preclude the possibility of a very few apparently beneficial mutations. The extremely small number of examples that I've seen would not suggest that any significant morphological change is possible. Some of the examples I've been given here, such as the super baby, show little real change and it is yet to be determined that the change is indeed beneficial or capable of being passed down to descendants.
For some, alien intervention for the construction of Stonehenge fits the evidence better. At one time, Zeus throwing down thunderbolts fit the evidence better. Science requires evidence instead of opinion or an unknown force.
So what exactly is gravity? We know some of the effects of gravity, but what causes it? What does it consist of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Loudmouth, posted 04-05-2005 5:45 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 210 of 229 (197929)
04-09-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by crashfrog
04-05-2005 10:13 PM


Re: triple jumps in logic
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?
What is DNA made of if it is not material? Materials are components.
The designer set up a self replicating process that is remarkably resistant to change, but not impervious. The gradual decline of the species shows that the original creation was superior to the existing species. What mistakes were made in the original?
The fact that the galaxies are all moving away from each other, in seeming contradiction to the observed natural force of gravity, does not suggest to you some starting point to the universe?
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.
Random mutation is creative? Now that's silly. Ask a musical composer if it wouldn't be better to just put random notes on the score, or ask an architect if it wouldn't be better to just add walls or windows in a random way. What design process uses random factors as a primary creative function? {I don't consider rap "music" to be a valid example}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2005 10:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Trae, posted 04-10-2005 7:29 AM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 216 by JonF, posted 04-10-2005 9:05 AM xevolutionist has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6922 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 211 of 229 (197932)
04-09-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by crashfrog
04-05-2005 10:54 PM


Re: science
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.
The nucleotides are the materials that DNa and RNA are composed of, and determine which proteins are catalyzed, yes, but it is not a random process. It is predetermined which proteins will be formed by which sequence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2005 10:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024