Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Show me the intelligence ...
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 70 (83044)
02-04-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Brad McFall
02-03-2004 3:15 PM


Re: Animal Flaws
I think I might be on the right path here, Brad.
1. You seem to be saying that the difference between the evo/ID theories may be comparable to the Contact/Chemical theory of voltage production with two metals. Faraday with the Chemical theory of electric production and Volta's theory of metal contact via fluid. It was chemical vs. physical movement of electrons, in a round about sort of way. My reference here. Could you define what Faradays a, b, and x signify. I could probably find it but I am feeling lazy.
2. Tetrahymena macronuclear digestion: I found this paper, and judging by the abstract I can see where you are coming from. There seems to be controlled DNA rearrangement in some species that results in reproducible positive phenotypes. This article might be a decent thread on its own.
I might as well copy the abstract here for any lurkers:
Genetics, Vol. 148, 1109-1115, March 1998, Copyright 1998
High Frequency Intragenic Recombination During Macronuclear Development in Tetrahymena thermophila Restores the Wild-type SerH1 Gene
J. C. Deaka and F. P. Doerdera
Department of Biology, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Macronuclear development in ciliates is characterized by extensive rearrangement of genetic material, including sequence elimination, chromosome fragmentation and telomere addition. Intragenic recombination is a relatively rare, but evolutionarily important phenomenon occurring in mitosis and meiosis in a wide variety of organisms. Here, we show that high frequency intragenic recombination, on the order of 30%, occurs in the developing amitotic macronucleus of the ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila. Such recombination, occurring between two nonsense transition mutations separated by 726 nucleotides, reproducibly restores wild-type expression of the SerH1 surface protein gene, thus mimicking complementation in trans heterozygotes. Recombination must be considered a potentially important aspect of macronuclear development, producing gene combinations not present in the germinal micronucleus. end abstract.
3. Form before function: You seem to be stating that because form can precede function in a way that indicates foresight in environmental adaption. Just as a gross example, a leg will develop before the organism runs on it. Am I getting this right?
4. Importance of physics in biology: You really didn't go into this in depth, although you say you will in the future. My stance is that even though organisms are subject to physics in a broad sense, it is the aim of natural selection to weed out poor kinematics and concentrate good kinematics. You might also mention how or if physics overpowers the chemical nature of the cell. Just a thought.
Overall, I would like to here more on this. This is among the most interesting ID musings that I have read recently. Hope to hear back soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Brad McFall, posted 02-03-2004 3:15 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Brad McFall, posted 02-05-2004 12:58 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
loot
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 70 (83082)
02-04-2004 4:50 PM


The problem as I see it is : in order for god to create existance god must first exist, therefore any god must create itself. If we argue an 'intelligent' design, the designer must work with axioms of design, which, if we apply the same logic would in themselves need a designer.
Hume asked, 'Is it valid to say that because there is a perception of an order there is necessarily an orderer?' Possibly, this is the fundemental question of the intelligent design argument.
[This message has been edited by loot, 02-04-2004]

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 63 of 70 (83281)
02-05-2004 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by PaulK
02-04-2004 9:13 AM


Well that's the problem isn't it
Yes ... that's why I've been asking the question.
Now if we have some idea of the capabilities and intentions of a possible designer we can use those to make predictions as to what we expect to see
That doesn't really work either, and for a reason that you
have already suggestion in a different context.
Any entity that could create the univers and everything in it
would, necessarily, be so different to us that we couldn't
possibly discern what their intentions/capabilties might be.
Another problem is that we could conceive of an entity that
matched what we saw (perhaps without realising that is
what we had done).
the current SETI effort made assumptions about possible designers to decide what to look for
I thought they made assumptions about what would constitute
a data bearing signal -- some statistical measure or randomness
measure.
The ID movement likes to compare itself to SETI but they won't do that.
I have not seen ID definitions for intelligence, design, nor
any assessment criteria for intelligent input. The design
inference doesn't work either since the terms within it are
not clearly enough defined or are too subjective to be of
any real use.
For intelligence the problem is even worse. If we can show
that something that appears to be designed can come about
from non-intelligence-led processes then design cannot
be used to infer intelligent design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2004 9:13 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 02-05-2004 4:27 AM Peter has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 64 of 70 (83285)
02-05-2004 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Peter
02-05-2004 4:01 AM


ID is as much concerned with life here as the universe itself. Creating life as we know it is ouside our current capabilities - but we're close enough to say that it should be possible. Modification of existing life - another form of ID - is already within our grasp through genetic engineering. Just as we are already capable of producing the sort of radio signals SETI is looking for.
So there are possiblities within ID that are open to an approach which starts with a hypothetical designer with assumed capabilties and intentions. Of course it would be better if we had a known designer or at least one whose existence was supported by other evidence but that isn't possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Peter, posted 02-05-2004 4:01 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Peter, posted 02-05-2004 4:56 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 69 by EZscience, posted 05-15-2005 7:18 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 65 of 70 (83288)
02-05-2004 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by PaulK
02-05-2004 4:27 AM


So there are possiblities within ID that are open to an approach which starts with a hypothetical designer with assumed capabilties and intentions
I'll try a new thread on that very question then ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 02-05-2004 4:27 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 66 of 70 (83400)
02-05-2004 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Loudmouth
02-04-2004 2:08 PM


Re: Animal Flaws
The issue likely factually is if HMW DNA fragments (please this is not "wmd") can even explain any recapitulation of cell death to multicelluarity by a means of deflating a bit but not entirely Gish's probalistic argument to Stebbins. But the close comparision of Gould and Jean Claude Ameisen I have not been able to seperate from "rape" claims of waterfowl by some sociobiologists. I was however able to cobble up a sentence, "The earth my revolve because of the shape of the solar system's systematic constitution as Kand facutatively provided around morphometric tangent reference form point sets' disttributed rotable 3:1 Mendel ratios taxogenically constructed by summation of cell deaths and this may be what De Vries was getting at systematically between Lineanons and Jordanons but did not control for in his attempt to calculate a coefficient of mutation in Oneathera." If I am correct to any Saussare as I indicated concurrently this explains why what I wrote was incomprensible by introducing to biology but not evolution the notion that not only do mendel ratios exist but they can also rotate. The probalistic argument of a 200 part organism by Gish then becomes not about molecular biology parts but dyad vs triaads vs tetrads only should the Faraday scaling acutally constrain futher experimental philosophy sensu Netwon stricto in Croizat's view avoided by Gould in his notion of Simpson (balance).
What you found may still work for me even if I do not open up a notion of centripetal vs centrifugal netrualization logics perhaps even with Kripkes natural kinds should baraminology make enough technical strides to inform the "facet" taxonomy that XML will not provide to evolutionists between Gould and Ameisen on hoxology, conservation, and the complexity in an eye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Loudmouth, posted 02-04-2004 2:08 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 70 (84650)
02-09-2004 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by TruthDetector
01-29-2004 10:55 PM


Re: Animal Flaws
Sorry, forgot about this thread...
Life in itself is good, there are flaws, which keeps things from being perfect, life is still GOOD. I think MOST people would at least agree with me on that.
Which is irrelevant. The point is that it is ‘good enough’, which is all evolution expects. I would argue -- indeed, I am arguing -- that it is not good enough to be the product of a single vastly-intelligent creator-designer, working from scratch with each ‘kind’ (whateverthehell a ‘kind’ is).
What say you?
DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TruthDetector, posted 01-29-2004 10:55 PM TruthDetector has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 68 of 70 (208459)
05-15-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
01-14-2004 10:08 AM


Unfalsifiable
mike writes:
Is unfalsifiable a bad thing?
Not in religion - only in science.
Is that a Turner painting in your avatar ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 01-14-2004 10:08 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by lfen, posted 05-15-2005 7:21 PM EZscience has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 69 of 70 (208460)
05-15-2005 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by PaulK
02-05-2004 4:27 AM


PaulK writes:
Creating life as we know it is ouside our current capabilities - but we're close enough to say that it should be possible.
Says who? Ask any gene jockey what the chances are we will ever see a 'de novo' life creation event from first principles.
PaulK writes:
Modification of existing life - another form of ID - is already within our grasp through genetic engineering.
Modification of design does not equal creation of design and therefore does not support the claims of ID theory that hypothesizes some omnipotent non-human designer that apparently came before all other life.
PaulK writes:
Just as we are already capable of producing the sort of radio signals SETI is looking for.
Doesn't that sound like circular reasoning to you?
We are capable of producing the signals SETI are looking for, therefore their search is justified ?
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-15-2005 06:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 02-05-2004 4:27 AM PaulK has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 70 of 70 (208462)
05-15-2005 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by EZscience
05-15-2005 7:08 PM


Re: Unfalsifiable
Is that a Turner painting in your avatar ?
Mike,
Please say it isn't!
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by EZscience, posted 05-15-2005 7:08 PM EZscience 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