Help me understand Intelligent Design

HUH?What are those pictures supposed to mean?

Hi RAZD, Out of curiousity, which IC has been observed to evolve?But my bigger question regards the IC systems being explained in evolutionary steps.What I've read so far has been as follows:IDers: Organism {O_z} has a structure or process {SOP_z} that is IC.
Evos: {O_a} has a simpler but related {SOP_a}. I can imagine this small change to {SOP_a} giving us {SOP_b}...and so forth until we reach {SOP_z}. Ta-da! It isn't IC after all.But, for any of the proposed ICs and proposed evolutionary steps going from {SOP_a} to {SOP_z}, has a step-by-step been worked out for which DNA mutations would have to occur and the order in which they would have to occur to go from {SOP_a} to {SOP_z} -- forgetting the difficulty of whether an evolutionary line can even be thought to exist from {O_a} to {O_z} -- and forgetting the difficulty of where and how did the DNA/RNA structures and processes come from in the first place.I have never seen the step-by-steps treated in a molecular way, but always wondered whether such models existed.--Jason

I the eiffel tower pic is at least circumstantial evidence of ID.

If your question is "which gene causes what mutation in SOPc for example" then the answer is no. That's because SOPc is only known from the fossil record, and we usually don't get good DNA samples out of rocks.But that's like asking you to prove that the Bible was written by Abraham but showing us all the copies since that original document was created.Using those same standards, the Bible at best dates back only a few hundred years.

I'm willing to admit that the Eiffel Tower is the result of intelligent design

I disagree. I think the eiffel tower pic is EXTREMELY good evidence of intelligent design. I can not conceive of a way that the Eiffel Tower would have evolved on it's own. None of the pieces are living. It has a staircase and an elevator. It has a restaurant up top.However, I think the picture of the spindelly doodad is in no way evidence of ID, even circumstantial.Lots of things from different angles look like lots of other things from different angles.A top down view of the Eiffel tower looks like an X. So do two crossed swords. Both are made of metal. There's no conclusion to be drawn from that

I dunno. If I didn't know anything about towers, Eiffel or otherwise, other than they exist, why should I conclude it was designed?

Hi Nuggin, It almost sounds like you're saying that the evisioned step-by-steps are on equal par with either conjecture or faith -- as opposed to fact-based science.Are you saying that?--Jason

Close, I'm saying that it is unfair for YECs to demand a higher standard of the data presented by ToE than their own data.If you need step by step genetic confirmation on a individual gene mutation level in order to accept the process, then shouldn't you apply the same thinking to the Biblical texts?Don't we need a letter by letter draft translation for every single version of the Bible, otherwise how do we know what's there is what was meant to be there?Where is the original copy? The first writing of the book of Job, for example. Not the oldest one known, mind you. I'm talking about the first one. The one that arose from nothing. The one that was written down by the guy taking dictation of God and the Devil's wager.

Nuggin,Rephrased, my question could be stated: "Are current evo arguments against IC systems scientifically based?" I really don't see how the Bible fits into this discussion at all.It appears to me that when IDers (not to be confused with YECers) put forth an example of an IC system, evos appear to "defeat" such examples -- SFAICT -- with nothing but imaginings.So far, you've only strengthened that notion.--Jason

Some points:
1) An IC system has been directly shown to evolve. Therefore the whole argument that if a system is IC it can NOT evolve is wrong. It only take one example to destroy the whole idea. If you haven't seen the discussion of this system then I wonder what you are reading here. You find it and ask questions.2) The claim by IDers is that an IC can NOT evolve, that there is NO way, NO how period. As soon as someone can "imagine" ANY pathway where by an IC system could evolve this claim is shown to be wrong. The refutation stands whether or n ot the suggested path is the actual one or not.3)Several of the claimed IC systems put forward by IDers have been shown to exist in other organisms MISSING some part or parts and WORKING. Therefore they have shown that they might have some flaws in their criteria for even picking IC in the first place.As for you step by step notes above: The ID claim is that there is NO possible way for some systems to evolve. When there is ANY possible way for them to evolve the claim is busted. The ID claim is vulnerable enough that it doesn't take a detailed specific path to show it is wrong. It's vulnerbility is based on it's claim of total impossibility by any means of any kind in any way at all. It is so totally comprehensive that it is broken by any hole in it like a overblown ballon.

See http://EvC Forum: Typical ID response to rebuttals? Haven't seen it at that level, but for all the others, I am aware of current existing intermediate stages in other species being used as evidence that such intermedtiate stages are viable (or they wouldn't be living)-- they arent' just hypothetical intermediate forms, whether it is eyes of flagella or whatevers.Thanks

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

pure argument from ignorance and incredulity, there is not one thing here that is not achievable, ascribing wonder to it's function is just a measure of the inability of the observer (regardless of IQ -- I have known several members of mensa and I am not impressed). How is this a problem? There are likely a lot of behaviors that are inherited even when the parents are around but that can't be measured.The ability of deaf children to make their own language even though they had not been taught one by their parents or any other adults and could not know that sound was used for communication. We likely inherit a lot of our basic preferences and abilities regardless of upbringing: studies of twins separated at birth but having the same behavior patterns as adults. And were talking humans, a species that humans like to think is less driven by "instincts" than other animals. Hyperbole and overstatement. Where is the proof that they actually {contact\meet\interact} with the parents rather than just fly to some geographical location? The geographical location is unique to the magnetic field of the earth and the solar orientation, it is very easy to develop a coordinate system that could be imprinted into instinct driven behavior.And you still have not answered my question about how this demonstrates the elements of good design? This is just behavior that you find incredible, so what?The biggest problem that neo-paleyanism has is that it cannot escape the fact that there is no evidence of good design practices, and lots of evidence of bad designs.Creationsists can explain bad designs by corruption and sin etcetera, but the concepts of "intelligent design" do not have this luxury: if neo-paleyanism has any validity then there is no excuse for bad designs.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

butwithout the elevator and the restaurant the tourist function of the tower would not operate and they couldn't be built without the tower there to support them ...