Another Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

Then please explain the existence of the Wedge Document.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 06-Feb-2006 08:43 AM

Yet you have no problem believing in an intelligent designer, for which there is no reason to be introduced, nor any evidence, and which just raises more questions than it answers. I'm sorry for you. When I think about random mutation and natural selection, a myriad things come to my mind. I guess we have different minds. If the force of gravity is observable, then why is it I never see my keyboard jump off of the table by itself? Because that would be magic, that's why. And magic isn't covered by the theory of gravity. Nor is it covered by the theory of evolution. So please stop making such outrageous comparisons if you want to be taken seriously. I think you are not saying what you meant to say. Am I to believe that your friends have the capability to actively cause a mutation of their choice in the genome of a fruit fly? I think you meant to say that your friends just let fruit flies mate and waited to see what variations appeared, right? And "millions of mutations"? Your friends are very patient people, I must say.Anyway, what were your friends expecting? What were their criteria for the usefulness of a mutation? Can you cite their research please, or give us a link to it? Does your search engine have some intelligently designed filter or something? There are lots of scientific papers on self-assembling peptides - even self-replicating peptides! - so why don't you chuck your ID-coloured goggles and do a bit of googling instead?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 09-Feb-2006 12:11 PM

No, it isn't. Google. Nonsense. I've owned a computer that had one if its memory chips broken and removed. It worked fine. Again a case of saying something you did not mean to say. Or do you really believe that no chemical reactions take place on earth at all? Of course, I understand you didn't mean that, but I'm just pointing out that I think you should be more careful about how you phrase things. So, since you apparently do understand it, I take it you are a chemist. Are you?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 09-Feb-2006 12:08 PM

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

My curt reply was actually a referral to my previous reply to Inkorrekt, in which I wrote: If you google "self-assembly peptide" or "self-assembling protein" or "self-replicating protein", you should find lots of interesting links.

The point with ID is that the designer is supposed to be intelligent. Very intelligent. The reasoning goes: "It's all so perfect, it functions so well, it must be designed by a superior intellect." ID-ers usually don't say it out loud, but the designer they have in mind is actually the God of Christianity.The examples I gave show some severly botched up designs, far from perfect and not functioning according to plan. It seems that the intelligent designer may not be that intelligent after all, which casts some doubt on ID-ist ideas. I haven't a clue what this has to do with anything. Could you explain? But before you do, please consider whether it is actually on topic. If you conclude that is isn't, then don't bother.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.