A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLP:
The coffin door creeps toward being shut completely on poor Mikey Behe's 'hypothesis'...

​

http://bio.com/newsfeatures/newsfea tures_research.jhtml;jsessionid=LYVCFH3UUACCLR3FQLMCFEWHUWBNSIV0?action=view&contentItem=17816666&Page=1

---

John Paul:
Well SLP, thanks for the explanation. So we have found "A gene that makes human blood clot also is found in bloodless fruit flies and helps venomous cone snails produce an experimental drug against epilepsy."Interesting, but there is more than just the clotting of blood that is at issue here. It's the blood clotting cascade. What good is a blood clotting gene if it goes unchecked?That brings us to:
How did that gene originate? What makes it do different things in different organisms? Could be that system architecture talked about by JA Shapiro in Mike Gene's article:ID Friendly EvolutionI don't see how this affects Behe's position at all.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Like the labwork that PROVES Behes irreducible complexity could not be arrived at by evolution? Sounds like a hypothesis to me.

​

Mark

​

---

Sounds like a poorly researched hypothesis to me....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mark24:
Like the labwork that PROVES Behes irreducible complexity could not be arrived at by evolution? Sounds like a hypothesis to me.Mark--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Sounds like a poorly researched hypothesis to me....John Paul:
Actually the hypothesis was well researched and anyone with at least a double-digit IQ would know there is no way to prove a negative. The onus lay with the people spewing such a thing is possible. Duh

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mark24:
Like the labwork that PROVES Behes irreducible complexity could not be arrived at by evolution? Sounds like a hypothesis to me.Mark--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Sounds like a poorly researched hypothesis to me....John Paul:
Actually the hypothesis was well researched and anyone with at least a double-digit IQ would know there is no way to prove a negative. The onus lay with the people spewing such a thing is possible. Duh------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Actually the hypothesis was well researched and anyone with at least a double-digit IQ would know there is no way to prove a negative. The onus lay with the people spewing such a thing is possible. Duh

---

So why did Behe attempt to do that? Your argument is strange given that is exactly Behe's position. Of course, you don't seem to grasp that Behe also argues that common descent is accurate. This sort of mental gymnastics is generally referred to mental laziness.

I find it entertaining that certain creationists require everything to be spelled out for them in simplistic talk, lest they claim irrelevance.It is a shame that these individuals lack the ability to see the writing on the wall, and opt for dogma protection at all costs.I think any rational, non-psychotic person could see the issues involved in the bio.com link I provided.

[/B][/QUOTE]Anyway, for me, you'll never be able to prove there is no ID, as it is something I already know. Just like you can't tell me 1 + 1 doesn't = 2.[/B][/QUOTE]No, it's not something you know. It's merely something you believe. Do you understand the difference? All you have said - all you CAN say - is that everything appears intelligently designed to you. Which, sorry to tell you, is not evidence for intelligent design - it's only evidence of the fact that you think everything appears intelligently designed. Sorry.

quote:

---

I think any rational, non-psychotic person could see the issues involved in the bio.com link I provided.

---

Sorry, you made an obvious error above - you used the word 'rational'. By definition, creationists are not rational.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
What I have found in most ID debates is that someone always insists we need to know who designed the designer? As if that makes a difference as to whether or not the apparent design is illusory or not. If that argument held any water it would mean that Stomehenge wasn't designed because we don't know who (or what) designed it.

​

ID gains momentum every time we take a closer look at life. The closer we look, the more complex it appears to be, and the less likely Darwinian step-by-step processes could be responsible for such complexity. The human genome project is not immune to ID rumblings:

​

Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine

​

I, for one, am a proponent of ID as a scientific alternative to materialistic naturalism on the topic of biological evolution. Behe's Darwin's Black Box, along with the likes of Dembski, Johnson, Ratzsch, Wells, Gitt* et al., put forth a very convincing argument for the scientific validity of ID. And as far as I can tell the only argument against ID is philosophical in nature.

​

I understand the 'system architecture' PoV, which is IMO, genomes can be viewed as a computer OS. The alleged junk DNA is nothing of the kind and although those segments of DNA may not code for a protein, they do have a function in the overall program of an organism. Afterall if every piece of DNA coded for a protein, what would be left to tell those proteins what to do and where to do it?

​

*Werner Gitt is a Creationist. However his theroms on information enforce the basic premise of ID- which is 'there is more to life than mother nature plus father time can explain'.

​

---

that link you provided really does make you wonder and confirms god's existence even more in my eyes. there is no chance that all life would be as similar as it without a designer and no randomality can produce so many similar answers while not producing a wild one, which there would be millions of if evolution actually does occur. thanks JP.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

without ID humans would be so drastically different that we wouldnt even be able to mate after the 20000 years weve supposedly existed. wed have different races like dwarves, elves, etc. since there is no way humans could have migrated then, through my understanding and according to evolution we would have evolved in the similar way of monkeys and apes and orangatangs. we would have to be that different. unless someone has a very very very good explanation, not some link to some long boring experiment i cant understand yet :-)------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

[QUOTE][b]Afterall if every piece of DNA coded for a protein, what would be left to tell those proteins what to do and where to do it?[[/QUOTE][/b]Proteins are told neither what to do nor where to do it. They are large, (for a molecule) dumb surfaces upon which chemical reactions occur. Telling a protein what to do is like telling the catalytic converter in your car what to do. What they "do" is determined by the laws of chemistry, and one protein's function is set apart from the other proteins on the basis of the 1 level (the composition of the protein) and that protein's conformation, that is its shape as determined by various things like hydrogen bonds throughout the molecule and the local temperature inside the cell. A protein "does" something because its substrate (the molecule it manipulates) bumps into its active site and the component atoms and bonds of the substrate are stretched or rearranged in the collision. Aside from that, the thing just drifts. A protein, after being synthesized cannot be "told" what to do, it can simply be deactivated by having its active site blocked by another molecule or packaged by the Golgi apparatus. But most "control" over proteins come from switching genes on and off in the nucleus and so varying the concentration of those proteins.These "orders" don't originate from the nucleus, they are results of environmental conditions and interactions other proteins.There is some speculation that introns ("junk DNA") might play a role in protein folding (the manner in which proteins acquire their conformations) but they aren't "command centers" and to say that they control proteins is simply not accurate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by toff:
Sorry, you made an obvious error above - you used the word 'rational'. By definition, creationists are not rational.

​

---

Wow, thanks for summing it up! I am not even going to question your opinion on this matter, since it is apparent to me that your IQ is somewhere in the 2000's. Otherwise you wouldn't be smart enough to know all of the creation scientists, what they believe, what their arguments are, and what their scientific credentials are. I feel myself at a disadvantage when debating with an absolute genius like you!

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
without ID humans would be so drastically different that we wouldnt even be able to mate after the 20000 years weve supposedly existed. wed have different races like dwarves, elves, etc. since there is no way humans could have migrated then, through my understanding and according to evolution we would have evolved in the similar way of monkeys and apes and orangatangs. we would have to be that different. unless someone has a very very very good explanation, not some link to some long boring experiment i cant understand yet :-)

​

---

Not quite Hom. sap. hasn`t been around long enough to diversify (at least not into new species)...

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
without ID humans would be so drastically different that we wouldnt even be able to mate after the 20000 years weve supposedly existed. wed have different races like dwarves, elves, etc. since there is no way humans could have migrated then, through my understanding and according to evolution we would have evolved in the similar way of monkeys and apes and orangatangs. we would have to be that different. unless someone has a very very very good explanation, not some link to some long boring experiment i cant understand yet :-)

​

---

Unfortunately, those long boring experiments are exactly what provide evidence for evolution. If you can't understand them yet, perhaps you should hold judgement on your Dwarves & Elves.We do have different races, & pygmies & caucasians look at least as different as dwarves & elves, I think you'll find.There is morpholological, immunological sera reaction, gene sequence, protein amino acid sequence, Pseudogene loci commonality, retroviral insertion loci commonality, non-coding interspersed elements commonality, providing evidence of common descent of primates. Such evidences, used singly, all produce remarkably similar phylogenies (evolutionary trees), when compared to each other.Why would that be? Can you give an answer that explains all of these evidences away, in a manner that doesn't imply common descent?It's going to take a lot more than the baseless assertion that it would be "different without ID", to make science look up from it's collectice bunsen burners & test tubes.Markps FYI, the plural of Dwarf, is Dwarfs, not Dwarves (according to Tolkien), for some wierd reason! ------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Not quite Hom. sap. hasn`t been around long enough to diversify (at least not into new species)...

​

---

but long enough to become human?------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi