Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?

Rather than just pointing us at a link, could you summarize what Paul Chien says that you think refutes the possibility of hox gene evolution?I don't think some of you want to read it. I will let those who are really interested in seeing both sides of the debate read it.What science does know is that complex organic molecules like amino acids and sugars arrive from space all time riding on meteorites. Conditions in space are apparently adequate for their spontaneous formation.

I suspect you are underestimating the difference between organic molecules and DNA molecules. There is six feet of DNA tightly wrapped up in each of our cells in the human body. You can google that and you will find that is the case. Even Richard Dawkins conceded that DNA had to have some sort of origin outside of natural causes in the movie "Expelled". From your point of view it doesn't imply intelligent origins but I think it is the best explanation but science by its own unofficial rules must dismiss that as a possibility.I'm familiar with Lynn Margulis's work, but I don't know what a "complexity theory of evolution" is. Regardless, there are no aspects of evolutionary theory that ignore the relevant effects of mutations, or even more outlandishly, that pretend that mutations don't happen.True, but it isn't one of the main mechanisms at work. Lynn has challenged evolutionists to find a single organism that arrived here by random mutations. I think her theory explains the cell better than neo-Darwinism.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

You made a claim. Support it or withdraw it. You are very wrong, those who disagree with you really do want to know what you have to say. Don't hide.

To perversely steer towards the topic for a moment... I posit that the ineptness of the Designer includes designing a flawed memory system, and that this is great evidence of that.

Hi TraderDrew, I'll address your consecutive posts beginning with your Message 223 in a single message. Your main point was about diversity. As Peepul pointed out with his graph, diversity has increased over time by an enormous amount, but at levels lower than phyla, such as the families in his graph. As I explained in my subsequent Message 222, there is no requirement that diversity occur at any particular point on the tree of life. Given that all the significant ecological niches are already filled, it is very unlikely for new phyla to emerge. As with trees in a forest, new branches occur closer to the canopy than the trunk. You've missed Taq's point. He probably figured you already knew about Linnaeus and was brief because he thought you only needed reminding. The point is that phyla are just a human construct resulting from our attempts to categorize life, and that our current classification system was invented, for the most part, by Linnaeus.Phyla and all the rest of the categories like class, family and species, are just classifications that serves as a valuable aid to understanding, but you're talking about phyla as if they were real things. That's okay, I don't think that's a serious problem, though Taq probably disagrees, but I just wanted you to understand that you missed what he was trying to say.But there is an important point to be made. The organisms at the base of the tree of life no longer exist, so they can't evolve new phyla. The only organisms that exist are at the leaves of the tree. Evolution can only operate on life that actually still exists, and all life that exists is a leaf of the tree. No new branch can ever emerge from near the tree's trunk because all that life is long-extinct. Sufficient evolutionary change requiring the addition of a new phyla is still possible, as has happened in the distant past. It may be happening right now for all we know, but evolution just follows the requirements of the environment, and we cannot predict the future. I did read it and couldn't see how it constituted a rebuttal to the possibility of hox gene evolution. Why don't you try to argue Chien's position and see how much sense it makes when you try to say it in your own words? Besides, the Forum Guidelines advises against bare links:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Moving on: Is that what you were proposing when you mentioned DNA coming from space? That all six feet of human DNA came from space? I hope that's not what you were trying to say. Watch Dawkins answer Stein's question in the movie Expelled beginning at 3:10 in this YouTube video: Stein asks what Dawkins thinks of the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer, and Dawkins answers by describing how any such idea can only result in an infinite regression. That's where if you believe that life couldn't have formed spontaneously on earth and wasn't created by God, then it must have been created by intelligent aliens. Where did the intelligent aliens come from? Well, if you believe that life couldn't have originated spontaneously anywhere in the universe and wasn't created by God, then it must have been created by some even greater intelligent aliens. Where did these even greater intelligent aliens come from? Well, if you believe that life couldn't have originated spontaneously anywhere in the universe and wasn't created by God, then it must have been created by some even greater yet intelligent aliens. See where this is going? Either it's an infinite regression going further and further back in time to ever greater intelligent aliens, or at some point you have to say, "God did it."In other words, Dawkins explained how intelligent design is really just a well disguised religious appeal to God. Stein didn't understand the explanation, as is clear from his overdubbed comments. Dawkins believes DNA had natural causes, and nothing he said in Expelled indicates any differently, so I don't see how you picked up the impression that he thinks that "DNA had to have some sort of origin outside of natural causes." Science doesn't dismiss possibilities. But it can only consider possibilities for which there is evidence. While intelligent design advocates believe that the mere existence of the universe and life is evidence for an intelligent designer, as Dawkins pointed out ultimately this is just an appeal to God, so obviously the evidence IDists think they see is misperceived. Margulis understands that random mutations are the grist that drives the evolutionary mill. Wherever did you get the idea that she didn't?By the way, are you inserting

at the end of some of your paragraphs? If so then you needn't bother, they have no effect. If you're not putting them in then let me know because it means there's a bug somewhere.--Percy

Once again, you are another person who sees the universe according to the way you think things ought to be if you were a god and running it. I saw the movie in the theater last year. I'm sorry if I don't remember it correctly and based on your point of view I should blame my creator but I don't. Far far as I know my creator hasn't told me to intellectually duel anyone here.

This is not the case. There are undoubtedly things in our existence that are not the way they ought to be; or in simpler terms, are not running at their maximum potential / efficiency level. If you dispute this, you're an idiot.Let's think about it for one minute. Our universe cannot be considered "perfect" by anyone's standard of the definition. The great celestial wastes brought about by system and planetary movements are a good example of this.Vast stores of energy are squandered throughout the depths of space, while areas needing light and heat are left in darkness and cold. Wherever we turn we are confronted with "means-to-ends" all out of proportion to the "ends" achieved, and with a consumption of time and materials which, measured by any intelligent standards, borders on the criminal.To say that a being of perfect stature created a universe so disproportionately out of whack is nothing short of insanity.

You don't have to intellectually duel anyone here.But that is no excuse for being simply wrong.You misrepresented Dawkins position. That needs to be rectified on the basis of honesty if nothing else.

Given that all the significant ecological niches are already filled, it is very unlikely for new phyla to emerge. As with trees in a forest, new branches occur closer to the canopy than the trunk.That doesn't explain everything. During the Cambrian we had a strong diversity of phylum but not a strong diversity of species. What does this imply? It implies rapid evolution (one phylum seemingly morphing into another phylum) if you wish to believe in such things. Palentolgists have tried to shoehorn the phylum of the Cambriantogether. You can't convince me that phylum like Hallucigenia Hallucigenia - Wikipedia evolved from something else without transitions. If this happened then, why isn’t the genome flexible enough for this to happen again? We have had a lot of time and a lot of extinctions between the Cambrian and now. This of course goes back to my other post. I'm sorry that I violated forum rules and I will touch on that link below.Phyla and all the rest of the categories like class, family and species, are just classifications that serves as a valuable aid to understanding, but you're talking about phyla as if they were real things. That's okay, I don't think that's a serious problem, though Taq probably disagrees, but I just wanted you to understand that you missed what he was trying to say.I am familiar with the term binominal nomenclature as used for species descriptions. The diversity above genera obviously grows stronger. Obviously there are large differences between phylum represented by plants, spiders, corals, and humans.I may be wrong but I do see things like phylum, class, family, etc as things as part of the fractal nature of life. I see these things as a reflection of chaos theory. Chaos has a fractal nature. Chaos seems to permeate throughout this world. It seems to be a part of its structure. You just described a brief example of the fractal nature of a tree.But there is an important point to be made. The organisms at the base of the tree of life no longer exist, so they can't evolve new phyla. The only organisms that exist are at the leaves of the tree. Evolution can only operate on life that actually still exists, and all life that exists is a leaf of the tree. No new branch can ever emerge from near the tree's trunk because all that life is long-extinct. Sufficient evolutionary change requiring the addition of a new phyla is still possible, as has happened in the distant past. It may be happening right now for all we know, but evolution just follows the requirements of the environment, and we cannot predict the future.There is nothing about this paragraph that causes me to question my paradigms.Once again, I do not disagree with evolution. I just disagree with the mechanisms involved. And I think from what little I know about the fossil record, it seems to agree with my point of view. Evolution is possible and probable but not under mechanisms of neo-Darwinism. I know that I have not adequately explained them but that is for another post.Now back to the hox gene link. If you have the knowledge that can refute Paul Chien's knowledge, then feel free. I don't pretent to understand genetics. If you want to debate it, I am not going to engage in it. I came here with a theory, and that theory says that people are irrational and that evolutionists are not immune from it. I do see irrational posts from various evolutionists. Irrationality is a science in itself.I do believe DNA and the genome is very complex. The more I read about it the more I get the impression that it wasn't created by accident. If for instance if the DNA molecule was assembled by accident, then what kind of protection would it require? Microorganisms have a protective membrane. What came first, DNA or the protective membrane? How would it survive and multiply? What kind of symantic information would be required to encourage an organism to multiply? Consider this before I post quotes from the link below.A short nucleic acid sequence, as envisaged by evolutionists, would have no chance of containing the information to code for the copying enzymes that it needs. Complex genomes require reliable copying, and reliable copying requires complex genomes. Which came first? - from "The Origin of Life"QUIZ & ANSWERS for: Intelligent Design and the Origin of Animal PhylaSmall mutations in regulatory "Hox" genes allowed many animal body plans to evolve simultaneously, without leaving a trace of ancestry.Firstly, it does not deal with the fact that there is nothing even remotely resembling Cambrian fauna prior to the Cambrian explosion. Even if all of the body plans could arise rapidly, it does not tell us from what they all could have come from.Secondly, "Hox gene (regulatory-gene) mutations" can only re-arrange parts which are already there--they cannot create truly novel structures.An oversimplified discussion is that genes can be thought of in two categories: "master control genes" (Hox genes) and "body part genes." "Body part genes" code for actual body parts while "master control genes" tell those "body part genes" when and where to be expressed and create their respective part. However, Hox mutations will never create new "body part genes", and thus cannot add truly new phenotypic functions into the genome. The majority of evolutionary change must take place through evolving new "body part genes", which Hox mutations cannot do. This explanation cannot explain the order of biological diversity which appears in the Cambrian explosion. One reviewer in Nature notes these limitations:"[H]omeobox genes are selector genes. They can do nothing if the genes regulated by them are not there. It is these genes that specify in detail the adaptive structure of the organs. To be sure, turning on a homeobox gene at the wrong place can result in the appearance of an ectopic organ, but only if the genes for that organ are present in the same individual. It is totally wrong to imply that an eye could be produced by a macromutation when no eye was ever present in the lineage before. Homeotic mutations that reshuffle parts do happen, and sometimes they may have led to fixation of real evolutionary novelties, but this does not mean that such changes are implied in the majority of speciations. In fact, macromutations of this sort are probably frequently maladaptive, in contrast to the vast number of past and present species-not to mention the fact that morphological differences between related species can be minute." (Book review of Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species by Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Wiley: 1999). by Eors Szathmary in Nature 399:24, June 1999 pg. 745)Finally, changes Hox genes appear to generally harm organisms more than being "miracle mutations" that can radically re-arrange body parts:"The drawback for scientists is that nature's shrewd economy conceals enormous complexity. Researchers are finding evidence that the Hox genes and the non-Hox homeobox genes are not independent agents but members of vast genetic networks that connect hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other genes. Change one component, and myriad others will change as well--and not necessarily for the better. Thus dreams of tinkering with nature's toolbox to bring to life what scientists call a "hopeful monster"- such as a fish with feet--are likely to remain elusive." (Nash J.M., "Where Do Toes Come From?," Time, Vol. 146, No. 5, July 31, 1995. Also at "Page not found | TIME")Invoking mere Hox-Gene mutations to allow for "rapid evolution" during the Cambrian explosion ignores the extreme genetic complexities and phenotypic limitations inherent in manipulating Hox Genes.Oh, here is what I found on Lynn Margulis,Symbiogenesis is the general term used for the merging of two separate organisms to form a single new organism. In Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, published in 2002, Margulis argues that symbiogenesis is a primary force in evolution; that is, [symbiosis|symbiotic] relationships between organisms of often different phyla or kingdoms are the driving force of evolution.This concept challenges a central tenet of neodarwinism that inherited variation mainly comes from random mutations. According to Margulis' theory, acquisition and accumulation of random mutations are not sufficient to explain how inherited variations occur. Rather, Margulis argues that genetic variation occurs mainly as the result of the transfer of nuclear information between organisms. New organelles, bodies, organs, and species arise from symbiogenesis, evolving primarily through relationships between organisms, involving the fusion of genomes.Lynn Margulis - New World EncyclopediaEdited by traderdrew, : Minor editing

Do you think that I won't admit that I am wrong? I was wrong but that doesn't change or invalidate my paradigm.

OK. But would you remind me what your paradigm is?

This is not the case. There are undoubtedly things in our existence that are not the way they ought to be; or in simpler terms, are not running at their maximum potential / efficiency level. If you dispute this, you're an idiot.Sounds like you are taking the high ground over me. Perhaps you would like to provide some scientific documentation supporting your views.Vast stores of energy are squandered throughout the depths of space, while areas needing light and heat are left in darkness and cold. Wherever we turn we are confronted with "means-to-ends" all out of proportion to the "ends" achieved, and with a consumption of time and materials which, measured by any intelligent standards, borders on the criminal.

​

To say that a being of perfect stature created a universe so disproportionately out of whack is nothing short of insanity.Perhaps you need to read the book "Rare Earth". Don't worry, it was not written by proponents of I.D. like I am. They won't offend you. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Isn't it obvious? I.D.

You managed to deduce the way I view the world from that statement alone? You must be a genius, I insist you get off internet forums and put your phenomenal talents to good use.Alternatively, you are wrong. I would like to add to the list of inept design the tendency for us to jump to social conclusions based on far too little information. No need to apologize. You raise an interesting point, though. I don't think it is fair to 'blame' someone for incompetence necessarily. Maybe it wasn't the designer that designed a faulty memory system, maybe the creator failed to follow the design specifications properly. Or maybe it was the Project Manager who insisted that corners were cut in order to meet a deadline? We shouldn't assume that it was the designer that was inept I suppose.And let's not get started on the QA department - were they on the ball about these memory issues, or were they just ignored?I mean, you not only made a mistake in memory, you remembered things exactly contradictorily to the way they were - even though you were in a dark room with a 30 foot high screen in front of you (so attention wasn't to blame presumably). There are some excellent studies on just how terrible our memory is...it has so many bugs it is untrue.

Is that a paradigm?Or an unevidenced assumption?Has ID been confirmed by the standard scientific method of verification of predicted results?Or does it remain an untested hypothesis?

​

Or an unevidenced assumption? Or does it remain an untested hypothesis?That is why I don't categorize I.D. as science.Can a paradigm be an unevidenced assumption? I would say yes but it could very well be a weak one but I don't think I.D. is weak.