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.

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.

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.

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.

​

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.

It is not some kind of esoteric science. The people at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy know there needed to be a flexible genome. There was a lack of transitional fossils and a diverse amount of body plans during the explosion. The ratio of phylum and species was unusual relative to other time periods.

I am not referring to a 60 to 80 million year time period. I know that the Cambrian lasted about 80 million years. The Cambrian explosion refers to a 5 to 10 million year time period. I also know of no evidence that supports your belief that the rate of evolution was just as quick during the era of the dinosaurs as it was during the Cambrian. Unless perhaps and maybe perhaps, you shoehorn the phylum together. I get the impression that you are starting to reach for answers. I do have a belief system that explains the rapid evolution of the dinosaurs but that is another topic.

The first multicellular life occurred during the Ediacaran era.What is the Ediacaran Biota? I'm not sure I wrote it that way or if you misunderstood me. I'm not going to argue that. However, I believe in the possibility of mutations affecting evolution. I’m sure this is possible under chaos theory because it seems to me that the world operates out of chaos. Chaos tells me that you can’t have evolution driven solely by random mutations and natural selection. If you wish I can write an article articulating my belief system in evolution. You guys can do whatever you want with it.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : html editingEdited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

True, I can very well mislead someone with what I stated. If I was a pure evolutionist, I might propose that the evolution of the organisms that led the the Cambrian era somehow occurred in the embryonic stages of their development. I suppose it is refreshing for some of you to see an IDist attempting to question his belief system.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Is that the official scientific point of view or is that just a contrived argument in an attempt to refute on of my points? I have studied some genera. You can't tell me that genera are contrived separations from each other.

Why don't you tell me? Are the criteria based on a consensus of scientists that see legitimate differences between the phyla? To get some idea of some of the unique body plans during the Cambrian you can search the phylum, Opabina, Wiwaxia, and Pikaia.

You are a true evolutionist. I guess you can also explain away punctuated equilibrium. I must say that this is getting to a point that is beyond my level of knowledge. However, let me present an idea. What if the creator decided to fashion other organisms out parts of others? Wouldn't this explain punctuated equilibrium? I could also ask you to produce evidence for the precursor structures of the trilobite. If they are not novel then they should be in the fossil record.

Response to LuskinFurthermore, we can make predictions based on hypotheses about how body plans are set up. We know that Hox genes are central to this process. One prediction that can be made is that organisms with different body plans ought to have correlated changes in the way their Hox genes are expressed, or in the way Hox genes regulate genes further downstream. These predictions have been tested and are currently being tested in labs around the world. I would agree with you if I was stuck in your paradigm.

We can go around and around but I think that our levels of knowledge are insufficient in order to present good cases from either side. Were many of the creatures of the Cambrian truely novel? According to Tag they are not because you are both operating from similar theoretical evolutionary paradigms.

Good point. You see I will give someone credit where credit is due. I will contempate it.By the way, the sedimentary rock of the Cambrian was conducive for preserving soft body parts of various organisms such as jellyfish. I don't know if this was the same for the Edicarian fauna but I don't see why it shouldn't have been.I think I will bow out for now. I don't have the knowledge base or the understanding of genetics for sufficiently presenting my case. And none of you wish to question some of my other paradigms. I have learned a couple of things. One reason why I debate some of you is because I wish to understand myself better. I believe rational thought is one of the keys to a successful life. I like reading material from Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe and Robin Collins and others. I find their arguments to be more rational than some evolutionists. I do think there is at least one evolutionist who is fairly irrational. His initials are K.M. I do find some creationists irrational also.I don't see any good reason to fear science. I think that this would be irrational. It is more rational to fear those who use science or religion for morally destructive purposes. I am sorry if I offended anyone with my other posts. I am not attempting to push any agenda on someone who doesn't wish to hear it. This is of course a debate forum and if someone doesn't want to participate then they are free to go somewhere else.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I must say that you also equivocate my points. You do this by spinning tangents off of them in order to make people read what you want them to read. You are just a lot more crafty at doing it than many others.

OK I apologise.

No problem there. If the number of shared characteristics between each phylum is quite low then, shouldn't this tell you that the body plans of various organisms in the Cambrian are unique? I think I know what you are trying to convey now. You are saying that these differences are based partly upon their arrivals within fossil record rather than differences based on cladistics. One problem with that is finding the original ancestors to some of these species in which there arrival appears to be sudden. Another problem with that is that it ignores the legitimate differences and characteristics between the phylum during the Cambrian. The phylum mollusca may prove to be an interesting study in order to understand it. We have a diverse amount of them today and they existed during the Cambrian. I don't miss it at all. I say that I don't know rather than say that this was the way it happened. By the way, those fish with legs you wrote about were tetrapods. It is good that you believe in punctuated equilibrium because their arrival doesn't make sense under neo-Darwinism. Why would a fish abandon its aquatic habitat under the influence of random mutations and natural selection? There must have been constant pressure for them to leave it. I would think that that these mutant fish would have faced competition from various creatures more suited to survive on land. It also seems to ignore sudden climatic changes that change ecosystems. It makes more sense to me for amphibians to have taken to the water. But once again, that evolutionary paradigm makes people see it as a bottom up process. Edited by traderdrew, : Minor editing