What exactly is ID?

I could tell you if it was a printer or a type writer. I could tell you if it was a laser printer, an ink jet, a dot matrix or a daisy wheel. I could tell you if it was the original or a xerox.And that's all if the printer is working absolutely perfectly. If the printer has a slight flaw, I can tell you much more about it.If it was done on a type writer, the FBI crime lab could tell you which brand, a range of model years for that brand _AND_ if they actually found the type writer, they could prove it was produced on that particular machine.This is just another example of you citing a subject you know NOTHING ABOUT and then claiming that because YOU KNOW NOTHING about it, no one can.AND, the whole basis of your argument is FALSE.You are claiming that if I had a piece of paper with writing on it, I couldn't tell you the mechanism involved. Then you NAME two mechanisms which could produce it.Do you get that?Do you see HOW that is different than what you are claiming?You are ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE _____ANY_____ MECHANISMS!!!None. Not "can't choose between two which are testable and reproduceable".You have NO mechanism save "Jew Magic" which you already admitted you don't believe exists. Again, you are demonstrating your complete ignorance. You can WATCH FILM of them creating it. I'm sure there is a museum at Mt. Rushmore which LITERALLY HAS SOME OF THE TOOLS USED!!!Further, YOU DO KNOW there are mechanisms for shaping rock. You've SEEN them in use.You do NOT KNOW that there are Jew Beams. No one ANYWHERE at ANYTIME has EVER seen ANYTHING LIKE JEW BEAMS in use.Therefore NO MECHANISM. No mechanism = no design. Can you give us examples of "other objects" for which NO ONE knows the mechanism?Remember, WE are not restrained by your EXTREMELY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE. Not are we limited by my knowledge. Someone, somewhere can tell you EXACTLY step by step how ANY given digital watch was made.Hell, there is a TV SERIES called "How It's Made" which WALKS YOU THROUGH THE PROCESS for TONS of different objects.Just because YOU don't know doesn't mean it's MAGIC!!!! It's irrelevant that you can't come up with relevant examples? Now THAT'S a quote for the ages. Do you HONESTLY not know the difference between GRAVITY and JEW MAGIC?I've give you a hint. I can TEST and measure GRAVITY. You CAN NOT test nor measure JEW MAGIC. That's why it's called "translation".Someone call Abe Lincoln to come and free this guy. I've been owning him so long I think I gotta give him 40 acres and a mule.

My sincere apology here, I was thinking of Dr. Mortlock's experiments with Xylitol eating bacteria. But when I went back and checked my notes I saw that you are correct. In the case of nylonase most do cite the frame shift conclusion from the Ohno paper. While others conclude that the mutation has an unknown mechanism which requires more study since the organism does seem to adapt in accordance with outside pressures and not random evolutionary processes. But again, the one thing that is agreed upon is that the changes took place in the plasmids thereby making my point that bacteria are poor examples of evolution in action.

Isn't the scientific method based on observation? We draw conclusions based on previous observations. For example a forensic investigator arrives at the scene of a human death, and based on the fact that no one has ever observed a persons head just fall off, the investigator can look at the detached head of the deceased and confidently rule out death by natural causes. Well if natural causes did not take off the head of the deceased then a second conclusion can be made, that an unnatural event removed the persons head. The investigator notices the points of severing are smooth and even and so again based on previous observation he determines that the head was removed with a very sharp cutting type of instrament. And once again based on previous observation, only intelligent agents have been observed using sharp cutting instruments. And the investigator can now conclude that the death is a "murder." The investigator did not (I repeat) did not paint a bulls eye anywhere after the fact. He draws his conclusions based on prior observations. Likewise if I walked up to your barn and observed 150 bullet holes in the exact shape of Grandma's body, I would conclude that they where intentionally put there by intelligent agents. As far as me "changing horses" Percy, I am not changing anything. My stage coach is being drawn by a whole team of horses my friend! Not only do nucleotides in biology exhibit evidence of ID, but likewise so does physics, cosmology, and many other sciences.

My apology Razd, I'm afraid I had tunnel vision when I made those comments. obviously they are genetic changes. I was focused on mutations which occur that add information to the genome. Not just changes to the genome in general. Those suggestions I gave are merely manipulations within the already existing gene pool. They do not represent examples that explain how the code may have developed naturally to begin with. Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

Who is reading the complex code in your computer right now? Does the fact that it is a system (without consciousness) designed to read and utilize complex code, negate the fact that it is in fact complex specified information that originated from an intelligent source? Says you! That's some lottery winner. He won a pot of not only 1 in several thousand, but rather 1 out of 10 to the 130th power, and not just once, but several thousand times in a row. Actually it can easily be pointed out that nylonase and other bacteria do in fact adapt based on selective pressures. External forces such as exposure to poison, starvation or high temperature are known to activate transposases. (see Ohno, S., Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 81:2421—2425, 1984) You seem to be intentionally twisting my words, but I'll roll with the punches here. Sticking with your analogy, no, I would not expect them to revert back to the stone age, but I would expect to see evidence that they were once there OR some "ever so slight" progressions forward occurring within each current generations. Reverting back to reality now, neither are observed in the empirical evidence to support evolutionary claims.

Hi Brad,You'd have no trouble convincing anyone that the decapitation you described or bullets in the outline of grandma's body were not natural. If your evidence for ID is equally obvious then let's hear it.What you've got is a claim that things like proteins could not have come about naturally but must have been created on purpose. You're painting a target around these things and claiming that they must have been what some intelligence intended to create. But unlike your decapitation or grandma's outline, not only do you have no evidence, we already know a great deal about the natural processes that create things like proteins.That's why you keep getting asked for your evidence. You'll know you have something when you're not forced to argue with analogies like decapitations and grandma's outline but instead can respond with actual evidence.The answer to the question, "What exactly is ID?" is that ID is a hypothesis that life may not have come about naturally.The answer to the question, "What is the evidence for ID?" is that life is intricate and complex and for that reason looks designed to some people.And that's about all you got.--Percy

Things that happen in the natural world leave evidence behind. Things that are made up like fantasy and magic do not leave evidence behind.So unless your theory of ID is fantasy or magic, however it happened must have left evidence behind. That's all Taq is saying, that if life today is the product of some intelligence then that intelligence should have left evidence behind of how it created life.One thing's for sure. The only intelligent designer we know of, namely us, the watchmakers of Paley fame, does not create designs in a nested hierarchy.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix pronoun.

If you know the "natural" process that produces proteins by all means please share. And please don't cite that old, and long since discredited, Miller experiment.Thanks
Brad

Is this why you accept ID? Because you think we not only don't know how proteins are produced in nature, but we can't even conceive how such a process could occur naturally?I understand you aren't referring to how proteins are produced in the cell. Naturally we know how that happens because we've looked in cells and seen it happening. That's the whole process of DNA to RNA to ribosomes that join amino acids together to form proteins.What you're actually referring to is how new or different proteins are made, and we know how that happens, too. The DNA copying that takes place during reproduction is imperfect, and when you change the DNA template for a protein, the protein may change, too. What you're doing is postulating a mechanism that has never been seen to occur and for which there is no evidence, and you want it to be taken seriously over a mechanism which we actually observe taking place. Good luck with that. If you had evidence for ID you'd be talking about the evidence for ID. Instead you talk about anything but. Not satisfied with being wrong once in a single short paragraph, you've decided to be wrong twice. Briefly, since this is off-topic, the Miller experiment is still considered preeminent in origin of life circles because it was the first laboratory demonstration that organic molecules (amino acids, as it happens, not proteins) could be produced by natural processes. If you want to respond about this experiment then please post over at The Miller-Urey experiments.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Hold up here. I think we have a mis-communication going on Percy. On one hand I am saying that there are no examples of observed positive mutations adding new (never before existed) genetic CODE to the genome of an organism, in which it improves that organisms ability to survive. Because lets face it... uh hem... there would need to be a whole lot of adding of info taking place in evolution to go from a single celled organism to multi-celled complex organism that can build condominiums. You can't accomplish this by borrowing copied information from another single celled organism, or by losing specificity in information.On the other hand and a completely different note we were talking about complexity and design being observed in the cosmos, and I was referring to abiogenesis when I stated that the odds are impossible when it comes to even generating a protein by natural processes WITHOUT the existence of DNA or RNA which would have had to proceed it. And yet we need at least 200 proteins in order to have "life." As far as the Miller exp. goes, (something told me that one was not going to fly unchallenged). Miller did prove that a few amino acids could be generated in a chemical mixture of Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, and water vapor which at the time was believed to be the earths primordial atmosphere. That was all nice, and I understand the excitement because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are needed for life. But it is still far from being a single protein and a long ways away from being life. But the topper to the whole problem is that today many scientists argue that Hydrogen would have escaped into the outer atmosphere and therefore the early earth's atmosphere (if you believe in a primordial earth) consisted of a Nitrogen, Carbon dioxide, and water vapor composition. Numerous experiments were done with this mixture, including by Miller, and had negative results.Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

Here's a start: Leman, et al., Science 306, pp 283-286, (2004). Peptides are "baby" proteins. The paper is free online at sciencemag.org if you register. And you won't get spammed.

Let's see a practical application of ID, from which we may be able to learn more about what exactly ID is. How does ID explain the progression seen in these images if it is not by new additions or changes in the genome? "A" is a modern chimp: use it for comparison only, as it is not a part of the progression.Image source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You've already been shown wrong on this point. Why are you insisting on continuing to be wrong? Keeping this at the same oversimplified level of detail that you just presented (e.g., "a whole lot of adding of info"), the human genome has around 3 billion base pairs. Life has existed on Earth for at least 3 billion years. That would require adding only a single base/pair per year. Doesn't sound so impossible now, does it? Of course, that's way oversimplified, but you started it, and we can get into as much detail as you like, just as soon as you quantify how much "a whole lot of info" is.We keep requesting evidence from you, and all we get is rhetorical answers based on faulty intuition that in turn derives from knowing too little about your subject because your information comes from sources who either also know little or who have an agenda of making sure you don't learn too much so that you'll accept the crap they feed you.Incredible as it might seem to you, reaching correct conclusions depends upon having correct facts, and so far you don't have many. If you want to continue to be wrong about the Urey-Miller experiment and subsequent origins of life research, could you at least do so where it would be on-topic over at the The Miller-Urey experiments thread? Thanks.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi Brad H, thanks. So now we have obvious genetic changes, good. Now let's connect that with your previous claims: Claim #1: all mutations result in a loss of information or function. Claim #2: phenotypic change can occur without genetic change. Claim #3: there are a number of mechanisms that can change the phenotypes in a whole population of organisms. So you have backed away from the non-genetic explanations of phenotypic change, and we are back, once again, to the walkingstick evidence originally provided in Message 809:

quote:

---

... we have the case of walkingstick insects.

​

See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)

​

Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.

​

And some lost wings (red). And diversified.

​

And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.

​

And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

​

Can you explain how this occurs when information is only lost?

​

Wings
No wings
Wings
No wings

​

All by loss of information? Did they 1st lose the information on how to make wings, then 2nd lose the information on how to lose the information on how to make wings, and then 3rd lose the information on how to lose the information on how to lose the information on how to make wings? How can you lose information to not do something that you have lost the information to do?

​

We can calculate the effect of such information on evolution as follows:

1. Wings
2. No wings = (a) + information_a = Wings + information_a
   IF going from (a) to (b) involves a loss of information then information_a is positive
   
3. Wings = (b) + information_b = No wings + information_b = (a) + information_a + information_b = Wings + information_a + information_b
   IF going from (b) to (c) involves a loss of information then information_b is positive

​

Wings - Wings = information_a + information_b = 0
information_a + information_b = 0
information_a = 0 - information_b

​

Either information is gained in one case, or the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0

​

Obviously if information is always lost, that then this concept of information has no effect on what can and cannot evolve.

---

Comments in pink added for emphasis.Now remember your claim: Look at the graphic again, and note that each branching in the cladogram represents a speciation event. Claim #1: all mutations result in a loss of information or function.By your latest admission, this is now either falsified, OR the "information" concept involved is rendered irrelevant to evolution.So do we get an admission that either information must have been added at one of these events or that the concept of "information" involved is useless in predicting what can and what cannot evolve?Again, I will be perfectly happy to have you confirm your claim that you have "never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA" by admitting that the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0, because I would agree with you.Of course this means that the whole ID bandwagon about "information yada yada" has just been completely derailed.Your alternative is to provide your explanation ofClaim #2: phenotypic change can occur without genetic change.Claim #3: there are a number of mechanisms that can change the phenotypes in a whole population of organisms.And how this applies to each of the entire species at each level of the above diagram. Without such explanation -- plus evidence of it actually applying to these situations.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle so not confused with other side threads

---