Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 186 of 264 (546205)
02-09-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
01-22-2010 4:12 PM


Of course this results in a process that is indistinguishable from non-design using the same process, so the question reverts to whether the process is natural or designed.
I don't think it is either / or. I think it is a mixture of both. It is a type of chaos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2010 4:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 187 of 264 (546207)
02-09-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
01-23-2010 8:16 AM


Re: Let's Argue Against a Real Theory of Intelligent Design
(e.g. traderdrew's confusion over the concept of CSI)
Please direct me to a thread, link, or information where you can clear up the confusion you think you see in my posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2010 8:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2010 10:55 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 189 of 264 (546214)
02-09-2010 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Blue Jay
01-25-2010 9:46 AM


Re: perhaps missing the point?
You can't force IDists to have a falsifiable theory, and, if they don't have one, then we just can't use an empirical, scientific approach to disprove it.
Of course ID is falsifiable. Why would some of the evolutionists on this forum (who apparently dispise ID by the way) try so hard to falsify it??? Oh the irony and they don't even see it. In order to falsify any ID position, all you have to do is find an unambiguous natural explanation that explains away the ID hypothesis.
Oh and I think a designer could use Darwinian evolution ONLY if the designer had strong foresight as to see what occurs ahead of the pathways of chaos.
My guess is a designer could or would have had the foresight to see the biological designs were subject to various types of forces within chaos and instead of attempting to continuously correct and/or intervene in the process, may rather chosen to use it as an advantage.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Blue Jay, posted 01-25-2010 9:46 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2010 11:47 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 193 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 1:18 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 194 by Taq, posted 02-09-2010 1:27 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 191 of 264 (546224)
02-09-2010 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by New Cat's Eye
02-09-2010 11:47 AM


Re: perhaps missing the point?
Can you give an example of something from the ID hypothesis that does NOT have an unambiguous natural explanation?
I will go ahead and edit PaulK's post for you.
I have already tried multiple times, and been accused of being a Creationist for my pains.
You've made it quite clear that you aren't interested in listening. Ya'all trippin.
Of course, I question PaulK's sincerity because he constantly posts and he always has to have the last word. He likes the pain if it really does pain him.
Traderdrew over and out!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2010 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2010 12:25 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 195 of 264 (546267)
02-09-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Blue Jay
02-09-2010 1:18 PM


Re: perhaps missing the point?
Is there a name for this fallacy? Argument from the existence of enemies, maybe?
I think their thinking (those here I have debated) is flawed. I think they don't have an imagination and they are poor philosophers. Granny Magda thinks I am being sanctimonious for saying that. I checked my thinking on the net to see if anyone in history agreed with me. Albert Einstein also beleived scientists are poor philosophers. How about it Granny Magda? Was Einstein being sanctimonious?
Now something is scientific because somebody tries to prove it wrong?
No, I wouldn't say ID is scientific because of that reason alone.
I've done my best to defend the concept of things being designed from what I perceive to be an illegitimate attack strategy, but you've undermined my entire argument in one post!
Hey, you are entitled to explore these views. How does what I write make your view of ID any worse?
Why would a Designer need to see ahead of the "pathways of chaos"?
You know as well as I do intelligent designers have a certain amount of foresight. It could be that the one who designed life had a hell of a lot more than any of us.
What's to stop a Designer from designing something, and then just letting it go on its own, as in RAZD’s deist beliefs?
This is probably more or less what happened. Hox genes were around 50 million years before the Cambrian explosion. So the idea hox genes were forming during the Cambrian has been blown out of the water.
There were approximately 30 to 40 new phyla that came into existence during the Cambrian. Each of these new phyla needed their own gene regulatory network or "kernel". Any attempt to tamper with a kernel will destroy it. A human made schematic of a kernel looks superficially like a complex diagram of a circuit board. They are another example of something that is irreducibly complex.
I don't buy phyla were just different species during that time as someone stated around here a long time ago. That would be just forum conjecture.
Surely you’ve noticed that the existence of a designer (assuming there is one) hasn’t made the world an orderly place, right?
An orderly place according to whose perspective??? Think about that... Are tectonic plates not driven by radioactive isotopes? Are there not tidal forces such as the Gulf Stream that help regulate temperatures? Is the earth not fine-tuned? Are you going to blame the designer for the actions of people? If that is what you think then, I would say that is a form of geocentrism where you would judge the apparance on a very small area compared to the entire universe and beyond it.
Speaking of geocentrism, it is something else that has explained the solar system very well but either way, (not trying to pick a fight with Smooth Operator) one of the two explanations that attempt to explain the solar system is very, very wrong. Much like what could be the case for Darwinian evolution and naturalism. They both can explain the evidence well but they are way off target overall.
How can you argue that anything that designed this universe is foreseeing and accounting for the chaos?
I don't see a problem with an all powerful designer accounting for different types of forces and finding a way to deal with all of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 1:18 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Granny Magda, posted 02-09-2010 5:19 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 197 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 6:09 PM traderdrew has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 199 of 264 (546284)
02-09-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Blue Jay
02-09-2010 6:09 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
And, for the record, you do come off as sanctimonious.
I do sometimes come across as challenging. I want you motivate you to prove me wrong. I am aware you are a scientist. If that was your best shot (I don't think it was) you haven't convinced me.
I do have a respect for science. I don't think ID would be possible without the scientific method. I respect your science but you all don't respect ID. So who is really being more sanctimonious?
I don't know of any human invention that didn't exist as a concept first before it came to be. Even the antenna RAZD posted existed as a basic concept before computer processing tinkered with the designs.
As far as things like nuclear bombs. The bomb just may have saved more lives than it took by bringing an early end to the war. DDT? I don't know if it is as bad as the press had painted it to be.
How do you falsify the statement, "All things were made by natural processes."? To disprove it you must go through an infinite number of possibilities in order to prove natural processes can explain life as we know it. Is this even possible? Science hasn't convinced me natural processes can produce a living replicating cell. There isn't even a scientific consensus on how it happened. That last sentence was not from my mind. It was paraphrased from Eugenie Scott.
Put it this way, if our solar system was in the wrong place in our galaxy, I would tend to agree with you that there is a design flaw but we are in no danger from gamma radiation.
After I end this post I will read about the stochastic process.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 6:09 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 02-09-2010 7:30 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 204 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 11:01 PM traderdrew has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 202 of 264 (546313)
02-09-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Percy
02-09-2010 7:30 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Huh? The most prominent people in the ID movement are opposed to methodological naturalism, meaning that they want to violate the very first step of the scientific method and hypothesize mechanisms for which there is no evidence. If IDists truly followed the scientific method then ID would be impossible.
When you have one cause for a known phenomenon or an object, it is easy to infer it as an explanation. Such an example would be an equisitely designed arrowhead. When there is more than one cause or factor for something such as the evolution of biological forms, it is much more difficult to narrow down the causes of the results. So when the past is reconstructed, science infers the best explanation. This explanation isn't always the same thing as the truth.
I believe the scientific explanation for the flagellum involves horizontal gene transfer. It apparently serves as a work around for a "flagellum first - ID position" saying both the TTSS and the flagellum evolved independently. Scientific explanations sometimes have hidden problems their proponents or participants on the evcforum do not wish to see. The models may appease their emotions but what good does it do if they don't wish to see things another way.
Water boils at 100 celcius is one of those explanations where one cause is responsible. The Big Bang is one of those theories, although not perfect, is the best explanation for the origin of the universe and if you wish to ask, my ID side is satisified with it because whatever comes into existence must have a cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 02-09-2010 7:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2010 10:14 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 7:05 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 208 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 11:12 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 205 of 264 (546323)
02-09-2010 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Blue Jay
02-09-2010 11:01 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
By finding one thing that wasn’t.
It’s actually easy to falsify a claim that begins with the word all.
Yes you are correct and I was way to vague. I should have stated something such as "How do you falsify the claim natural processes created the first living cell on earth?" How about this one, how do you falsify the claim that an unintelligent process evolved the flagellum? You have to run through an infinite amount of possible unintelligent senarios could have produced either life on earth or the flagellum.
To falsify intelligent design, you have to find an unambiguous example of natural causes that would show how life or the flagellum was generated. The ID senarios are theoretically easier to falsify.
I'm not going to respond to any further posts for now. If you have any unanswered comments on gene regulatory networks or if you produce a natural explanation for the flagellum other than the HGT or the silly pilus model then fill us in.
However, it has convinced me that God didn’t create humans specially a few thousand years ago: there is biological evidence against that version of intelligent design.
I'm not there either.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 11:01 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2010 9:58 AM traderdrew has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 209 of 264 (546382)
02-10-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
02-10-2010 7:05 AM


Re: Poor Philosophy
In other words, you think abandoning methodological naturalism and inferring non-natural and unevidenced causes would have a better chance of leading you to the truth. What kind of truth are you talking about? Scientific truth? I don't think so. I think you're seeking answers that confirm your religious beliefs.
Yes, you are correct but you could have known that from a previous post of mine. And adding to a previous comment, I am the type of person who has to know the realities of life and why we are here. It is an interesting topic. It seems to me people try to evade the truth painting the picture of reality they wish to see. I don't think reality works like that and in my opinion, it severely foolish and unwise to do want things a certain way.
Can you name any phenomena which ever resolved to non-natural causes?
It really depends on points of view or what you wish to believe. I thought I gave you some the flagellum, the cilium, the fine-tuning of the terrestrial environment, ususual patterns in the fossil record. I have already pointed out that chaos tends to blurr the ability to reconstruct the past. So why do I continue to debate this stuff when you don't even wish to consider it as a possibility?
Here is another thing I have been thinking about. Maybe a new thread? I am wondering a little bit about the "Electric Universe" theory as opposed to the Big Bang theory. Which theory is right?
And if ID rejects methodological naturalism then it isn't scientific.
I don't think ID is truely scientific. It is empirically based and it has scientific roots. It seems to be each branch of science to metascience to metaphysics has tentacles and ties with each or other branches. Could they all be connected?
If there's valid evidence for horizontal gene transfer in the evolutionary history of the bacterial flagellum, why on earth would science have any objection to it?
Gee, how about that, you're wrong again!
It is not that they have an objection to it. It is that some people don't necessarily wish to see the flaws in it. I believe HGT is very possible and probable. To be fair I don't know enough about it to criticize it. I will tell you one thing, it is becoming abundantly clear to me HGT has more potential than a neo-Darwinian explanation for the flagellum. However, I still I remain unconvinced for some of the following reasons:
I read the link you provided. I see the have the archaeal flagellum and the bacterial flagellum but, where is the process described under HGT to put together both humpty dumptys together in the first place???
This quote from the article was wrong.
The bacterial flagellum is a complex rotary structure made up of as much as 20 proteins and composed of three major parts -the basal body, the hook, and the filament.
The bacterial flagellum has 42 proteins.
The link belows documents failures in attempt to transfer a large amount of genes into E. coli.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1147112v1
If this is the case then why would I expect a bunch of genes from different biological sources to suddenly and randomly come together in a coherent and perhaps integrated way to miraculously create a flagellum?
The other paper (not linked) expects the flagellum and the TTSS evolved independently and refutes the TTSS evolved with loss of function or maybe devolved from the flagellum. You still have to believe both were able to somehow evolve independently.
If they both evolved independently, what were the precursors to both the TTSS and the flagellum(s)??? HGT works with what already exists right?
Maybe it is not clear where my position is but once again, I do have respect for science and maybe science has the answer for a natural explanation for the flagellum. I will go half way because of my own ignorance on the subject but I think I have given some strong support for my ID - flagellum position here.
Where am I wrong?
Technology developed under naturalistic assumptions surrounds you. Look around you. See anything developed under non-naturalistic assumptions?
Let me ask you this... Are there any technological inventions around me that have been developed without or outside of a design paradigm???
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 7:05 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 2:42 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 2:45 PM traderdrew has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 210 of 264 (546387)
02-10-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Blue Jay
02-10-2010 9:58 AM


Re: Poor Philosophy
And, we have all seen that the ID movement is willing to continually increase the amount of natural causation that their model can permit, and thereby allow the movement to pretend it is still vibrant and thriving while it recedes into ever smaller and weaker versions of its former glory.
I would assume you are referring to Creationism? There are plenty of those who insist ID = Creationism and I have successfully debated Dr. Adequate on it but many of you still shut your eyes to it. It is another example of painting a view of ID proponents the way some of you wish to see it.
Creationism just don't hold up. When science goes against Creationism, science will win in every or almost every debate every time or almost every time. Creationism doesn't have much flexiblity because it is a materialistic based explanation of the book of Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2010 9:58 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2010 12:30 AM traderdrew has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 213 of 264 (546397)
02-10-2010 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Taq
02-10-2010 2:45 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
There is your model of an intelligent designer creating a bacterial flagellum. Just imagine a creative force is behind the step by step process.
Yes, the video was created to refute Creationists. Don't bother attempting to debate it with me because you will lose.
I have now considered the video as an ID hypothesis of a supernatural creator creating a complex biological machine through a natural process. Enjoy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 2:45 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 3:30 PM traderdrew has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 214 of 264 (546399)
02-10-2010 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Percy
02-10-2010 2:42 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Aren't you arguing for HGT as a superior explanation for the bacterial flagellum, as opposed to "scientific explanations that sometimes have hidden problems that their proponents or participants on the evcforum do not wish to see."
Yes, I am arguing for this because a step by step neo-Darwinian model doesn't cut it.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."- Charles Darwin "The Origin of Species"
"Where am I wrong?" you ask. Your example of something science was refusing to consider was actually something that science is already considering.
I cannot determine what scientists as a whole are thinking at this time. I can judge what I see from Darwinists on this forum and a couple of other places where I have been.
And for you the realities of life include things you can't see or hear or anything else. If you want to run your life that way that's your business, but you might stop and think a minute about how well this approach is serving you.
You might stop and think for a minute how your approach would have served you 200 years ago. You wouldn't have known anything about radio waves or quantum physics. Would you have honestly believed these things would have not existed? Who is to say that science has discovered everything you should know about especially since it automatically disqualifies any inference to the supernatural?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 2:42 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 3:26 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 4:10 PM traderdrew has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 218 of 264 (546418)
02-10-2010 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Taq
02-10-2010 3:26 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Last I checked horizontal genetic transfer is a modification of the genome.
Didn't you read the post I made to Percy today?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1147112v1
While these experimental studies examined transfer solely into E. coli, a computational analysis of gene transfer rates across available bacterial and archaeal genomes supports that the barriers observed in our study are general across the tree of life.
If modification was the only thing that was necessary, not creating new monsters (the flagellum, the archaeal flagellum, the TTSS) then, what did the precursors look like and why did they not reject a host of different genes across the board? Tell me what half or 2/3rds of a flagellum looks like and how it evolved.
Can you please explain how the "approach" would have prevented the discovery of radio waves and quantum mechanics?
I don't think you understood my comment. They didn't know about them back in those days. If they just assumed the universe was what their five senses told them then, they never would have found these things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 3:26 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 4:21 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 224 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 5:04 PM traderdrew has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 219 of 264 (546420)
02-10-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Taq
02-10-2010 3:30 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
"To falsify intelligent design, you have to find an unambiguous example of natural causes that would show how life or the flagellum was generated."--traderdrew, message 205
Of course you don't see the problems with the model. Your paradigm prevents you from seeing it. Just like you don't see the problem with your analogy of a lens with the photo receptors in the back. You can point a camera lens into the sun for all of the time you wish but it will never damage the lens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 3:30 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 4:22 PM traderdrew has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 220 of 264 (546422)
02-10-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Percy
02-10-2010 4:10 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Surely you're not saying that you can't type "horizontal gene transfer bacterial flagellum" into Google, which is all I did. The paper I linked to is the first hit right at the top of the page. Real rocket science.
I didn't see anything about the paper that showed me how the flagellum evolved from particular precursors. All I saw was some exploration of possibilities under HGT. It doesn't convince me. If I should be so overwhelmed by the evidence then, why don't you cut and paste specific sections out of the link?
I told you I am willing to go half way but you insist that this is irony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 4:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 5:14 PM traderdrew has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024