Does complexity require intelligent design?

No, I would consider them drawings, based on an idea, not on evidence. The barrier is that no new genetic information can be produced by mutation. You only corrupt the information already present.Please provide evidence that it does occur.

Yes.

Sure. Easy. Frst tell us which particular definition of "information" you are using, so we can select an appropriate example of it increasing.Of course, there are case known where one mutatin does some change, and another independent mutatiuon un-does that change. Did both those mutations decrease information?

But here's the thing. The drawings are based not on the same idea, but on two different ideas - the idea that you can infer heredity through genetics, and the idea that you can infer heredity through morphology.Now, they do share this concept of "heredity", and when two ideas intersect successfully like that - in other words, that the model of "heredity" we get from the first idea is pretty much the same as the model we get from the second idea - that's evidence that the "heredity" that they refer to is actually a real thing, and not simply an invention.Much as when two people who have never met or spoken describe the same purported event, you know that if they agree on the details, the event they're describing is not made-up. It's the same principle of corroboration. I don't know what information is, exactly, but mutations do produce novel genetic sequences. And its the sequence that determines the result of the gene. "Corrupted" information is new information. Anything that appears that wasn't already present is new. And DNA sequences don't really "corrupt", they simply change.

The genetic tree of life that you summarily dismiss as a "drawing" uses the same strategy as DNA-based paternity testing. Please respond to message 164 in this thread, where I outline more of the details.Why do you immediately accept one and reject the other when they are the same process?

Microevolution is variation within species, and yes it is not really evolution, but it is the only type of change observed, therefore many evolutionists call this evolution. Interesting that macroevolution is referred to so many times in the site you referenced, and you still don't know what it is. Most of the fossil evidence cited as examples of complete records of transition are not complete at all, and much of the "evidence" consists of fragments of bones. I've already discussed the whale tale and if you carefully examine what actually exists in the fossil record, it falls far short of qualifying as a complete record, the only connection between most of the cited evidence is imagination.This message has been edited by xevolutionist, 04-04-2005 11:32 PM

Welcome back citizzzen, are we the only ones who want to discuss this topic? I think testability is optional, because how can you test something that only happened once? There is evidence that supports the "Big Bang" theory of the origin of the universe, and as I mentioned in a previous post, I believe that supports my position.
Evolution cannot be tested, yet as you see it has many faithful believers asserting it is a "proven" theory.The evidence that DNA is a code conveying specified, complex information vital to each cell in every living thing is undeniable. Regardless of the claims made elsewhere in this thread, when that code is tampered with, the observed results are always deleterious.
There is no evidence of a mutation causing perfect eyesight or super strength. The information contained in the simplest of life forms is so complex that it led Sir Fred Hoyle to conclude that life could not have risen by chance on this planet. And I was postulating that His existence fits best with the evidence that we have. That darn Aristotle guy apparently was one of the first to arrive at that conclusion by reason alone, and at that time the complexity of the universe was not yet known.Im glad that someone agrees with me about morality. Sometimes I think that my positions get attacked on this site merely because they are my positions.This message has been edited by xevolutionist, 04-05-2005 12:32 AM

The topic here is not micro or macro evolution. If we want this thread to stay open we will have to stay on topic.Thanks.

My sculpture teacher showed my class this video by this artist who I forget the name of, but anyways, this video was called "the way things go". When I watched it, i thought to myself that I've done the same type of thing on my own as a kid.The video is basically a domino effect sculpture of a sort. One event sets off a chain of other events using stored kinetic energy in the initial set up. This made me think: Is not a human brain (an intelligent designer) not just a domino effect of neurons and hormones carrying chain reactions of electrical impulses throughout it's network that was initially set up from conception, nutrition, experience, learning, genetic instinct, radiation, damage, trauma, and...well...your soul?This could validate that the universe is actually a thinking machine who's processes directly affect it's constituant components at different levels of complexity, from the string, to the membrane, to the ion, to the atom, to the molecule, to the protien, to the cell, to the tissue, to the organ, to the organism, to the super organism. The human brain is made up of nodes made up of neurons in telescoping levels of complexity throughout from white matter which is the simplest and simply transfers data from one portion of the brain to the other and the grey matter which is the most complex parts of the brain that is the cortex.It's plain as day. If the universe really exists, then it MUST be intelligent on some kind of level. One could consider mentally retarded people to be intelligent on some kind of level as the format of their neurons are debilitated by some lacking production of some kind of protien or previous brain damage, but still intelligent none the less. Hell, you could even use a fish's brain as a kind of biological computer processor to calculate stuff. And a computer processor is just a transistor that turns on and off, theoretically, the processes of the human brain could be simulated in a computer if it was big enough, powerful enough, fast enough. So why can't a tree falling in the woods or a star exploding be god? Why can't me shaking your hand be an act of god in the terms I've stated?

Variation within species leads to new species. So, yes, this is evolution. Well, changing allele frequencies over time is the only kind of change that is evolutionarily relevant. And that change in alleles leads to new species, eventually, so yes, this is evolution.We observe that what you call "microevolution" (the better term is "adaptation") leads to new species. That's evolution. I know what it is when they use the term, because they define it when they use it. On the other hand, creationists like you change the meaning of "macroevolution" whenever you want. It's a common tactic on your side, so that's why I asked you to define it - to pin you down to one definition. It's more than sufficiently complete. Unless you're saying that, because we don't know everything, we don't know anything? How does that make any sense?

How soon they forget. Obviously you missed the story from last year about the boy with muscular hypertrophy which was traced to a mutation in the Myostatin gene. Similar mutations are found in mice (McPherron,1997(1)) and cattle (McPherron, 1997(2)). These mutations make the individuals which have them 'super strong'.The researchers note... So there you go.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 04-05-2005 04:06 AM

Hi, Why is it that when IDists talk about all mutations taking away 'information' (whatever that is), they always overlook the process of gene duplication. This changes the genome (ie is a mutation) and can never be considered deleterious because it obviously adds to the genome.For example:You have a protein encoded in gene A, in a simplistic way the genome has information that says "make protein A". If gene A gets duplicated, then you have two gene A's. You could argue that this is not really an increase in information - but it's certainly not deleting information. So far so good.What if one of the genes gains a mutation that gives it a novel function, like being able to breakdown a previously unusable food source, or bind to a particular protein? It can be said to be a new gene . Because you still have a copy of gene A, nothing has been lost and the 'information' in the genome now says "make protein A AND protein B? Is that not a gain of information?Hope that all makes sense and is not just a pile of A's, B's and (ii)'s!

Wow.So when do they fit this kid for his first spandex outfit? How old do you have to be to join the X-Men, anyway?

quote:

---

think testability is optional, because how can you test something that only happened once?

---

How can you test for paternity when conception only happened once? How can you test for the presence of the suspect at a crime scene if the crime only happened once? Do we have to reanimate a corpse and have it rekilled to find out how the person was murdered in the first place?When something occurs it leaves evidence. It is this evidence that is tested.The process of science starts with a few observations. A hypothesis is then formed, an explanation of how something COULD have occured. With this hypothesis one can predict what evidence will be found if the hypothesis is accurate.For example, let's say that I hypothesize that John murdered Mark. At the crime scene I find two blood types. From this I predict that both John's blood and Mark's blood will be a match to the blood found at the scene. Sure enough, my prediction is born out. The murder only happened once, but I can test the evidence continually.The same for biology and evolution. Using genetics, I can continually test for common ancestory between species. I can also test for the amount of time since two species shared a common ancestor and see if this estimate matches with the fossil record. The theory of evolution is continually tested with every sequenced genome and every fossil.

quote:

---

The evidence that DNA is a code conveying specified, complex information vital to each cell in every living thing is undeniable. Regardless of the claims made elsewhere in this thread, when that code is tampered with, the observed results are always deleterious.

---

If I showed you mutations that have lead to beneficial outcomes, would you agree that life is not designed? If not, then why even make the argument you have just made?

quote:

---

And I was postulating that His existence fits best with the evidence that we have.

---

For some, alien intervention for the construction of Stonehenge fits the evidence better. At one time, Zeus throwing down thunderbolts fit the evidence better. Science requires evidence instead of opinion or an unknown force.

I will limit my replies to the topic of ID for the remainder of this thread. When this conversation is concluded I will join another thread where evolution is the subject of discussion.