Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8950 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, glowby, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,334 Year: 22,370/19,786 Month: 933/1,834 Week: 3/430 Day: 3/63 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
jar
Member
Posts: 31794
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 316 of 377 (608625)
03-11-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by slevesque
03-11-2011 5:34 PM


Re: Many ways to create an IC system.
slevesque writes:

But, the scaffold can both support the incomplete arch and allow for travel across the canyon, at the same time. The purpose of the scaffold is to do both. That's how an incomplete arch can "evolve" step-by-step; on top of something that provides the same function, only not as well. (Scaffolds aren't as strong as stone arch bridges.)

Then it comes down to the same thing. Randomness does not know the arch it is building will be advantageous once it is finished.

It doesn't know that the arch it is building, although useless and a waste of material right now, will be better then the scaffolds it has right now.

This situation still requires foresight, or random luck

More utter nonsense.

There is NO such thing as foresight in biology.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 5:34 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 317 of 377 (608626)
03-11-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by slevesque
03-11-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Many ways to create an IC system.
In biological systems, 'steps' are simply mutations. To evolve IC systems, you need to have multiple simultaneous mutations.

Nowhere have you shown that this is true. You have simply asserted it. We need evidence before we can proceed.

If you doubt this, consider that all researches that try to find a mechanism to evolve such systems approach it by trying to find a mechanism in which multiple simultaneous mutations will become visible to selection.

Now would be that time. If you have the research to back it up then present it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 4:35 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 318 of 377 (608627)
03-11-2011 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by slevesque
03-11-2011 4:41 PM


It is not a necessity that I identify a specific designer, it would be better I guess, but in no way does it negate the argument.

No designer = no design.

Well, ''the argument is lame'' isn't an argument. First because it is subjective (someone might find it astonishing) and second because you phrased your boiled down version of it to fit your need to see it as 'lame' ...

If you break something it doesn't work, therefore design.

It certainly isn't compelling evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 4:41 PM slevesque has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 319 of 377 (608629)
03-11-2011 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by slevesque
03-11-2011 5:34 PM


Re: Many ways to create an IC system.
Randomness does not know the arch it is building will be advantageous once it is finished.

It doesn't have to.

It doesn't know that the arch it is building, although useless and a waste of material right now, will be better then the scaffolds it has right now.

It doesn't have to.

This situation still requires foresight, or random luck

No, it doesn't. It just requires piles of rocks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 5:34 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 320 of 377 (608636)
03-12-2011 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by slevesque
03-11-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Many ways to create an IC system.
In biological systems, 'steps' are simply mutations. To evolve IC systems, you need to have multiple simultaneous mutations. If you doubt this, consider that all researches that try to find a mechanism to evolve such systems approach it by trying to find a mechanism in which multiple simultaneous mutations will become visible to selection.

That would be worthier of consideration if it was remotely true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 4:35 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 321 of 377 (608637)
03-12-2011 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by slevesque
03-11-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Many ways to create an IC system.
Does the arch have a function while it is being built in your analogy ? Or does it only acquire a function when it is finished ? If so, then it still requires the foresight of intelligence to aim towards that final functioning state even though in the meantime it serves no purpose.

Behe certainly thinks the idea of multiple simulteneous mutations creating IC systems to be the biggest argument against his, since it is the main point of his last book to investigate this possibility.

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps he is fighting a strawman, and is "investigating" this possibility not because it's the biggest argument against him, but the weakest?

The obvious answer to Behe, which he has not to my knowledge tackled, is to point out that to show that something is irreducibly complex is to show that it couldn't have been produced by the last part of it popping into existence out of nothing.

But this is not what evolutionists claim to have happened in the first place. As Behe admitted: "There is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection".

Now we can see in the fossil record the evolution of something that is indubitably irreducibly complex --- the bones of the mammalian middle ear. This process did not involve the malleus, incus, or stapes poofing into existence, but a gradual modification of their forms and their relationships to each other and to other bones.

Now gradual modification is, you must admit, more evolutionary than poofing, or indeed the occurrence of simultaneous well-coordinated mutations, so maybe Behe could discuss that instead.

essentially, they propose a mechanism where mutations can neutraly accumulate in a gene, and then be 'revealed' all at once for selection, hopefully giving a worthwhile result that will be selected for.

Where do they say that this has anything to do with simultaneous mutations independently conspiring to form a biological system; or that it has anything to do with irreducible complexity; or that they've even heard of Behe's ideas?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 5:00 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Drevmar
Junior Member (Idle past 3107 days)
Posts: 24
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2011


Message 322 of 377 (608639)
03-12-2011 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Granny Magda
03-11-2011 5:03 AM


Re: Design Evidence
Yep, knew all that, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Granny Magda, posted 03-11-2011 5:03 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Granny Magda, posted 03-12-2011 7:02 AM Drevmar has not yet responded

Drevmar
Junior Member (Idle past 3107 days)
Posts: 24
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2011


Message 323 of 377 (608640)
03-12-2011 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by jar
03-11-2011 9:19 AM


Re: Design Evidence
I accomplished my objective in my post. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by jar, posted 03-11-2011 9:19 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Percy, posted 03-12-2011 7:12 AM Drevmar has responded
 Message 327 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 9:02 AM Drevmar has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 324 of 377 (608646)
03-12-2011 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Drevmar
03-12-2011 2:10 AM


Re: Design Evidence
Hi Drevmar,

Yep, knew all that, thanks.

What? You knew that there was overwhelming evidence for macroevolution? But you still said that it could not occur. Why that is strange, because that would make you a contemptible liar. Is that what you are Drevmar?

And you knew that there were countless Christian scientists who support evolution? But you still wrote as if scientists were all godless infidels? That, again, would make you a pathetic and disgusting liar. I guess that's what you must be.

A liar for Jesus. Another one. Because Jesus loved liars.

Bottom line; this is not a place for you to proselytise or make unchallenged statements of faith. This is a discussion board. If you are unwilling to discuss what you post, then don't post it. If all you are interested in doing is telling moronic lies that make you (and, by association, Christianity in general) look foolish, without defending those positions in discussion, then this forum may not be the place for you.

On the other hand, if you decide to grow up and you think that your positions are defensible, you might try to engage in adult discussion. Y'know, like a grown up person. Instead of a childish liar.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Drevmar, posted 03-12-2011 2:10 AM Drevmar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:30 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 335 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:43 AM Granny Magda has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 325 of 377 (608648)
03-12-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Drevmar
03-12-2011 2:13 AM


Re: Design Evidence
Off-topic question: How *old* is that boat, and what's that big, bulbous thing on the front behind the bow gun?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Drevmar, posted 03-12-2011 2:13 AM Drevmar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 9:04 AM Percy has responded
 Message 361 by Drevmar, posted 03-13-2011 1:04 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 326 of 377 (608650)
03-12-2011 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by slevesque
03-11-2011 3:49 PM


It's just like ink on paper. Sure there are physical itneractions between the ink and the paper, and this is why the molecules stay there etc. But the disposition of the molecules were arbitrary, and if a given disposition (a letter) carries any more information then another (a scribble) is strictly because we have all established an arbitrary code in which we decide that such a pattern means such and such, and that other pattern means nothing.

It's not like ink on paper. You could - at a push - perhaps argue it's like electrons in a processor. Ink on paper produces no direct effects anywhere; photons bounce off it and we, eventually, decode those into meaning. DNA interacts chemically and physically with proteins and RNA.

Coded information only exists if their is a semantic aspect to it, without any code it has no information at all.

Thinking of genetics as information, especially information without a strict formal definition, is rarely useful.

It is the same thing with DNA. Somewhere along the line from none-life to life, a code was established either via randomness, via an as-of-yet-unknown natural process, or via an intelligent being. But it wasn't because of any particular physical interaction.

With the proteins it seems to be different. It has information strictly because 'the key physically fits the hole', and this information comes from a real physical basis.

No, it's not different. The DNA interacts with other molecules. That interaction produces changes in the surrounding environment. It's physical all the way down. The encoding in DNA is semantically flexible, as we analyse it, but in the cell the exact same chemical processes that drive protein-protein, protein-lipid or protein-ion interactions are involved in protein-DNA interactions.

No special explanation is required for DNA interactions that is not required for protein-protein interactions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by slevesque, posted 03-11-2011 3:49 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:20 AM Dr Jack has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31794
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 327 of 377 (608652)
03-12-2011 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Drevmar
03-12-2011 2:13 AM


Re: Design Evidence
Drevmar writes:

I accomplished my objective in my post. Thanks.

I'm glad. Perhaps you could enlighten us then on just what your objective was?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Drevmar, posted 03-12-2011 2:13 AM Drevmar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by NoNukes, posted 03-12-2011 9:14 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 31794
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 328 of 377 (608653)
03-12-2011 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Percy
03-12-2011 7:12 AM


Re: Design Evidence
Percy writes:

Off-topic question: How *old* is that boat, and what's that big, bulbous thing on the front behind the bow gun?

--Percy

Looks like one of the Arleigh Burke but could be an older Kidd. And likely phased array radar?

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Percy, posted 03-12-2011 7:12 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Percy, posted 03-12-2011 2:23 PM jar has responded
 Message 353 by fearandloathing, posted 03-12-2011 2:38 PM jar has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 377 (608654)
03-12-2011 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by jar
03-12-2011 9:02 AM


Re: Design Evidence
jar writes:


I'm glad. Perhaps you could enlighten us then on just what your objective was?

Please. Don't encourage Drev to post any further in the same vein.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 9:02 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

havoc
Member (Idle past 3098 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


(1)
Message 330 of 377 (608657)
03-12-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Dr Jack
03-12-2011 7:24 AM


No, it's not different. The DNA interacts with other molecules. That interaction produces changes in the surrounding environment. It's physical all the way down. The encoding in DNA is semantically flexible, as we analyse it, but in the cell the exact same chemical processes that drive protein-protein, protein-lipid or protein-ion interactions are involved in protein-DNA interactions.

No special explanation is required for DNA interactions that is not required for protein-protein interactions.

So are you saying that the nucleotides have an affinity to each other or Condons to each other or the amino acids to each other. How do you explain that different condons code for the same amino acid? Seems as though it is like different words with the same meaning. They have no meaning outside of the code. At the point of translation the processes is informational. Or in other words it is the code that gives them meaning not chemical properties of the DNA.

Edited by havoc, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2011 7:24 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:25 AM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 340 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2011 12:41 PM havoc has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019