10 Categories of Evidence For ID

quote:

---

3) DNA found only in organisms. The DNA found in the cellular genome contains more information than in all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. ID predicts that DNA, a major building block of complex organisms, can only be created by an intelligent agent or by code preprogrammed by an intelligent agent. Furthermore, some of the building blocks for these nucleic acids are very unstable in nature. For example, Miller found that ribose, which is essential for both DNA and RNA, has a half life (t) of only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0 C. It’s even worse at high temperatures t = 73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100 C (the latter evidence is given for the benefit of heat-vent enthusiasts). This is no time at all when we view life as having formed over billions of years.

​

FACT: DNA must be designed.

---

DNA is found in organisms...but it is not found in all organisms i.e. many viruses are RNA viruses. Prions can transmit information without any nucleic acid component at all.The genome has a grand total of about 1.5% genes. The rest is a combination of pseudogenes, junk DNA, endogenous retroviruses, and other retroelements. Thus, much of the information is either junk or does not contribute to the phenotype of the organism (which also indicates pretty lousy design but fits very well with evolutionary theory where just being better at reproducing gets you through..not great design).ID cannot predict that DNA is intelligently designed as ID has not proposed a testable and falsifiable hypothesis which would allow one to make predictions. All ID does is pre-supposes a designer.Although unstable as building blocks, DNA can persist in fossils for thousands of years and RNA has been obtained from flu patient remains from the early 1900's.Science. 1997 Mar 21;275(5307):1793-6. Related Articles, Links

quote:

---

Science. 1997 Mar 21;275(5307):1739.

​

Initial genetic characterization of the 1918 "Spanish" influenza virus.

​

Taubenberger JK, Reid AH, Krafft AE, Bijwaard KE, Fanning TG.

​

Division of Molecular Pathology, Department of Cellular Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington DC 20306-6000, USA. taubenbe@email.afip.osd.mil

​

The "Spanish" influenza pandemic killed at least 20 million people in 1918-1919, making it the worst infectious pandemic in history. Understanding the origins of the 1918 virus and the basis for its exceptional virulence may aid in the prediction of future influenza pandemics. RNA from a victim of the 1918 pandemic was isolated from a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, lung tissue sample. Nine fragments of viral RNA were sequenced from the coding regions of hemagglutinin, neuraminidase, nucleoprotein, matrix protein 1, and matrix protein 2. The sequences are consistent with a novel H1N1 influenza A virus that belongs to the subgroup of strains that infect humans and swine, not the avian subgroup.

---

quote:

---

Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Nov;19(11):1920-33. Related Articles, Links

​

Ancient DNA and the population genetics of cave bears (Ursus spelaeus) through space and time.

​

Orlando L, Bonjean D, Bocherens H, Thenot A, Argant A, Otte M, Hanni C.

​

CNRS UMR 5534, Centre de Genetique Moleculaire et Cellulaire, Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France.

​

The cave bear spread from Western Europe to the Near East during the Riss glaciation (250 KYA) before becoming extinct approximately 12 KYA. During that period, the climatic conditions were highly dynamic, oscillating between glacial and temperate episodes. Such events have constrained the geographic repartition of species, the movements of populations and shaped their genetic diversity. We retrieved and analyzed ancient DNA from 21 samples from five European caves ranging from 40 to 130 KYA. Combined with available data, our data set accounts for a total of 41 sequences of cave bear, coming from 18 European caves. We distinguish four haplogroups at the level of the mitochondrial DNA control region. The large population size of cave bear could account for the maintenance of such polymorphism. Extensive gene flow seems to have connected European populations because two haplogroups cover wide geographic areas. Furthermore, the extensive sampling of the deposits of the Scladina cave located in Belgium allowed us to correlate changes in climatic conditions with the intrapopulational genetic diversity over 90 KY.

---

Conclusion: You have not demonstrated that DNA must be designed.

I was keeping it simple for Mr. Bauer and only taking into account protein coding sequences. I am aware that functional RNAs and even transcripts derived from retroelements have an impact on phenotype. However, the majority of the genome and the transcriptome is composed of background noise. For example recently, a large scale deletion study of "junk DNA" showed no impact on mouse phenotypeNature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93. Related Articles, LinksMegabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.Nobrega MA, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM.DOE Joint Genome Institute Walnut Creek, California 94598, USA.The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.

quote:

---

Then there is no DNA to consider and the point is moot. IOW, who cares?

---

Why would the point be moot? Different organisms and proto-organisms have different methods of spreading their information from one generation to the next. Your premise began with DNA occurs in all organisms..this is false...and then you proceeded from this false premise into other nonsensical points.

quote:

---

I'm having a great deal of trouble following your logic here. What does any of this have to do with DNA being designed or not?

---

You have frequently errored in equating genes and genomes. Secondly, the genome is a mess only paralleled by the random noise in the transcriptome. This accumulation of junk DNA and retroelements that do not have an effect on phenotype is hardly indicative of a well thought out planned design but are nice evidence of random muation and evolution. In addition, for some of these elements, they have been shown within the human population to still be actively increaseing or decreasing the size of the genome randomly by transposition...this can be observed directly and unless you consider every act of sexual reproduction careful genome design, it hardly demostrates intelligent design. In summary, most of the genome has nothing to do with morphology or function and is just there by mutation and drift (which has been direcly observed) in non-selected sequences...hardly a compelling case for design...where is that direct observation of intelligence in population genetics that you were just about to show me

quote:

---

This is not science, just your opinion. I'm an IDist and predicted that DNA must be designed in the OP, who's to say then that ID has not predicted this?

---

Unfortunately for you and all IDists this is not my opinion..it is exactly the problem with ID in the first place. In any actual field of science, every hypothesis is testable and falsifiable. No IDist has ever proposed a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID. Thus, you cannot make predictions that make any sense. I could replace disigned in your sentence above with "made by a sentient tube of toothpaste" and it would not change it or make it valid. You guys are no different from creationists who claim "goddidit" but replace it with "intelligencedidit"..wow, what a breakthrough

quote:

---

Again. This has nothing to do with whether DNA is designed. In those flu patients, it WAS designed by preprogrammed code.

---

This had to do with the stability of RNA and DNA which you implied was relatively poor. try getting rid of DNA contamination in a lab..that is DNA floating around in the air...it is very stable and a pain in the butt to get rid of. In any case, your claim is nonsense. The flu's origin can be traced and lo and behold, the flu virus came from related strains of flu that mutated...not poof bang designed and implanted independently in the 20 million people who died during the 1918 flu epidemic. Your claim amounts to your saying so in the face of the evidence..not providing evidence. What is the evidence that the RNA genome of the 1918 flu was designed?

quote:

---

Your conclusion is a non sequitur, I'm afraid, because it is based on no premises. In fact, you never offered a single premise to show DNA as not designed--all of your examples were examples of DESIGNED DNA--therefore you cannot draw any logical conclusions to the contrary.

---

You should be a comedian...at least this type of statement is enough to make me laugh. Now you want me to prove a negative? Thank you. You have now demonstrated that ID is creationism i.e. invoking the supernatural to explain (without any effect) natural phenomenon. You claimed to have positive evidence that DNA was designed. Not a single one of your assertions is supported by fact. Now you attack me for not showing that DNA is not designed?I'll tell you what, before you even try to provide evidence for ID, why not tell us what the testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID is in the first place? I see a mutation passed on from parent to offspring and map it to a specific base change in a specific gene and show that it changes a specific protein such that it fails to bind a second protein efficiently. Show me how in such a case you would test for this occurrence being an intelligent design decision? How would you falsify that intelligence was involved?Scientists know broadly but not in all details how DNA replicates, how it is transmitted from one generation to the next, how the it mutates, with what frequency DNA and RNA polymerases incorporate errors, how resultant mutations spread among families, within species and among them. From this data alone, not counting other independent lines of inquiry, the parsimonious conclusion is random mutation and natural selection for some sequences and random mutation and drift for others. This can be demonstrated in the lab in multiple organisms from viruses to primates. All hypothesis of genetics, genomics, evolution can be tested and falsified. How does saying, "an intelligence did it" in any way add to the information that we have? Where is the intelligence in DNA replication. How would you falsify that any intelligence was involved?Until you can do test and falsify ID, it is merely a religious belief and has no place in science.

Ok, then it is even more incorrect technically...DNA is also found outside of organisms...and often found floating in the vicinity of those trying to extract neandertal DNA

quote:

---

Well, I don't think I misunderstand genomes, I know they are a mess with tons of noise in there. An IDist would fully expect to find this as a direct result of evolution. This has little to say about the original design. Everything in nature degrades eventually even the universe as a whole until it will die it's heat death. I think you would agree that genomic noise is probably a result of evolution? Then we have no argument on this.

---

This argument does not make sense. Some specific sequences are increasing in number, some are decreasing. In some organisms, repetitive DNA is for the most part, not tolerated...so are you then saying that bacteria and viruses are the only species evolving because their genomes are streamlined relative to other organisms? There is no evidence that organisms have degraded. In fact, the expansion of our species across the planet is indication of a higher relative fitness as compared to many other species...though again, bacteria have us beat.

quote:

---

So what tenets of ID do you not think testable and falsifiable? I'm certainly familiar with none. DNA simply does not form from less complex molecules in nature. How is that not testable? We cannot even make it in the lab. We can manage some simple RNA, but not DNA. And this is falsifiable, simply show an example of DNA forming outside an organism and propose a model where this could be done in nature. That's science, not religion. I know you don't want to accept this, but it's a fact.

---

This is a bit of a different argument. On the one hand you are saying you do not accept evolution but now you are talking about abiogenesis. Do you know what the difference between the two are?
Nobody here is going to say we have much information on abiogenesis...but it is still a science as different conditions and scenarios can be tested for their ability to generate replicators i..e one can form a hypothesis about the conditions necessary for the formation of self replicating molecules and test them. Evolution only deals with life once it exists and has nothing to say on the matter of the first replicator. In any case, if the precursor of life was RNA, why would you look to form DNA spontaneously?

quote:

---

you cannot name me one tenet unique to Darwinism

---

which would you like? That related species should be more similar genetically than non-related species? This is tested all the time and could be falsified easily if say a worm was more similar genetically to humans than chimps are to humans.

quote:

---

But skunks designed that DNA from preprogrammed code most happily donated (I assume) by the mama and papa skunk.

---

So, every meiotic event requires design? I did not realize how intelligent an ameoba is when it divides and intelligently assorts each and every base pair after carefully thinking about it. Seriously, DNA synthesis is a simple chemical reaction..why does it require a designer much less an intelligent one every time conception occurs?

quote:

---

You KNOW it is designed. You will not admit that DNA is designed from pre-programmed code? I'm talking bios logos here. It's you that keeps wanting to throw gods, gremlins and fairies in here hoping (I guess) to persuade someone that DNA can just pop out of a bloody stalagmite???

---

Pre-programmed? I do not know that it is designed. I don't assume some magic fairy suddenly created the DNA in my parents so that they could pass it on to me......it was passed on in a chain since the last common ancestor of all replicators. That we don't know what that last common ancestor was is not evidence that at any point intelligent design was involved.

quote:

---

Really? Tell me how you would falsify chemistry.

---

Chemistry is a field not a hypothesis. Pick any current hypothesis in chemistry and you will find it is testable and falsifiable. Intelligent design is the hypothesis that biodiversity can only be explained by an undefined intelligence. This is niether testable nor falsifiable.

quote:

---

No, I'm not saying that bacteria and viruses are the only organisms evolving, they are just among them. But I'm afraid I presented a study in the university thread done by evolutionary biologists that clearly show the human genome devolving for the last 6 million years, in fact I calculated it right down to the increasing entropy for each generation. Sorry.

---

This does not make sense. Single cell organisms appear much much earlier in the fossil record than multicellular organisms. According to you, all genomes have been devolving since they sprung magically into existence by design. However, bacteria maintain streamlined genomes while at the same time continuing to evolve and acquire new traits. So from your concept of ID, bacteria and viruses are the supreme beings on earth..all hail lambda phage!Please point out in the paper you cited where they show any indication at all that the human genome has been devolving. Are you going to cling to this distortion or actually read the paper and concede that it does not support your point (or more honestly that you did not understand the paper)?

quote:

---

Now when did I say I don't accept evolution? That would be pretty silly since I am an evolutionist. I accept the science of evolution, it is the pseudo-science of Darwinism I reject. And yes, I think I learned the difference between evolution and abiogenesis in about the 10th grade.

---

Then it is extremely odd that you have several times conflated abiogenesis and evolution and have demonstrated some faily profound misunderstandings of evolutionary biology. This is not meant to be insulting but merely an observation. You telling me that you know abuot the science is not very compelling when you make very big mistakes involving the basics.

quote:

---

Because we do not know that the precursor of life WAS RNA. We can surmise this, but we don't know it. All I said was that DNA is not formed outside an organism by nature. This DNA is formed by pre-programmed code, is it not? Then it was designed. Period. You cannot win this argument because I am right!

---

First, a key part of science is tentativity...nobody knows anything for sure. But I digress, under some circumstances you can make DNA form...RNA certainly shows this property. The key issue for abiogenesis research is to find a set of conditions in which self replicating molecules can form and demonstrate the principle. If it is not exactly how it happened billions of years ago as one can surmise the conditions but cannot know them 100%. However, it is at least something that can be tested i.e. forming self replicting molecules under different environmental conditions...how exactly do you test for an intelligent thingamagigy suddenly designing replicators?

quote:

---

Well gee. That's not some unique tenet of Darwinism, that's just common sense. I think everyone knew a long time before Darwin that a Chimp would be closer genotypically to a Gorilla than it would an apple.

---

It is not common sense. It was not known until relatively recently how closely related chimps are to humans. It was a hypothesis that was tested and found to be supported by multiple independent lines of evidence i.e. a scientific hypothesis. If ID could do the same it would be science to...but it apparently cannot. In any case, if everything is designed by intelligence, why would there be any reason for chimps and humans to be genetically similar? First you don't define what the intelligent designer is and now you are already limiting how god..ahem, intelligent designer..does the designing?And why wouldnt every single meiotic event require design? If on the one hand you claim that natural causes cannot explain biodiversity at higher levels why do you believe they are sufficient to explain the generation of biodiversity even within a family i.e. why do you accept (assuming you do) the conclusions drawn from molecular forensics?

quote:

---

Because it does not do so spontaneously, chemically speaking. That reaction is a non-spontaneous reaction that must be caused by something. In fact, it is caused by intellegent pre-programmed code in the long run. Do you disagree with this?

---

I disagree with the intelligence part. Where is the intelligence in reproduction whether it be ameoba or human? Have you ever seen an intelligent piece of DNA?

quote:

---

Well if you think that complex code can just poof from the dust spontaneously, then you need to tell Bill Gates to fire all those programmers and just take a walk through the desert ever now and then. Reckon he would run across LongHorn?

---

And this is typical creationism...I do not think the genome arrived as is poof bang ex nihilo. I would expect that very simple replicators formed naturally and then grew more complex over time. One can see this even now in the lab with simple precursor replicators that can under selection form much more complex functions. Really, your logical thinking seems to be totally blinded by your religion.

quote:

---

Hmmm....This is only a tenet of your faith. Faith can be defined as the belief in something where there is no evidence to support it, and you have no evidence at all to base this conclusion on.

---

How do I not have evidence? Every single genetic study of every species from bacteria to humans demonstrates the vertical transmission (sometimes horizontally) of genes from parent to offspring. Multiple studies both within and among species (look up cichlids for example) support this in the form of population genetics i.e. changes in allele frequency over time aka evolution. Above you even said you believe in evolution...but here you claim you do not. In any event, given one can connect species phylogenetically using multiple characters both molecular and morphological, I see this as support for my position. It is no different than doing forensics, paternity tests, or tracking disease alleles in a population just at different time scales. I do not see spontaneous creation or intelligent intervention however. You must bring evidence that genetics suddenly stops and an intelligent agent intervenes..otherwise, I have no reason to assume that the natural processes acting now were not acting the same way in the past.

quote:

---

Even cooler; you will find this in ID as well.

---

Then please "find" this form me...what is the testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID? I know why you are persistently avoiding this challenge..do you?

quote:

---

These are your words. I thought you asked me if I thought bacteria and viruses were the only thing evolving. I replied: "I'm not saying that bacteria and viruses are the only organisms evolving, they are just among them." My answer was no. So what is your beef with this? To me, it's you not making a lick of sense. All I'm saying here is that all organisms experience evolution. But you disagree with this? Then what magic aura do you assume cloaks a species to ward off evolution?

---

Besides getting suspended, you are remaining inconsistent. According to your, all genomes must degrade...yet bacteria and viruses show no sign of this (niether does the human genome but Ill get to it later). So you are inconsitent...either things are designed and degrade as you claim has to happen and have been harping on in your confused 2LOT arguements or you have found your supreme being in lamda phage...or are you the type that picks out what they want to see and ignores the inconsistencies?

quote:

---

A paper don't have to quote every single logical proposition that it adds substance to. Look at the math in that paper and then apply that math to the math we use to show evolving and devolving systems. We need go no further than that, my friend. Math speaks much more than words. If you Darwinists would learn this, you would all be IDists. Can you mathematically refute the math I threw out? No? Then your only choice seems to be to accept it or ignore it. The choice is yours.

---

There s a thread now dedicated to your math errors. But you still have not shown where the authors imply in any way the de-evolution of the genome. I will take your evasive answer as a concession that you do not understand the paper

quote:

---

I don't think I conflate anything--you're just playing with semantics. Darwinists embrace naturalism and espouse that life began on earth through natural processes and evolved into the present through natural processes. You know you agree with this, so why are you afraid to lump it all in together? It seems you are afraid to defend your beliefs. Ahem....excuse me, but I think I want to just defend half of my beliefs here, thank you.

---

This is a typical creationist response. If you conflate two different fields you demonstrate that you do not know the difference yourself. Do you know what the ToE is?

quote:

---

I don't have to test for anything. Science tells me this is all designed by preprogrammed code

---

Im sorry for you but science that does no testing will not tell you anything...this is why you fail. You do not know what science is. A non tested hypothesis is speculation and a non testable hypothesis is a fairy tale..like ID.

quote:

---

Yeah, hey: before you mega-scientists came along everyone thought that man was more closely related to bananas than chimps. You have revolutionized human knowledge here.

---

Actually, many people thought our closest relatives were gorillas or even orang-utans. But this demonstrates again that you have no working knowledge of the fields you are debating as the human-chimp-gorilla split work was exceptionally high profile work in molecular biology...look up Alan Wilson some time.

quote:

---

Really. Because if there is indeed any intelligence up the old family lineage, I would surely think it might use similar blueprints for similar critters. I'm sure this doesn't make much sense to you as you would conclude that an elephant SHOULD be more genotypically related to an acorn. Does this duck float in your world?

---

Why would a desinger keep using a similar design? There is no reason for this as if it is intelligent it can do whatever it wants to..there are after all, organisms with non-DNA genomes. Do you have supporting evidence or a testable hypothesis that would support this constraint?

quote:

---

It DOES require design in the form of preprogrammed code. If course, you don't think code is designed as you have failed to comment each time I have asked if you if you think Windows XP can just poof out of a rock. Let me help you here, Mr. biologist: Yes! I see no reason at all that Windows XP cannot just magically poof out of a sheep's ass. Now. I want the whole world to learn what your science really is. A fairy tale that no one with an IQ over 80 could ever take seriously. Nobody in this country does, and you have only Buffaloed yourself.

---

I don't think Windows XP and replicators are a valid comparison. And since I never claimed that a complex code was the original replicator it is really a nonsense question that reflects your own confusion. Your appeals to the number of people who are ignorant of science not accepting this or that are irrelvant. It just shows that there are lots of ignorant people in the US.

quote:

---

I need a model. I have given you one for design. You would EXPECT that some very simple replicators formed naturally and then grew over time? I don't see why you would expect this since it goes against everything science knows about simple molecules evolving over time into more complex ones. And give me some papers on the lab work or withdraw the comment. Not at all professional to present your opinion as an abstracted paper.

---

Since every time I have presented papers you have then cried like a spanked puppy that it is unfair of me to post papers that you cant get or the dog ate your homework or some such nonsense, you can go do your own homework. Again, their is a thread in the suggestions and questions forum addressing your unwillingness to access papers (which you shuold know about given your claims of knowledge). Resolve your issues and how you want information presented or else do your own homework.

quote:

---

Let's see these studies. I mean, I don't think that anyone will argue with you that genes... ahem...JUMP from parent to child. But how do the gene entities start suddenly jumping horizontally? Is there like a gene fairy that starts causing this? There's certainly nothing in biology that would cause genes to start jumping across things.

---

Same problem as above..if I post the relevant literature will you read it or just shrug it off? I actually do scientific work so will only spend a limited amount of time on your remedial biology education..and none if you will just outright evade argument and dismiss the data that exists because it conflicts with your opionion as you have been doing. I am really quite surprised that you do not know about any of these subjects and cannot list a few papers on your own on this subject. You said you would blow me away with science and when I summarize work that has been done (that my youngest students know by heart) you say you are unaware of the work and want to see it.
Are your really telling me you do not know what horizontal transfer is?

quote:

---

Then please "find" this form me...
what is the testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID? I know why you are persistently avoiding this challenge..do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

No. Why?

---

Why? Because even you deep down recognize that you dont really know very much about science but are engaging in this argument because you are a creationist and are afraid science. Otherwise you would give a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID

Hi WK,
Yes, I meant that thread...I was in a rush so did not link it. I know it was not specifically about Jerry but since he was exhibiting behavior that was the inspiration for that thread I brought it up.In any case, it seems that since Jerry cannot defend his assertions with evidence he is resorting to taunting the
Admins in the hopes that he will be banned and go home feeling that he is a martyr a la John Davison.

quote:

---

You are no longer arguing science just throwing out some provocative posts. Here's about the only thing I can answer in this one:

---

I will take this as an admission on your part that you are not familiar with any of the relevant experiments pertaining to evolutionary biology or the thousands of articles that describe them. This is clearly evident from your posts but you have now indicated as well that you have no interest in learning any science but are more comfortable pretending that not knowing about science is evidence for your position. Pity...it would have been nice to encounter an so called IDist who actually has an interest in the subject they debate...maybe we will get one here one day.

quote:

---

DNA must be designed by an intelligent agent or by code pre-programmed by an intelligent agent.

---

this is a statement of faith and not a scientific hypothesis. You can neither test for this nor falsify it. That you fail to realize this is why you will never be a scientist nor understand science in any form. You might regurgitate a few definitions here and there (though everything you have stated about genes and genomes has been incorrect) but you really do not understand science at all. That would be ok but coupled with your lack of interest in actually learning how it works makes you a mere internet troll.You can re-state your position as much as you like, you can misquote and mischaracterize current research as much as you like, you can ignore studies (which are avialable to anyone with an internet connection) as much as you like. None of it strengthens you position and without a testable and falsifiable hypothesis for ID you will spin in circles endlessly...Your last two posts to me have been completely evasive so I will let you go as you clearly are in over your head with the molecular biology being discussed...have fun, and don't get to dizzy.