Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 6:04 AM
22 online now:
PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), xongsmith (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,218 Year: 9,254/19,786 Month: 1,676/2,119 Week: 436/576 Day: 31/80 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   10 Categories of Evidence For ID
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 147 (206956)
05-11-2005 6:20 AM


Proposed for the Intelligent Design Forum.

In this thread I would like to address an assertion often raised by ID detractors to the effect of: ID has no evidence to support it.

I know I promised to also discuss methodologies to detect design and I will. But first, let's just concentrate on the one topic as this post is already way too long.

ID has several areas of evidence that directly supports the overall concept. Here are five and 5 more will follow in a subsequent post.

1) Function found in nature. Function is an attribute assigned by intelligence to cause something to cause 'something else' to do something. I design a hammer and cause it to do something else: drive a nail. My body causes my brain to function and the brain then causes me to think (sometimes). My car is a designed mechanism that allows me to drive it to get something else from point A to point B (could be my body, mail or groceries).

In fact, just looking up the word at dictionary.com and considering the first two definitions we can see the intelligence inherent in the word function: 1) The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed. 2) Assigned duty or activity.

FACT: We see much function in nature. This is evidence that intelligence operated to design and assign function in order that in each case, one something (often quite different) causes something else.

2) The fossil record. Many IDists believe that species were designed very similar to the way they are today. Some evolution may have slightly affected their morphology of course, but when we look at the fossil record we would predict to see species coming into it fully formed, not evidence that species gradually evolved into their macroscopic forms as Darwin proposed.

FACT: This is exactly what we see in the fossil record. There is no gradual evolution of bauplanes, but long periods of nothing interspersed with relatively sudden explosions of fully formed organisms. These organisms then stay this way until they go extinct in the record. This is direct evidence for intelligent design.

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. Its 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.

4) Mathematical calculations and evidence as in the form of the study I introduced in the Intelligent Design in Universities thread showing that nature has a tendency to disorganize: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it.

FACT: This shows the human genome to be DEVOLVING not EVOLVING. This is what ID predicts. Darwinism predicts the exact opposite tendency. This devolving tendency in vertebrate genomes is direct evidence for intelligent design.

5) Existence of irreducibly complex systems in nature. ICSs are interesting little critters as they consist of several well matched parts that perform a function and all work together to cause an overall system function. These are well conceived systems that must be planned before they are designed in that Part A--Does job A--Part B, Does job B--Part C, Does job C--Part D, does job D; and the result is that all of these jobs work together to cause an overall function in the system as a whole.

FACT: ICSs must be designed and the reality they are found everywhere in nature is evidence for intelligent design.

Let's hold 'er here for now. ;)

Thank you AdminBen! I accidentally deleted the other 5 from my laptop, so I'll rewrite those as the thread progresses.

This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-11-2005 06:35 AM


Design Dynamics
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Parasomnium, posted 05-11-2005 6:49 AM Jerry Don Bauer has responded
 Message 6 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 8:12 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 8:15 AM Jerry Don Bauer has responded
 Message 10 by Mammuthus, posted 05-11-2005 8:36 AM Jerry Don Bauer has responded
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2005 11:35 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2005 8:41 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded
 Message 92 by clpMINI, posted 05-13-2005 10:49 AM Jerry Don Bauer has responded
 Message 125 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:25 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 147 (206958)
05-11-2005 6:23 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 863 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 3 of 147 (206963)
05-11-2005 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 6:20 AM


Jerry,

First of all, I owe you an apology. We didn't get off on the right footing and that's partly my own fault. I should not have adopted the tone I have when I responded to you in previous encounters. I apologize for my behaviour.

Having said that, and promising that I will behave, is there a chance you'll talk to me if I engage you in this thread? All in good spirit and without hostility?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:20 AM Jerry Don Bauer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 7:29 AM Parasomnium has responded

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 147 (206975)
05-11-2005 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Parasomnium
05-11-2005 6:49 AM


quote:
First of all, I owe you an apology. We didn't get off on the right footing and that's partly my own fault. I should not have adopted the tone I have when I responded to you in previous encounters. I apologize for my behaviour.

Having said that, and promising that I will behave, is there a chance you'll talk to me if I engage you in this thread? All in good spirit and without hostility?


YES! Welcome, Parasomnium.


Design Dynamics
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Parasomnium, posted 05-11-2005 6:49 AM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Parasomnium, posted 05-11-2005 7:37 AM Jerry Don Bauer has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 863 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 5 of 147 (206978)
05-11-2005 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 7:29 AM


Here goes...
Thank you.

I was hoping you'd say that, because as soon as I saw your proposal I started typing away at an answer in anticipation of the promotion of your topic. So you can imagine that I was a bit disappointed when I saw you withdraw it. All that work...

Please don't feel overwhelmed by the length of my post, there are some lenghty quotes you might skip, if you like. I just wanted to address all of your five points. You can do with it what you want.

Here goes...


#1

Jerry Don Bauer writes:

1) Function found in nature. Function is an attribute assigned by intelligence to cause something to cause 'something else' to do something.

Function does not necessarily imply intelligence.

In this study, the spontaneous evolution of a radio is described. The researchers used a simulated evolutionary process in which the fitness of an electronic circuit as an oscillator was selected for.

The surprising thing was that one of the solutions emerging out of this trial was a radio circuit that picked up AM signals and used them as output for the oscillator function. This is an example of function evolving without intelligence prompting it.

Some excerpts:

quote:
There are established techniques for designing oscillators. In conventional circuits the necessary timing is supplied by a capacitor whose charge release is controlled by a resistor; this combination of components is known as an RC time constant. As the desired frequency decreases, the value of the RC product increases. Large value capacitors are difficult to implement in VLSI and are generally provided externally, at some expense. The motivation was to evolve an oscillator of a precise frequency without using capacitors. The tone discriminator experiment discussed above had demonstrated that evolution can make use of parasitic properties to form suitable time constants. However, oscillator evolution is a difficult task when the basic components are transistors.
Whereas oscillation is the likely outcome of recurrent loops of digital gates or operational amplifiers, precise operating points must be established before it can be produced by a network of transistors. These conditions are extremely unlikely to occur by chance, a fact that was confirmed by Layzell when he performed some preliminary experiments where only frequency and amplitude of oscillation were rewarded. Therefore, he found it necessary to reward output amplitude, even if the signal was just noise, in order to kickstart the evolutionary process.

quote:
After the genotypes had been instantiated as circuits, there was a 5 ms delay to allow the f/v converter and rectifier to stabilise. From 20 runs, 10 resulted in successful oscillation, attaining the target frequency within 1% and with minimum amplitude of 100 mV. These represent the first intrinsically evolved oscillators to reach their target frequencies.

quote:
It has proved difficult to clarify exactly how these circuits work. Probing a typical one with an oscilloscope has shown that it does not use beat frequencies to achieve the target frequency. If the transistors are swapped for nominally identical ones, then the output frequency changes by as much as 30%. A simulation was created that incorporated all the parasitic capacitance expected to exist within the physical circuit, but the simulated circuits failed to oscillate. The programmable switches almost certainly play an important role in the behaviour of the circuit and it is only possible to probe their input and output connections and not the circuitry in which they are embedded.

Comment: this precludes the ID counterargument that the experimenters themselves are the intelligence behind the design. If they themselves don't know how the evolved circuits work, their intelligence cannot be responsible for the design, even if their intelligence is involved in setting up the experiment.

quote:
C. The Evolved Radio
Some of the circuits achieved high fitness, but when they were examined with an oscilloscope they did not oscillate stably: the signals were of the order of 10 - 50 mV amplitude with rapidly fluctuating frequency. The evolutionary process had taken advantage of the fact that the fitness function rewarded amplifiers, even if the output signal was noise. It seems that some circuits had amplified radio signals present in the air that were stable enough over the 2 ms sampling period to give good fitness scores. These signals were generated by nearby PCs in the laboratory where the experiments took place.

In other words: an unexpected and unconventional way of producing an oscillating signal had been "invented" by a mindless process of evolution.

quote:
In order to pick up radio signals the circuits need an aerial and an extremely high input impedance. This was achieved by using as an input the printed circuit board tracks on the EM connected to an open programmable switch whose impedance is at least 100 MW. The high impedance was confirmed by an electrometer behaviour observed in many of the non-oscillating circuits: if a persons hand was brought close to the circuit, then the d.c. output voltage rose; if the person remained there, the output voltage remained high, falling if the person was earthed. The evolutionary process had utilised not only the EMs transistors, but also the analogue switches and the printed circuit to which they were connected.

Note: "The evolutionary process had utilised...", as if it were intelligent. But the evolutionary process is a mindless one. It just looks like it's intelligent. That's what I think is the core problem with ID: ID-ists interpret what they see in nature as the product of genuine intelligence, whereas we can see from this simulation that the process of evolution is capable of fooling us.

quote:
We have described an unconstrained, intrinsic HE experiment that resulted in the construction of a novel radio wave sensor. The EM is the second ever experimental system to construct novel sensors, unconstrained by prespecified sensor/environment channels. Like Pasks ear, the evolved radio determined the nature of its relation to, and knowledge of, the world. Both of these devices are epistemically autonomous: they are not restricted to experimenter specified information channels [27]. By using a process analogous to the tinkering of natural evolution, epistemically autonomous devices alter their relationship with the environment depending on whether a particular configuration generates rewarded behaviour.

In other words, again to anticipate ID-ist counterarguments: the intelligence of the experimenters has nothing to do with the actual process of simulated evolution. Once the process is underway, it's on its own and can produce quite unexpected results.

Jerry Don Bauer writes:

In fact, just looking up the word at dictionary.com and considering the first two definitions we can see the intelligence inherent in the word function: 1) The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed. 2) Assigned duty or activity.

The definition of the word 'function' cannot be used as conclusive evidence, because there are also uses of 'function' that do not directly imply intelligence, for example:

Merriam-Webster writes:

6 : characteristic behavior of a chemical compound due to a particular reactive unit; also : FUNCTIONAL GROUP

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary writes:

function (RESULT) [Show phonetics]
noun FORMAL
a function of sth something which results from something else, or which is as it is because of something else:
His success is a function of his having worked so hard.
The low temperatures here are a function of the terrain as much as of the climate.

In the last quote, the bold sentence exemplifies a use of the word 'function' that does not imply intelligence as a causative factor.

Jerry Don Bauer writes:

FACT: We see much function in nature. This is evidence that intelligence operated to design and assign function in order that in each case, one something (often quite different) causes something else.

In view of the objections I made above, I think one cannot say that function in nature is evidence of intelligence operating.


#2

Jerry Don Bauer writes:

2) The fossil record. [...] when we look at the fossil record we would predict to see species coming into it fully formed, not evidence that species gradually evolved into their macroscopic forms as Darwin proposed.

Stating it that way suggests that evolutionists propose there is a goal in evolution, and that along the path toward that goal, there exist unfinished organisms.

That is not the case, it's a distortion of evolutionist ideas. Each individual organism is a complete, "fully formed" example of its species in its own point in time. Species do evolve, but not "into their macroscopic forms", Darwin never proposed that.

Evolution doesn't predict the a priori existence, for example, of an ideal horse that unfinished proto-horse species gradually morph into. Rather, it's the other way around: the modern horse happens to be one of the forms that proto-horse species have evolved into, but things could easily have gone in a different direction, and we might never have had the pleasure of riding these magnificent animals.

Jerry Don Bauer writes:

FACT: This is exactly what we see in the fossil record. There is no gradual evolution of bauplanes [sic], but long periods of nothing interspersed with relatively sudden explosions of fully formed organisms. These organisms then stay this way until they go extinct in the record. This is direct evidence for intelligent design.

How is that direct evidence for intelligent design? It is only direct evidence for the fact that, sometimes, new species seem to crop up in a relatively short span of time. How this happens cannot be deduced directly from the fossil record. It could easily be surmised that aliens arrive here every so often with a spaceship load of new animals they picked up somewhere and dump on earth. How would you determine which is to be preferred: ID or alien Noahs? In the absence of direct evidence for either theory, evolutionists discard both, unless and until such evidence is found.


#3

Jerry Don Bauer writes:

3) DNA found only in organisms. [...] 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.

The scientific method now requires a test to find out if the prediction is borne out. What test does ID propose? This is an honest question that deserves an honest answer. In fact, many evolutionists think the answer is long overdue.

Jerry Don Bauer writes:

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. Its even worse at high temperatures - 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.

I am no molecular biologist, but I would surmise that it is possible that the binding of ribose to other large organic molecules alters the chemical properties of the constituent parts and might thus lend some form of 'protection' against denaturisation. Encapsulation of ribose in vesicles of lipids might provide a similar effect. But I think I'd better let the real molecular biologists deal with this one, I just gave it a shot.


#4

Jerry Don Bauer writes:

4) Mathematical calculations and evidence as in the form of the study I introduced in the Intelligent Design in Universities thread showing that nature has a tendency to disorganize: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it.

FACT: This shows the human genome to be DEVOLVING not EVOLVING. This is what ID predicts. Darwinism predicts the exact opposite tendency. This devolving tendency in vertebrate genomes is direct evidence for intelligent design.

I will not repeat the evolutionist arguments from the thread you mentioned, but I would note that on the one hand you say that "energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it", whereas on the other hand you say that the human genome devolves, i.e. isn't stable. Aren't these contradictory claims?

And again: how is this direct evidence for intelligent design? How does the fact that things get worse over time directly say anything about how things got to be in the first place?


#5

Jerry Don Bauer writes:

5) Existence of irreducibly complex systems in nature. ICSs are interesting little critters as they consist of several well matched parts that perform a function and all work together to cause an overall system function. These are well conceived systems that must be planned before they are designed in that Part A--Does job A--Part B, Does job B--Part C, Does job C--Part D, does job D; and the result is that all of these jobs work together to cause an overall function in the system as a whole.

In this article, by Ken Miller, irreducible complexity is shown to be a flawed concept. The paragon of IC, the flagellum, is seen to be reduced and still functioning:

quote:
The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong - the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum - the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" - has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

Then follows a technical explanation of what is said in the quote above.

Another example from the same article deals with that other icon of IC, the vertebrate blood clotting system. This is a cascade of protein reactions which is claimed by IC not to function when even one of the many factors is missing.

quote:
[...]the claim that every one of the components must be present for clotting to work is central to the "evidence" for design. One of those components, as these quotations indicate, is Factor XII, which initiates the cascade. Once again, however, a nasty little fact gets in the way of intelligent design theory. Dolphins lack Factor XII (Robinson, Kasting, and Aggeler 1969), and yet their blood clots perfectly well. How can this be if the clotting cascade is indeed irreducibly complex? It cannot, of course, and therefore the claim of irreducible complexity is wrong for this system as well.

P.S.: I have to go soon, so I won't be able to post until the evening (Dutch time)

This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 11-May-2005 12:56 PM


We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 7:29 AM Jerry Don Bauer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 5:05 PM Parasomnium has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2261 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 6 of 147 (206989)
05-11-2005 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 6:20 AM


To address your point number 3.

You are presupposing that RNA or DNA must be the first genetic materials. Miller himself suggested that a possible precursor might be the much more stable Peptide Nucleic acids (PNAs)(Nelson, et al.,2000).

Nelson, et al.,2000 writes:

A pre-RNA world in which the backbone of the first genetic material would have been different from the ribose phosphate seems more likely, but the nature of this backbone is unknown. One proposal offers peptide nucleic acids (PNA) as a possible precursor to RNA because PNA binds DNA and forms double and triple helical structures that are related to the Watson-Crick helix.

...

The simplicity of the components of PNA suggests that prebiotic syntheses might be feasible. We therefore examined a number of prebiotic syntheses, including electric discharges and NH4CN polymerizations for ethylenediamine (ED) and AEG, as well as the adenine and guanine-N9-acetic acids and the cytosine and uracil-N1-acetic acids. We show here that the components of PNA are synthesized under potentially prebiotic conditions. This finding makes a plausible case that PNA might have been the first genetic material.

The PNAs are known to be able to act as templates for RNA synthesis (Bohler, et al., 1995, Schmidt, et al., 1997).

Schmidt, et al., 1997 writes:

PNA and PNA-like oligomers are attractive models for informational polymers simpler than the standard nucleic acids. In this paper we have shown that information can be transferred from PNA to RNA. In our previous paper we demonstrated information transfer from DNA to PNA. Together these results support the idea that transitions between different `genetic materials', for example between PNA GC heteropolymers and complementary RNA co-polymers, could occur with conservation of the encoded information.

So none of your point 3 substantiates the "fact" that DNA is designed, it simply infers it from one rather tangential piece of research. What evidence is there which actually supports this "fact"?

TTFN,

WK

P.S. I'd really appreciate your input on my thread about standards for referencing.

This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-11-2005 08:37 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:20 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 147 (206991)
05-11-2005 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 6:20 AM


1) Function. Whilst this been addressed above quite well, another thought came to me. You spoke of hammers having the function of driving a nail. Why would we want to drive a nail? To build something. So what is our function?

2) The fossil record shows very little but a seeming progress (an evolution if you will) of life over a long period of time. There is no evidence that the life was designed by an intelligence. What would we expect to see if the creatures were designed by intelligence? I do not think the question can be answered.

3) Your evidence shows that extraordinary circumstances must have been in place for life to have been created. This is already an accepted fact.

4)Evolution was word that Darwin was loathe to use because it implied progression...which he was very much against proposing. Evolutionary theory does not propose that creatures will evolve, just change, how can we know what creature is more 'progressed' than any other creature. The most succesfull lifeforms are the simplest. However, as Schneider's Ev program clearly shows, loose information, guided by a selection routine will increase the information content. No need for an intelligent agent.

5) Irreducible Complexity is not an issue. As has been shown time and time again, ICS can evolve. It does not imply an intelligent designer, just a designer.

In conclusion, you have succesfully shown that life has been designed. You have yet to demonstrate how it was designed intelligently. Evolutionary theory proposes a mechanism for both the design and the creation of new creatures, and uses the same evidence. I'm fascinated by the field of ID, but I've only ever seen the 'D' part really discussed. Now, about this 'I' component...how to detect intelligence? That's the golden egg for IDists. Several thousand years later and we aren't massively closer to an answer. Evolutionary theory is less than two centuries old.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:20 AM Jerry Don Bauer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 8:21 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 13 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:02 AM Modulous has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2261 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 147 (206992)
05-11-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
05-11-2005 8:15 AM


3) Your evidence shows that extraordinary circumstances must have been in place for life to have been created. This is already an accepted fact.

I don't think this is neccessarily true. Certainly their might be a very specific set of circumstances needed for life to form as it has on our world, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that the circumstances were extraordinary. The circumstances are certainly likely to be radically different from those we experience today, unless perhaps you are one of those black smoker enthusiasts Jerry mentioned.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 8:15 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 05-11-2005 8:32 AM Wounded King has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 8:55 AM Wounded King has responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3199 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 147 (206997)
05-11-2005 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Wounded King
05-11-2005 8:21 AM


I think you are correct but I can not keep all of Kant's thought in my head at any one time yet.

The art of designing life and its creation independent of man's capability are two different things.If there need be no necessary coexistence of a design and it's designer then I can see how ID without IC might not be useful in any future development of evolutionary theory however if there is God and baramins seperately created such that void(s) exists where the community of biologists assumes a continuum no matter how large its magnitude the only problem with demonstrative ID detection is whether one is knowing the architect or creator. Knowing the creator is just as much a problem for religion as it is not for science but biologists who think they can "evolve" morals imply some kind of coexistence (between creatures) such that they unawares support what in general they do not. It seems the fault of evolutionists cleaning their eugenic hands that they have failed to return biology to its extension with man and thus have lost the architect's art which the creation of molecular biology continues to strain the fabric of its economic reality and causes thus disruptions in the education of its students.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-11-2005 08:33 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 8:21 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 10 of 147 (207000)
05-11-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 6:20 AM


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. Its 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:20 AM Jerry Don Bauer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 8:50 AM Mammuthus has responded
 Message 17 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:19 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2261 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 11 of 147 (207010)
05-11-2005 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mammuthus
05-11-2005 8:36 AM


Mammuthus writes:

The genome has a grand total of about 1.5% genes.

What sort of 'gene' is this based on? Is it simply protein coding sequences? Given the recent bout of discovery of various functional non-coding RNAs a simple count of likely ORFs, or a similar approach, seems likely to underestimate the numbers likely to affect phenotype. Conversely looking for promoter sequences seems likely to overestimate them.

TTFN,

WK

This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-11-2005 08:51 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mammuthus, posted 05-11-2005 8:36 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Mammuthus, posted 05-11-2005 9:05 AM Wounded King has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 12 of 147 (207011)
05-11-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Wounded King
05-11-2005 8:21 AM


I don't think this is neccessarily true. Certainly their might be a very specific set of circumstances needed for life to form as it has on our world, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that the circumstances were extraordinary. The circumstances are certainly likely to be radically different from those we experience today, unless perhaps you are one of those black smoker enthusiasts Jerry mentioned.

That's what I was saying...extraordinary meaning beyond the usual. I think its fair to say, that where usual is defined as our experiences, and that we have never experienced life popping out of nowhere, then the creation of life is beyond usual. It is certainly not ordinary for us to experience this phenomenon so it must be extraordinary. The circumstances in which this happens is not our usual experience or what we would call 'ordinary'...thus 'extraordinary'

I think we can both agree that devolving this into a semantics competition won't be conducive to learning all about the fascinating evidences that the ID camp has hidden up its sleeves.

This message has been edited by Modulous, 05-11-2005 08:59 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 8:21 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 9:08 AM Modulous has responded

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 147 (207016)
05-11-2005 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
05-11-2005 8:15 AM


I'll get to Parasomnium's post later as, it's long, he/she is out for the day and I have a study to peruse first.

quote:
1) Function. Whilst this been addressed above quite well, another thought came to me. You spoke of hammers having the function of driving a nail. Why would we want to drive a nail? To build something. So what is our function?

You mean what is the function of the person? If you want to just look at that, I would think in the nail driving process the person functions to swing the hammer.

quote:
2) The fossil record shows very little but a seeming progress (an evolution if you will) of life over a long period of time. There is no evidence that the life was designed by an intelligence. What would we expect to see if the creatures were designed by intelligence? I do not think the question can be answered.

Well, I don't know where you get this, Gould, Eldredge and many other well known evolutionists honestly admit there is no evidence in the fossil record to support gradual evolution:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.

MY NOTE ON THE ABOVE: It's a sad era in science when there are scientists who chose to DELIBERATELY mislead their readers. That's just the way it is today and it has spread like a cancer throughout academia.

quote:
3) Your evidence shows that extraordinary circumstances must have been in place for life to have been created. This is already an accepted fact.

If extraordinary circumstances would have had to have been in place to accept naturalism and there is no evidence they were, why then, are you a naturalist? (Assuming you are). This is the very reason I became an ID theorist. That seems to be where the evidence points.

quote:
4)Evolution was word that Darwin was loathe to use because it implied progression...which he was very much against proposing. Evolutionary theory does not propose that creatures will evolve, just change, how can we know what creature is more 'progressed' than any other creature. The most succesfull lifeforms are the simplest. However, as Schneider's Ev program clearly shows, loose information, guided by a selection routine will increase the information content. No need for an intelligent agent.

The computer scientist ID theorists have ripped those programs apart. Computer programs will do whatever we program them to do. They show nothing that can be mirrored in the real world. And you don't think Darwin was an evolutionist:

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale [1]."

quote:
5) Irreducible Complexity is not an issue. As has been shown time and time again, ICS can evolve.

Then they must be hiding those studies very well because those who study this can't seem to find them. Who showed this? When?

quote:
In conclusion, you have succesfully shown that life has been designed. You have yet to demonstrate how it was designed intelligently. Evolutionary theory proposes a mechanism for both the design and the creation of new creatures, and uses the same evidence.

There are no scientific mechanisms in Darwinism at all. I hope you have not been convinced there are. And, there is not one shred of evidence that can be shown experimentally or is capable of the falsification inherent in the scientific method to be validly considered science anywhere in Darwinism, I'm afraid.

quote:
I'm fascinated by the field of ID, but I've only ever seen the 'D' part really discussed. Now, about this 'I' component...how to detect intelligence? That's the golden egg for IDists. Several thousand years later and we aren't massively closer to an answer. Evolutionary theory is less than two centuries old.

You misunderstand how the term intelligence is used in ID. It is not an attribute we need discover in systems. It is just a term to distinguish the type of design. If you see a picturesque scape of sand dunes, they may appear to be designed and in a way they are, by natural processes that could have gone one of many ways. But in the case of the architect of a shopping center, the plan is well thought out and detailed blueprints are first drawn up. That is ID, it just distinguishes intelligence from the natural.

[1] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (New York: Atheneum, 1972), p. 184.


Design Dynamics
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 8:15 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 10:05 AM Jerry Don Bauer has responded
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 05-11-2005 1:25 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 14 of 147 (207019)
05-11-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Wounded King
05-11-2005 8:50 AM


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 phenotype

Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93. Related Articles, Links

Megabase 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 8:50 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 9:10 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2261 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 15 of 147 (207021)
05-11-2005 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
05-11-2005 8:55 AM


But by that reasoning the environment of the Earth must have been extraordinary for about half the time it has existed. 2 billion years or so of no significant atmospheric oxygen is extraordinary in terms of our modern environment after all. What is usual for us now is not really a suitable standard for measuring the ordinariness of a certain environment.

TTFN,

WK

This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-11-2005 12:04 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 8:55 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Modulous, posted 05-12-2005 3:18 PM Wounded King has responded

    
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019