Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

This is where I wonder if you are not ignoring the evidence. I have posted this support before. The following paper talks about the basic proteins that form all life are a set of structural forms that are woven into nature like the laws of physics.

That's nice that you accept that the coding for basic proteins all descended from an early common ancestor (or set of them) through natural processes.

But that's not what I was objecting to. Do you have anything to back up your claim that there was pre-Cambrian DNA coding for complex features similar to those seen in modern plants and animals? You seemed so sure of it just a few posts ago, now it looks like you're trying to change the subject for some reason.

The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law.

The folds are evidently determined by natural law

Thanks for finding a paper which rules out an intelligent supernatural designer. Not sure why you'd post it, but at least you understand that mainstream science roundly rejects ID. Anyway, you can just copy and paste my previous comment here - the fact that protein folding doesn't break the laws of nature has very little to do with the idea that the diversity of organisms in the Cambrian can be explained by pre-existing genomes.

I have posted support before showing that change has come from non adaptive forces such as
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomic
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

Another paper which doesn't include the word Cambrian in it. Nor does it have the word intelligent in it, meaning it isn't talking in the least about intelligent design by a supernatural creator god. Surprise, surprise.

Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution

This model has two major predictions, first that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons, and second that one should be able to turn on in lower taxons some of the complex latent developmental programs, e.g. a program of eye development or antibody synthesis in sea urchin. An example of natural turning on of a complex latent program in a lower taxon is discussed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17660714

You do realize that this is just a paper proposing a model, right?

This paper has similar aspects to the first two. It proposes that genetic material (Genetic code for life) was utilized from pre existing genetic info.

Yeah, that's kinda how reproduction works. Not sure how it points to an intelligent supernatural designer, though, nor do I see how it has much to do with your idea that the diversity of organisms in the Cambrian developed without any novel genetic features.

I will leave it at that for the moment as there is a bit to discuss as it is.

Not really, unless you want to discuss why you keep avoiding presenting papers which actually demonstrate the claims you're making and how they relate to the whatever model of an intelligent supernatural designer you seem hesitant to actually propose. There also seems to be some confusion where the idea that posting a lot of unrelated abstracts will somehow count as evidence for claims not addressed by the papers they come from. Makes me wonder what's going on (not really, I know what it looks like when people go quote-mining to rationalize beliefs they're unwilling to let go of).

 

[VirOptimus]

I dont know what is classed as literal when it comes to the book of Genesis. I like what someone posted with professor John Lennox giving a commentary on the story of creation. he says there can be many interpretations of literal. There are so many things to consider when looking at the story such as the time, culture, the divine message and the theology. All I know is the basic message that God created us and the universe. That He created us in His image and He created us for a purpose. The details about how it happened are not so important as the divine message. Believing that the light God created was daylight or a special light is not going to make much difference to your salvation.

I see. Then your reason for being against the theory of evolution is religion.

Why cant you just admit that? Why lie about it?

 

[stevevw]

I see. Then your reason for being against the theory of evolution is religion.

Why cant you just admit that? Why lie about it?

So if I admit that I believe in God you automatically assume that the only reason I disagree with Darwinian evolution is because I believe in God. Isn't that being a little presumptuous.

 

[VirOptimus]

So if I admit that I believe in God you automatically assume that the only reason I disagree with Darwinian evolution is because I believe in God. Isn't that being a little presumptuous.

I base my conclusions on what you post. Nothing more, nothing less.

Am I wrong? Isnt it so that your religious views are incompatible with the ToE and that you therefore try to find problems with it?

 

[stevevw]

I base my conclusions on what you post. Nothing more, nothing less.

Am I wrong? Isnt it so that your religious views are incompatible with the ToE and that you therefore try to find problems with it?

If you look at my posts in this thread and in all other threads you will see the evidence I post is scientific. If you mean my belief in God is a basis for why I believe that evolution is not the only thing that may be responsible for how living things came about then yes this is part of it. But this still has to have some scientific basis if its going to be of any support for my view. There has to be some evidence that shows that what evolution claims is not the case as well. You cant just say religion is true therefore evolution is false and there is no other basis for why I take that postilion. That would be a shallow position.

If you pretend to think that those who believe in evolution and not God are not influenced by their position as well then your kidding yourself. It is well known that many evolutionists have a bias towards their position and against any religion. But these are only natural human positions as we all will be influenced by our views and beliefs. The important things is to not let that be the dominating factor and look at things according to the evidence.

I look at both sides of the arguments and I understand the evolutionary position. I just happen to disagree with it. You could say I side with the non religious people who disagree with Darwinian evolution as well. The point is I believe in evolution so your accusations are misguided. I just dont agree with The Darwinian theory. If anyone looks at the evidence truthfully they should see the facts. The fact is Darwinian evolution has not been scientifically verified.

 

[stevevw]

That's nice that you accept that the coding for basic proteins all descended from an early common ancestor (or set of them) through natural processes.

But that's not what I was objecting to. Do you have anything to back up your claim that there was pre-Cambrian DNA coding for complex features similar to those seen in modern plants and animals? You seemed so sure of it just a few posts ago, now it looks like you're trying to change the subject for some reason.

Your not understanding the point. The genetic code didn't have to produce the type of plants and animals we see today to be on par with the level of complexity that it had at that early stage. It was complex enough to produce similar complexity and all the modern body plans were there in the code. The papers I posted were saying that the genetic code that was able to produce the modern body plans was already there and could be switched on when needed.

This plus the ability for living things to share genetic info was enough to produce all the variety needed for today. So even though there wasn't modern plants and animals the genetic code was there if and when it was needed. But if you look at many of the ancient creatures they have similar features anyway. Even after the Cambrian period and many millions of years ago many creatures we see today were the same. they may have just been bigger in many cases or there may have been different varieties of what we see today just like with the dog varieties.

Thanks for finding a paper which rules out an intelligent supernatural designer. Not sure why you'd post it, but at least you understand that mainstream science roundly rejects ID. Anyway, you can just copy and paste my previous comment here - the fact that protein folding doesn't break the laws of nature has very little to do with the idea that the diversity of organisms in the Cambrian can be explained by pre-existing genomes.

What it is saying is that the basic protein folds for building life were a set of structural forms that were around very early and havnt changed. They dont show signs of evolving from a random process but have the qualities of being designed. So whether before or after the Cambrian period they are the same set of structural forms for all life. One of the papers says that the genetic info that was later needed for modern features was always there and just needed to be switched on when needed.

Another paper which doesn't include the word Cambrian in it. Nor does it have the word intelligent in it, meaning it isn't talking in the least about intelligent design by a supernatural creator god. Surprise, surprise.

As I have said before it doesn't have to mention ID or Cambrian in it to show design qualities in life and to show it was around from a very early stage. The fact that it proposes that it was around from a very early stage shows that it is more likely to be aligned with design and that evolution wouldn't have had the time to evolve all those codes for complex life at that early stage.

You do realize that this is just a paper proposing a model, right?

Yes but based on some verifiable testing and evidence and one of many that are saying similar things.

Yeah, that's kinda how reproduction works. Not sure how it points to an intelligent supernatural designer, though, nor do I see how it has much to do with your idea that the diversity of organisms in the Cambrian developed without any novel genetic features.

Except this can be transferred to unrelated living things as well. But it is similar yes and that genetic ability is in all living things. There is more capability for our DNA to make changes without the need to mutate that change. Its just there to be used. Our DNA has far more ability than realized. Just like the discovery that our DNA had far more function than junk.

Not really, unless you want to discuss why you keep avoiding presenting papers which actually demonstrate the claims you're making and how they relate to the whatever model of an intelligent supernatural designer you seem hesitant to actually propose. There also seems to be some confusion where the idea that posting a lot of unrelated abstracts will somehow count as evidence for claims not addressed by the papers they come from. Makes me wonder what's going on (not really, I know what it looks like when people go quote-mining to rationalize beliefs they're unwilling to let go of).

I havnt said I was trying to do that in the first place. The point is showing design in life only. Whether thats from an intelligent supernatural designer or not is another debate. What if the design we see is from some alien race that seeded our planet and designed our all our living things. They had the tech to somehow inject genetic material into our systems. That would still show ID but from a non supernatural source. Proving a supernatural source is a different point and one that is harder to do as you are stepping outside the parameters of being able to scientifically verify this directly.[/quote]

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought I had already done that. The two links I had which showed creature that had brains and hearts that are similar to today's creatures. The eyes of even the trilobites is as complex as anything today.
http://www.trilobita.de/english/eyes.html

Not even close. There aren't even any species with bones in the Cambrian, much less the same complex brain and heart as found mammals. No species with lungs. No species with backbones. No species with a complex vertebrate digestive system.

All we see are very, very simple vertebrates, exactly what we should see if evolution is true.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you look at my posts in this thread and in all other threads you will see the evidence I post is scientific. If you mean my belief in God is a basis for why I believe that evolution is not the only thing that may be responsible for how living things came about then yes this is part of it. But this still has to have some scientific basis if its going to be of any support for my view. There has to be some evidence that shows that what evolution claims is not the case as well. You cant just say religion is true therefore evolution is false and there is no other basis for why I take that postilion. That would be a shallow position.

If you pretend to think that those who believe in evolution and not God are not influenced by their position as well then your kidding yourself. It is well known that many evolutionists have a bias towards their position and against any religion. But these are only natural human positions as we all will be influenced by our views and beliefs. The important things is to not let that be the dominating factor and look at things according to the evidence.

I look at both sides of the arguments and I understand the evolutionary position. I just happen to disagree with it. You could say I side with the non religious people who disagree with Darwinian evolution as well. The point is I believe in evolution so your accusations are misguided. I just dont agree with The Darwinian theory. If anyone looks at the evidence truthfully they should see the facts. The fact is Darwinian evolution has not been scientifically verified.

No, what I see is a religious poster who posts things against evolution.

You have no science on your side, you mirepresent and cherrypick. You arent fooling anyone. You are basicly lying for jesus.

 

[stevevw]

Not even close. There aren't even any species with bones in the Cambrian, much less the same complex brain and heart as found mammals. No species with lungs. No species with backbones. No species with a complex vertebrate digestive system.

All we see are very, very simple vertebrates, exactly what we should see if evolution is true.

What evolution classes as what came first and what is simple does not pan out with the theory that states that life started simply and then evolved gradually into more complex life through a naturalistic process of random mutations. Early life was complex from the beginning and the genetic code for that life was just as complex as today's. WE dont have to have a particular type of creature at a particular time to show complex design. But the fact that there is that level of complex design so early is a big problem for Darwinian evolution.

Design in life doesn't go into stating how and when each individual creature was made. How this happened cannot be scientifically verified by Darwinian evolution or intelligent design. We can only look at what was produced and whether it could have come about from a self creating naturalistic process or was the result of intelligent design. The evidence points to there being design in life and the explanation for how life was naturally was created is beyond evolution. Evolution builds a theory and creates the picture of how things started out from a single bacteria and then went on to evolve all life. They claim the fossil records show this. But there are many gaps.

 

[stevevw]

No, what I see is a religious poster who posts things against evolution.

You have no science on your side, you mirepresent and cherrypick. You arent fooling anyone. You are basicly lying for jesus.

Thats a big accusation. Do you have any support for this apart from your personal views. The support for my view doesn't need to be cherry picked. It is within the scientific mainstream sites as well in one way or another. It seems that you are rejecting your own sides evidence as well to take this position. May you are guilty of doing what you are accusing me of. I have read the support for evolution. When it comes to the detailed explanation for how things evolved it just isnt there. It can site a couple of similarities in a creature and say this shows that one evolved from the other. But it picks what will support this view and ignores what contradicts it. There are many gaps in the explanations and it lacks credible details about how it can happen. A description of how it can happen isn't evidence, its just a description. I have posted many mainstream scientific papers. Are you saying these are lies and therefore undermining the science they are based on. Or are you saying they are lies because you dont want to acknowledge that they point out some evidence which shows that Darwinian evolution has no credibility.

 

[VirOptimus]

Thats a big accusation. Do you have any support for this apart from your personal views. The support for my view doesn't need to be cherry picked. It is within the scientific mainstream sites as well in one way or another. It seems that you are rejecting your own sides evidence as well to take this position. May you are guilty of doing what you are accusing me of. I have read the support for evolution. When it comes to the detailed explanation for how things evolved it just isnt there. It can site a couple of similarities in a creature and say this shows that one evolved from the other. But it picks what will support this view and ignores what contradicts it. There are many gaps in the explanations and it lacks credible details about how it can happen. A description of how it can happen isn't evidence, its just a description. I have posted many mainstream scientific papers. Are you saying these are lies and therefore undermining the science they are based on. Or are you saying they are lies because you dont want to acknowledge that they point out some evidence which shows that Darwinian evolution has no credibility.

You know this isnt true.

You are of course free to belive whatever, I just wish you werent dishonest about it.

 

[stevevw]

You know this isnt true.

You are of course free to believe whatever, I just wish you weren't dishonest about it.

Now you are doing my thinking and know whats in my head. So what do you base this assertion on. I could say the same thing for you. Its easy to make accusations without any support. You are unable to deal with the reality that darwinian evolution has some big problems to answer so you attack the messager. By undermining the person or source you try to undermine the content. How about responding to the content of what is said rather then attacking the person.

 

[KCfromNC]

Your not understanding the point. The genetic code didn't have to produce the type of plants and animals we see today to be on par with the level of complexity that it had at that early stage. It was complex enough to produce similar complexity and all the modern body plans were there in the code.

This is vague enough to mean absolutely nothing.

The papers I posted were saying that the genetic code that was able to produce the modern body plans was already there and could be switched on when needed.

Honestly, I don't believe you.

This plus the ability for living things to share genetic info was enough to produce all the variety needed for today.

You keep switching back and forth between possibilities and what actually happened. Which one are you talking about here?

So even though there wasn't modern plants and animals the genetic code was there if and when it was needed.

It was? Point us to the genetic sequencing of pre-Cambrian organisms that you're looking at as evidence.

But if you look at many of the ancient creatures they have similar features anyway.

And yet you keep trying to ignore a request to provide a few examples. That speaks way more than paragraphs of text confidently claiming you know what you're talking about.

Even after the Cambrian period and many millions of years ago many creatures we see today were the same.they may have just been bigger in many cases or there may have been different varieties of what we see today just like with the dog varieties.

So they're the same except for all the ways they are different. Come on, how dumb do you think we are?

What it is saying is that the basic protein folds for building life were a set of structural forms that were around very early and havnt changed. They dont show signs of evolving from a random process but have the qualities of being designed.

Evolution isn't a random process. And the fact that protein folding is consistent with the laws of chemistry says nothing about an intelligent designer being involved. I don't see the relevance here to pretending that god(s) were involved.

As I have said before it doesn't have to mention ID or Cambrian in it to show design qualities in life

But is is rather suspicious that none of the papers you find to be evidence for intelligent supernatural design are though to be so by the people who actually wrote the papers. Given the fact that the people you cite as experts disagree with your conclusions that leaves you in an uncomfortable position.

The fact that it proposes that it was around from a very early stage shows

Proposing a model shows that someone made up a model. That's it.

Except this can be transferred to unrelated living things as well.

By an intelligent supernatural designer, or by normal natural processes? Pointing out that the latter happens has little to do with your goals of combining god and science, you know.

I havnt said I was trying to do that in the first place. The point is showing design in life only.

Any time you want to start, feel free. Pointing out the various way that evolution can happen does little to further your goal of demonstrating an intelligent designer.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not even close. There aren't even any species with bones in the Cambrian, much less the same complex brain and heart as found mammals. No species with lungs. No species with backbones. No species with a complex vertebrate digestive system.

All we see are very, very simple vertebrates, exactly what we should see if evolution is true.

Yeah, but if you'd just overlook all the differences you'd see that they're exactly the same as modern species. And since someone proposed a model that some gene sequences can be turned on and off, we can conclude as a fact that all the genes necessary to make every modern species is part of every organism which has ever existed. There's even quote-mining from the abstracts of papers to prove it.

 

[lasthero]

Early life was complex from the beginning and the genetic code for that life was just as complex as today's.

We have the genetic code of Cambrian creatures? When did that happen?

 

[VirOptimus]

Now you are doing my thinking and know whats in my head. So what do you base this assertion on. I could say the same thing for you. Its easy to make accusations without any support. You are unable to deal with the reality that darwinian evolution has some big problems to answer so you attack the messager. By undermining the person or source you try to undermine the content. How about responding to the content of what is said rather then attacking the person.

The theory of evolution is very sound and robust. I have no problem with physical reality, i.e. science.

 

[stevevw]

This is vague enough to mean absolutely nothing

Its pretty clear and simple. The creatures that lived during the Cambrian period were every bit as complex and needed the same level of genetic code as the creatures that are around today even though they were not the same animals.

Honestly, I don't believe you.

Its not a case of believing me. Its a case of whether the science is correct and assessing that. I am only posting the papers.

You keep switching back and forth between possibilities and what actually happened. Which one are you talking about here?

Thats because no one can be 100% sure of all the facts.

It was? Point us to the genetic sequencing of pre-Cambrian organisms that you're looking at as evidence.

It is very rare to get genetic material from such old living organisms. The only time genetic sequences have been found is in ancient bacteria. They have discovered 250 million year old bacteria which show the same “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes.
The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/9/1637.full

But most of the evidence comes from comparing features and structure of Cambrian creatures and modern day ones as the proteins for building these structure will be similar. If there are complex eyes, nervous systems, digestive systems, segmented limbs and brains that are similar to modern creatures then it is natural that the genetic codes will be similar and as complex as this has been proven in all other situations. There are a number of papers for which I have already posted some here #568, here #573 and here #578.

An ancient deep-sea mud-inhabiting 1,800-million-year-old sulfur-cycling microbial community from Western Australia is essentially identical both to a fossil community 500 million years older and to modern microbial biotas discovered off the coast of South America in 2007.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/7/2087

And yet you keep trying to ignore a request to provide a few examples. That speaks way more than paragraphs of text confidently claiming you know what you're talking about.

I have already so it seems you are ignoring them. I have posted some again above. Some are even older then the pre Cambrian period such as the ancient bacteria that is the same as modern bacteria.

So they're the same except for all the ways they are different. Come on, how dumb do you think we are?

Now that sounds like what some evolutionists say about transitional fossils. They find a couple of similarities that they use to show how they transitioned from each other. But neglect to acknowledge the other differences. It doesn't matter if there are differences. We are not talking about the exact some creatures. We are talking about a level of complexity that is similar to modern day creatures that isn't suppose to be around that early if evolution is a slow and gradual process. In some cases the complexity is even greater and show the opposite of evolution going from complex to simple rather then simple to complex.

Evolution isn't a random process. And the fact that protein folding is consistent with the laws of chemistry says nothing about an intelligent designer being involved. I don't see the relevance here to pretending that god(s) were involved.

I didn't say anything about God. The protein forms are 3D complex forms that have been around from an early stage that all life is made of. They are made up of finely tuned structure that occupy a very narrow range in the structural space of all the possible structures that could have been made. That is beyond the probabilities of chance and shows design.

But is is rather suspicious that none of the papers you find to be evidence for intelligent supernatural design are though to be so by the people who actually wrote the papers. Given the fact that the people you cite as experts disagree with your conclusions that leaves you in an uncomfortable position.

You keep referring to supernatural design. If we introduce this then that would be beyond the parameters of scientific verification. So we can only investigate whether there is design in nature only. So the papers cited are not going to mention anything about the supernatural if they are to be scientifically credible. But they dont have to mention anything about God or the supernatural to show evidence for design. If you read them they talk about early complex existing codes for life. A level of complexity that makes it near impossible for the slow and gradual process of darwinian evolution. A level of design that seems to have come from nowhere all of a sudden and showing no transition from simpler life. That has all the hallmarks of design without having to say it is. What you want is for them to specifically say it is so. Yet you refuse to even see the logical conclusions that they are making.

Proposing a model shows that someone made up a model. That's it.

Yep and thats the same for darwinian evolution and just about every other hypothesis and theory around. The point isn't whether these things have been 100% verified but that they are a fair and strong possibility that should be given the same consideration as any other theory. They shouldn't be rejected purely because they oppose Darwinian evolution.

By an intelligent supernatural designer, or by normal natural processes? Pointing out that the latter happens has little to do with your goals of combining god and science, you know.

As stated before we dont have to show that it is the results of any supernatural event. That will take things beyond the science. We just have to show design in life. What I have already posted is sufficient for doing this. Showing design as opposed to a chance naturalistic process involves assessing many things like ordered structures and complexity. The chance of this happening in a short period of time without the time to have a trial and error process eliminating the non functional structures so that it ends with something specifically functional. As stated the hallmarks of things like proteins seems to show design and not the end result of a long hit and miss process.

Any time you want to start, feel free. Pointing out the various way that evolution can happen does little to further your goal of demonstrating an intelligent designer.

I dont know how many times I have to point out that you dont need to prove an intelligent designer for design in life.

 

[KCfromNC]

Its pretty clear and simple. The creatures that lived during the Cambrian period were every bit as complex and needed the same level of genetic code as the creatures that are around today even though they were not the same animals.

Which specific part of the Cambrian? What objective measurement are you using to measure complexity? How are you measuring the combined complexity of the organisms living during that specific period? How do you know the contents of the genomes of every organism alive during both that specific period in the Cambrian and today?

See, there's nothing specific - or even particularly honest - about your claim. It's just something you're using to rationalize your idea that biologists have it all wrong and you've figured out the real answer from the hidden meanings in the abstracts of the papers they wrote.

Its not a case of believing me. Its a case of whether the science is correct and assessing that. I am only posting the papers.

No, you're also posting your peculiar interpretation of them. And then pretending that they are the same as what the authors actually presented.

It is very rare to get genetic material from such old living organisms. The only time genetic sequences have been found is in ancient bacteria.

Which makes your confident claims about the contents of those genomes rather suspicious.

I didn't say anything about God.

You mentioned bringing religion into science and have spoken in favor of intelligent design. Did you change your mind, or are you just trying to hide your actual motives?

The protein forms are 3D complex forms that have been around from an early stage that all life is made of. They are made up of finely tuned structure that occupy a very narrow range in the structural space of all the possible structures that could have been made. That is beyond the probabilities of chance

Why do you think that chemistry is nothing but random chance? Seems like you're ignoring the obvious solution here - that what we call the laws of nature actually exist. If we have to reject the idea that natural processes run in orderly ways to accept your religious contributions to science, I can understand why you haven't made any progress in your quest.

You keep referring to supernatural design.

Of course. That's what ID is proposing.

we introduce this then that would be beyond the parameters of scientific verification.

Yep. This is why your own expert sources say that ID is a waste of time.

But they dont have to mention anything about God or the supernatural to show evidence for design

Depends on which type of intelligent designer you think we should be considering. So far you haven't proposed anything - and there's no way for any evidence to be for or against a theory which doesn't even exist.

They shouldn't be rejected purely because they oppose Darwinian evolution

You'll have to take that up with anyone who does this, assuming they exist outside your imagination.

We just have to show design in life.

Again, until you tell us who supposedly designed life and the mechanisms they used, there's no way to even begin to evaluate it.

What I have already posted is sufficient for doing this. Showing design as opposed to a chance naturalistic processinvolves assessing many things like ordered structures and complexity.

So snowflakes are uniquely hand-designed by and intelligent designer? I think you may need to reconsider your claim here.

As stated the hallmarks of things like proteins seems to show design

Yeah, you state lots of things. Stating things isn't the problem - it is providing a reason to think that the things you state have anything to do with reality. Quote-mining from abstracts of papers isn't a particularly convincing method.

I dont know how many times I have to point out that you dont need to prove an intelligent designer for design in life.

Then please be specific - what sort of religious actors do you want to bring into science that aren't an intelligence?

 

[stevevw]

Which specific part of the Cambrian? What objective measurement are you using to measure complexity? How are you measuring the combined complexity of the organisms living during that specific period? How do you know the contents of the genomes of every organism alive during both that specific period in the Cambrian and today?

See, there's nothing specific - or even particularly honest - about your claim. It's just something you're using to rationalize your idea that biologists have it all wrong and you've figured out the real answer from the hidden meanings in the abstracts of the papers they wrote.

I have already posted the specifics, you just ignored them. The papers tell you this. I use the papers themselves as the objective measurements as they have done the hard work to determine all that detail. We dont have to know every genome, just enough to establish that there was that level of complexity similar to modern creatures in at least one or two creatures. If available in one or two then it would be available in more. I have already shown it was available with the papers on Cambrian brains and the eyes which were as complex and similar to modern day creatures. Once again the papers are clear in what they say that the level of complexity was similar to modern animals. It seems we are going around in circles here. You are ignoring what I am posting and asking the same questions over and over again.

No, you're also posting your peculiar interpretation of them. And then pretending that they are the same as what the authors actually presented.

When the author says that his predictions are that early living creatures have genetic material that sits dormant and can be switched on in more complex creatures I think its pretty clear. He is saying that early living things had a lot more genetic material then many think and it was already there to be used later. When they say that Cambrian creatures had the same features as modern creatures I think its pretty clear. I am not reading anything into it as this is exactly what they say. It may be more a case that you want to read things out of it.

Which makes your confident claims about the contents of those genomes rather suspicious

So you dont think that the same features such as complex brains or hearts or eyes can have similar molecular makeups as well.

You mentioned bringing religion into science and have spoken in favor of intelligent design. Did you change your mind, or are you just trying to hide your actual motives?

I mentioned not bring religion into science. They dont and cant go together. I am merely trying to show design in nature through scientific support. Theres not mind changing because I havnt done what you think I am suppose to have done. You are the one who keeps taking it to a place that is bring religion and the supernatural into it.

Why do you think that chemistry is nothing but random chance? Seems like you're ignoring the obvious solution here - that what we call the laws of nature actually exist. If we have to reject the idea that natural processes run in orderly ways to accept your religious contributions to science, I can understand why you haven't made any progress in your quest.

So your now saying nature has some design features about it. It can have a high order of complex structure. It can find the specific structural forms that exist in among a massively wide range of possible forms by some directed process. Just like finding the right numbers in millions of possible combinations in a very short time that defy chance and probabilities. Anyone would logically acknowledge that there was some intelligent meddling going on in any other situation of life.

Yep. This is why your own expert sources say that ID is a waste of time.

AS far as I have read they dont say anything about ID just like you have admitted.

Depends on which type of intelligent designer you think we should be considering. So far you haven't proposed anything - and there's no way for any evidence to be for or against a theory which doesn't even exist.

Why do I have to propose a particular Intelligent designer if I am only trying to show design in nature. How does proving a particular designer scientifically prove design in nature.

Again, until you tell us who supposedly designed life and the mechanisms they used, there's no way to even begin to evaluate it.

Why.

So snowflakes are uniquely hand-designed by and intelligent designer? I think you may need to reconsider your claim here.

You seem to have a 1950s idea of design in nature. Its either a magical process that pops things into reality or its the results of a naturalistic process that mimics design without having any design ability. Why can't a intelligent designer use intelligent mechanisms to design like humans do. Isn't that the logical way it would happen. Why couldn't God have used design processes to make things happen rather then just pop them into existence. Why could he have designed a code for life just like we design a computer code for software that can produce many other actions that are governed by that code for life.

Why can God design laws which then govern the way physics work and the universe itself. If those laws and codes operate at highly mathematical, algorithmic, high ordered and complex info levels that show qualities of design then why can they be classed as design form an intelligent source. Why try to pretend that somehow nature has this ability as well when nature is a blind non directed process that would have any idea about that level of design. A snow flake doesn't just appear designed and is the result of a natural process that somehow fluked it. It is the result of an underlying set of laws that cause it to end up that way. Its the laws that give things their ability to act directed and behave in a certain way. The point is how did those laws come about. How did a blind process that doesn't know what it needs or have any purpose stumble upon making those laws.

Yeah, you state lots of things. Stating things isn't the problem - it is providing a reason to think that the things you state have anything to do with reality. Quote-mining from abstracts of papers isn't a particularly convincing method.

I dont just quote mind. I give a commentary with those links as well. Quote mining would be just posting a bunch of quotes and nothing else. If you read some of those papers you would perhaps understand better some of the things that are proposed. They are alternative ideas for how we can explain what looks like design in life and existence. As Dawkins said life appears to be designed. Evolution just tries to explain it away by making the designed which is nature itself the designer. Its like making a designed car be the designer of itself.

Then please be specific - what sort of religious actors do you want to bring into science that aren't an intelligence?

Why do you have to bring in any actors to prove design. When you see a designed car do you need to know who designed it to know its designed. Does knowing the designer make any difference to whether its designed or not. It seems you are the one who wants to take things into a supernatural verse science debate because you cant handle debating things that may support something different that is supported by science. I can see that the posts are getting longer and things are going around in circles now so I cant see any point to keep going over the same ground.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have already posted the specifics, you just ignored them. I use the papers themselves as the objective measurements as they have done the hard work to determine all that detail.

Which paper has an objective description of the geonomes of Cambrian organisms?

We dont have to know every genome, just enough to establish that there was that level of complexity similar to modern creatures in at least one or two creatures.

What specific measure of genome complexity are you using?

When the author says that his predictions are that early living creatures have genetic material that sits dormant and can be switched on in more complex creatures I think its pretty clear. He is saying that early living things had a lot more genetic material then many think and it was already there to be used later.

Again, you're pretending that coming up with a model somehow imposes that model on the actual behavior of reality.

So you dont think that the same features such as complex brains or hearts or eyes can have similar molecular makeups as well.

Considering how much trouble you're having supporting your own case, perhaps you should worry about your thought processes rather than trying to tell me what I'm thinking.

I am merely trying to show design in nature through scientific support.

Design by what, exactly, and using what mechanisms?

So your now saying nature has some design features about it.

Nope, another mind reading failure. I've said repeatedly that until you tell us what designer you're talking about it is impossible to evaluate if there is evidence for or against it.

Just like finding the right numbers in millions of possible combinations in a very short time that defy chance and probabilities. Anyone would logically acknowledge that there was some intelligent meddling going on in any other situation of life.

This approach "logically" proves that lottery numbers are picked by an intelligent designer rather than selected at random. In other words, there's not much logic in it at all.

AS far as I have read they dont say anything about ID just like you have admitted.

That's not true. In an article you posted, one of your experts did say that ID isn't the least bit scientific and was basically a failure. Not sure why you posted that - maybe another case of not reading past the first paragraph and just assuming you know what the rest is.

Why do I have to propose a particular Intelligent designer if I am only trying to show design in nature.

Because then we can figure out if the abilities of that designer match up with the alleged designs you think you've found.

You seem to have a 1950s idea of design in nature. Its either a magical process that pops things into reality or its the results of a naturalistic process that mimics design without having any design ability. Why can't a intelligent designer use intelligent mechanisms to design like humans do.

I don't know. You're the one telling us that there is evidence for ID and yet refuse to identify the intelligence or the design process. If you'd just come clean with what it is you're actually proposing we could stop guessing.

Isn't that the logical way it would happen. Why couldn't God have used design processes to make things happen rather then just pop them into existence.

Weren't you just saying you weren't trying to mix religion and science?

Why could he have designed a code for life just like we design a computer code for software that can produce many other actions that are governed by that code for life.

You tell me. Is that the specific process you're trying to impose on your god?

Why can God design laws which then govern the way physics work and the universe itself. If those laws and codes operate at highly mathematical, algorithmic, high ordered and complex info levels that show qualities of design then why can they be classed as design form an intelligent source.

Why are these qualities of design? We only know of one actual intelligent designer - humans - and we sure don't create laws of nature and universes. It seems you're adding a lot to this idea of design that isn't evident from any designer I'm familiar with.

Why try to pretend that somehow nature has this abilityas well when nature is a blind non directed process that would have any idea about that level of design.

What objective measurement can we use to draw the line between obviously undesigned and designed? What units does the measurement have?What's the measurement for the following items :

- a lawn mower
- a snow flake
- a beach
- a border collie

Please be specific, thanks.

I dont just quote mind.I give a commentary with those links as well.

Yes, and that commentary seems to run counter to the actual meaning of the work you're citing. That's a pretty popular definition of quote-mining that's typical of creationists and other types of ID proponents.

Why do you have to bring in any actors to prove design.

Hey, you're the one claiming it was a god using some sort of intelligent design. It isn't like I'm making stuff up and putting words in your mouth. If you don't like the implications of your guesses on the subject, that's on you.

When you see a designed car do you need to know who designed it to know its designed.

No, because we are able to compare it against not-intelligently-designed things and notice the differences. That approach doesn't work when you pretend there's supernatural intelligent magic which designed the entire universe and everything in it. That leaves nothing to compare against.

It seems you are the one who wants to take things into a supernatural verse science debate because

Weren't you just asking me to tell you what your god could and couldn't do? For someone who pretends to not want to talk about the supernatural you have a strange way of showing it.