Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How else are we to make sure that it is not simply a case of already existing genes taking over in the population? Consider as an example when evolutionists once shouted that bedbugs evolved to be resistant to insecticide. The truth though is the protein that makes the bedbugs immune to insecticides already existed in a small minority of bedbugs and researchers merely injected that protein into a control group and then observed it become the dominant trait in that group. Scientists have known that mutations can make insects immune to the effects of insecticides for a long time. However, these are not as a result of a mutation which added new (never before existed) information.

A molecule of DDT acts by binding itself to a specific matching site on an insect’s nerve cell membrane, where it prevents the nerve from functioning properly. After enough DDT molecules are bound to the nerve cells, the nervous system breaks down and the insect dies. A mutation can occur in the insect’s DNA which makes the site that DDT attaches to, less specific (loss of information), preventing the DDT from binding to its intended site and rendering the insect immune to DDT. Of course changes in insect’s protein often render the insect less fit for its environment in some other way. After the insecticide threat is removed, the insect populations will usually switch right back to their original gene configuration. This is further evidence that this is not the kind of change that explains macro evolution.

The point I am making here is that without close monitoring and study of the change, how would you know if it was actual evidence of UCD type change or not?

Here's a study of wild mouse evolution in the wild (albeit a constrained area to ensure the populations could be tracked). Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's a study of wild mouse evolution in the wild (albeit a constrained area to ensure the populations could be tracked). Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?

I saw that earlier. Pretty cool.

 

[Brightmoon]

What He's telling you in Romans 1:20, is that He can be seen in the things He's made. Which is entirely different than science, which requires training and study to do, and requires no faith whatsoever.

Sometimes, those two entirely different things come together when I'm out by myself in woods or a river, and then it's an epiphany.

This owl and I were old acquaintances; he lived not far from my house. I would fall asleep at night, as he and his mate would hoot, and they had gotten used to me down at the pond in early morning. His young one wasn't too pleased that I was there, though.

That morning, I remember the moment, when my understanding of owls and my appreciation for the world that the Lord made for us, came together. It's an amazing thing. I wish everyone could have it.

. I has a similar epiphany about my cat as a child . I realized that we were truly relatives and that was probably the reason my cat liked me . She’d accepted me as her family. She was just as much a relative as my little sister ( who I was angry with at the time). This is the reason I’ve never had a problem accepting common descent

 

[The Barbarian]

but you are the one who talked about phylogenetic trees. not me.

But phylogenetic trees aren't based on "looks like." In fact, they often apply to entirely different-appearing organisms. You've confused analogy to homology.

 

[The Barbarian]

I has a similar epiphany about my cat as a child . I realized that we were truly relatives and that was probably the reason my cat liked me . She’d accepted me as her family. She was just as much a relative as my little sister ( who I was angry with at the time). This is the reason I’ve never had a problem accepting common descent

It's why mammals frequently "adopt" motherless juveniles of other species. Usually, it's a female that does the adoption, but sometimes, even males will do it. It's a recognition that this is an individual in need, and an intrinsic urge to protect such individuals.

Years ago, in Argentina, a dog saved a newborn infant abandoned in freezing weather. People, hearing the baby's cries, found the dog warming and protecting it. For the same reason we become protective of puppies.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Argentine dog saves abandoned baby

 

[xianghua]

Nope. So far, you've failed to show that anybiological entity is "designed."

do you think that a robot with DNA is evidence for design or evolution?

 

[xianghua]

But phylogenetic trees aren't based on "looks like."

true. but they do base on both internal and external similarity.

 

[xianghua]

The lack of homologies shows a lack of common descent.

but they do share many traits in common.

 

[xianghua]

Whatever



First let me just say that I claim no one based on status or who they say they are. I accept their statements on a case by case basis only as it is shown to be true and supported. So the fact that Wise moves in creation circles has no relevance to me.



Maybe we're just misunderstanding each other here. When I say "chain from one major form to another" maybe you don't understand that I mean from parent to offspring line not distant cousins right? Lets say for the sake of argument that we were going to show a dinosaur evolved into a bird. I would need progressive links from the long line of lineages leading from the dinosaur to the bird (with no sudden leaps) not a group of all birds and a tree hugging wombat said to be a distant cousin. If I understand your little cartoon drawings above correctly, your not saying here that the tetrapods are the direct line descendants of the Ray finned fish, but rather you think I wanted a chain of different major forms that are claimed to be related based on some small similar features? Sorry for the confusion.




I can see how you might think this to be logical. Except for a couple of problems. We are talking about Creation vs. Evolution. So in a discussion such as this we cant just come to the table "assuming" our opposition accepts our usage evolution as the basis for saying DNA similarity equates to relationship. To a creationist that is like saying that one of those household vacuum robots is related to a lawn mower bot simply because both use very similar computer coding. It may be that the creator wrote the code that makes a hand develop and function a certain way and the same code is used several times in any "product" in which a hand is part of the design. So yes we know DNA relationships work with known descendants because...ahem...they are known. We see humans have human babies all the time and we see monkeys have monkey babies all the time. We can test the DNA of a human and its baby and see similarity equates to relationship. But if we test a monkey DNA and a human DNA and see a similarity it is NOT logical to say that must mean relationship. Especially if one of the possibilities is they both have a common creator.



How about just a link to the paper showing the study that took place under laboratory conditions?



Oh really? So ever see a picture of a two headed snake? Did that mutation provide new gene increasing type of information that spawned a whole race of two headed snakes that had an advantage over their one headed snake relatives? Or did it actually die off rather quickly? When I say new gene increasing information I am talking about on a scale that took throughout the entire population and gave them an advantage over the previous population. How hard is this to understand? If we are trying to show all life has a common ancestor then that means for a frog to eventually turn into a handsome prince, a whole lot of gene increasing type of information had to have been added to the populations over time.

the tetrapod evolution is outdate. according to the new data most of these suppose "transitional fossils" are in the wrong place. here is the new data:

look at the bottom left. (image from wiki).

 

[The Barbarian]

do you think that a robot with DNA is evidence for design or evolution?

No, I don't. I don't think the tooth fairy, or the Loch Ness Monster is, either.

 

[The Barbarian]

the tetrapod evolution is outdate. according to the new data most of these suppose "transitional fossils" are in the wrong place.

Nope. So far, all fit quite nicely. You do realize that an earlier form can live on, long after another form evolves from it, right? You're mistake is called the "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead" error.

And the new discoveries were anticipated long before they were found. Looking in what was northern Laurasia, Jennifer Clack located a very early fish/tetrapod precisely where predicted.

In 2004. So not as new as you suppose.

 

[xianghua]

No, I don't. I don't think the tooth fairy, or the Loch Ness Monster is, either.

so a robot (with dna) isnt evidence for design?

 

[xianghua]

Nope. So far, all fit quite nicely. You do realize that an earlier form can live on, long after another form evolves from it, right?

actually in this case its the opposite: the modern form appeared before the "primitive" one. so instead of finding a series of 12345 we find 51234.

 

[The Barbarian]

actually in this case its the opposite: the modern form appeared before the "primitive" one. so instead of finding a series of 12345 we find 51234.

In other words, if "humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" The existence of a transitional form at some point, does not tell us when it originated. You're essentially arguing that if you're alive, your uncle must be dead.

so a robot (with dna) isnt evidence for design?

No. For the same reason the Loch Ness monster isn't evidence for design. Fantasy is just fantasy.

 

[Speedwell]

so a robot (with dna) isnt evidence for design?

It might be. Show it to us. If there is evidence of human manufacture then it's evidence of design, otherwise not.

 

[xianghua]

In other words, if "humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

no. again its the opposite. its like finding first human in the fossil record and then apes.

No. For the same reason the Loch Ness monster isn't evidence for design. Fantasy is just fantasy.

but such a robot does exist.

 

[Speedwell]

but such a robot does exist.

But you can't show it to us because of ...reasons...

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
In other words, if "humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

no. again its the opposite. its like finding first human in the fossil record and then apes.

That actually happened. We had the first human fossils long before we found ape fossils. It's not surprising; apes evolved in forests, and forests usually don't produce fossils.

Later, we found ape fossils much older than human fossils. Again, you're assuming that if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead. Your argument fails for a number of other reasons. I think you could find those, if you considered things for a while.

Here's a simplified time line:

Notice coelacanths are out of order. Because they aren't in the line that led tetrapods, and they lived on long after Eusthenopteron died out. I'm sure you could figure this out, if you gave it some thought.

but such a robot does exist.

If scientists build something and used some natural materials to make it work, that wouldn't be evidence of anything but human activity. Say, if we built a mechanical man, using DNA codons for memory, that's merely what humans do.

On the other hand, if they found away to make a mechanical device replicate itself with the same sort of coding, that would merely be copying evolutionary processes.

What if they managed to build a robot made entirely of nucleic acids, and found away to make transcription and translation do some sort of a task? Then again, it's just humans copying evolutionary processes, to achieve something.

This kind of thing actually happens; engineers copy evolutionary processes to solve problems that are to difficult for design. They prepare a group of feasible, but suboptimal solutions, and then use natural selection to find the best of them. These are then randomly modified, and the process repeats.

Turns out, these genetic algorithms are more efficient than design for solving very complex problems. As usual, God knew best. Design is inferior to evolution.[/QUOTE]

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you think you could design anything better than
God, then put in for his job.

He is enlisting students. (disciples)

 

[xianghua]

about the fossils: i never said that its a problem for evolution. i just said that some of them are in the wrong place. we can always solve it by missing fossils, but i go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have (and by the way i think that we do found older coelacanths fossil).

On the other hand, if they found away to make a mechanical device replicate itself with the same sort of coding, that would merely be copying evolutionary processes.

so a self replicating robot isnt evidence for design? ok. lets agree to disagree.