Unintelligent Design?

chris4243 · Jan 3, 2012

When making an argument from good (or bad) design, one must be careful that they are not making an argument from ignorance. One might point to something and claim it is an example of bad design, yet it might turn out that they forgot to take into account some of the data. For example, the complaint that whales don't have gills generally ignores the enormous energy costs and other constraints that gills have, especially for warm-blooded animals, rather than weighing those costs against the occasional drowned baby whales.

You might think you can get around that by creating a superior design as an example. But can it really be proven that the design is superior, rather than having different goals? For example, if someone designs an enzyme that is more efficient than the wildtype enzyme, and reduces its concentration so that the overall catalytic activity is unchanged but less protein is used, it might seem like an overall improvement -- same effect, less protein. Perhaps it is better, but having less of the enzyme would also make the organism more susceptible to a toxin that inactivated that enzyme (the same toxin would have less molecules to inactivate). Organisms are complicated enough that I'm almost certain that any possible improvement will also have a drawback. You'd have to be able to compare various benefits and drawbacks against each other, and things like calamity resistance though unimportant in the short term is a necessity long-term.

My own feelings on this is that arguments based on design could be made very convincing, but likely will never be absolutely certain.

Papias · Jan 4, 2012

Shernren wrote:

A summation: Papias and I are both theistic evolutionists (who in particular still believe in an actual ancestral human couple Adam and Eve, though we still take the rest of Genesis 1-3 non-literally) who have been trying to thrash out the exact logical status of the "argument from good design" - whatever that may be (defining it is part of the problem).

This actually reflects a similar discussion in the wider academic world: what, exactly, falsifies (if it does) the argument from design? Creationists of course don't even think it's false; but there remains a scholarly distinction between two distinct camps which do not accept the argument from design. One I may call the Humeans, who think that pre-Darwinian philosophy - of David Hume in particular - sufficed to falsify the argument from design or render it unhelpful; Elliott Sober, a philosopher of science, falls in this camp, and I've actually learned a lot about evolution from him (hence my leanings). The other camp I may call the Darwinians who think that the argument from design was actually a good argument until evolution came along to offer an alternative explanation. Richard Dawkins in particular is a proponent of this camp, which explains why he credits evolution with making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Humeans tend to think that the argument from design is unfalsifiable, for the reasons I have stated: since design specifications for life cannot be independently found, one could always conjure up a set of specifications that (very conveniently) match what we actually see, and then claim that this just shows that life is designed.

However, Humeans would say (and I agree) that such a move is of little scientific value, since, in practice, just about any crazy statement can be rendered unfalsifiable (and thus potentially true) by the addition of suitable auxiliary hypotheses. For example, suppose I were to believe that there were a unicorn in my backyard. This patently false statement could be rendered unfalsifiable if I supposed that the unicorn were also invisible and untouchable to anyone other than me. And yet we still wouldn't accept the existence of the unicorn. In the same way, if the argument from design requires that kind of saving, it might as well be invalid.

What I argued was for that we could consider God to have designed life using the specification that all life-forms must be capable of being maintained by evolution. But note that this is not an argument from design: what I am really saying or assuming is that conventional design arguments are unlikely to be able to explain biodiversity. Rather, I was trying to fit my (pre-existing) beliefs in God with the fact that all life appears to have evolved, without simply making God not-responsible for the results of evolution. It goes without saying that if I have to assume God exists to argue about the origins of biodiversity, my argument is hardly going to be a proof of God's existence!

What Papias is arguing for (and which I agree with, really) is that, in general, "evolutionary origination" seems to be a much better way to explain the patterns we see in modern biodiversity rather than simply "design to the environment". Note that my own formulation (God designed life using evolutionary specifications) is really saying the same thing: that is, it doesn't look like God designed whales specifically and solely for living in the ocean, giraffes specifically and solely for eating tall tree branches, etc., and there is a lot that a design hypothesis can't explain without recourse to evolutionary explanations.
......

Anyhow. I think that's a sufficient response to Papias' previous post, and I don't think I'll need to say anything more that hasn't already been said here or in the previous series. It's a joy to have a disagreement with someone who argues his side so well!

Thanks, Shernren, for both the excellent summary as well as the good conversation. It's not often on these boards that a good, civil, and enlightening conversation is seen. I'm glad to have had the chance to be a part of one such discusssion, one in which you have explained you points well.

Blessings, everyone-

Papias

P.S.

(a minor point)

I must note that, given my background in theoretical physics, I am enamored with logical rigor, perhaps to a fault! Papias, on the other hand, is an ... I don't know what, actually.

My background in is in Materials Science, which is a combination of chemistry, physics, and mechanical engineering.

SkyWriting · Jan 6, 2012

shernren said:
Do you even know where that quote comes from?

Heck, I don't even know what quote you are referring to,
much less, who said it.

SkyWriting · Jan 6, 2012

BTW

**I wrote: Maybe learn about what you are going to talk about before talking next time.
Sky Writing replied: I'm comfortable with my current process. But thanks!

My current process is to speak what I know (or think I know) and only do
further research on what people may take issue with.

For example: I'm no longer a "true" YE Creationist. Because I was challenged about my views
on young earth, I came to the conclusion that the scriptures don't describe a "young earth" as
YEC's do. In fact, God says Adam could have had an easy life with fertile soil had he not had
such an Ego problem.

Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

So, what is fertile soil? Aged organic matter.
So, given that Adam had fertile soil, "Creation" would have all the properties of an aged earth.

Having all the properties of an aged earth, means there is no point trying to prove its a young earth.
Even taking the creation week at face value as an actual event (and I do) there is no point in trying
to prove it because scripture shows the earth to have the properties that we consider to be
indications of an aged thing.

Papias · Jan 6, 2012

Skywriting-

Thanks for the clarification about your process.

Also - That's an interesting idea about the fertile soil. I'm not sure if you've noticed or not, but there have been several poster over the last year or so who espouse some kind of ancient earth idea that often has some similarity to what you are saying.

Have a good day-

Papias

SkyWriting · Jan 6, 2012

Assyrian said:
Apparently cell size is proportional to the size of the genome, all the junk DNA means cells are going to be significantly larger. The problem with snipping out the junk is that it is difficult to be precise and snipping out coding DNA by mistake can be lethal. So there needs to be a significant cost benefit before it is worthwhile, birds, who need to keep their weight down for flight have smaller genomes and smaller cells.

There is considerable support for the theory that there is no
"junk DNA". Only DNA that we don't know why it is there.
Considering the age of the field, that's much more likely.

TEs are no longer seen as “junk” and “selfish” pieces of DNA
—the predominant view from the 1960s through the 1990s—
but as major components of genomes that have played a
significant role in evolution...

SkyWriting · Jan 6, 2012

Papias said:
Skywriting-

Thanks for the clarification about your process.

Also - That's an interesting idea about the fertile soil. I'm not sure if you've noticed or not, but there have been several poster over the last year or so who espouse some kind of ancient earth idea that often has some similarity to what you are saying.

Have a good day-

Papias

People who attack my ideas lead me to research my thoughts more completely through both scientific publishings and scripture.

The rantings of forum posters are better off ignored as a source for insight.
Myself included.

For example: The Opening Poster made 3 posts last November 16th and disappeared. Why take such people's views very seriously?
Not that I condemn him. There IS a real world off-line. I highly recommend it. I should post my Myrtle Beach pictures. He's a postcard of the area. We were in the hotel on the far right.

SkyWriting · Jan 6, 2012

Papias said:
"There is no point in studying biology, just accept that God created it that way according to a literal reading of Gensis."

"Don't try to develope anesthesia, that goes against God's plan for us."

"Why look at archeological evidence in Jericho, God gave us all the history there that we need in the Old Testament." and so on.

The problem is that your imaginary logic fails at the feet of reality and therefore needs to be discarded. Unless you can substantiate your claims that creationism leads to such statements. I don't think you can.

"There is no point in studying biology, just accept that God created it that way according to a literal reading of Genesis."
Not according the the founder of the field:
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)

"Don't try to develop anesthesia, that goes against God's plan for us." Not according to this:
CHLOROFORM JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)

"Why look at archeological evidence in Jericho, God gave us all the history there that we need in the Old Testament." and so on.
Not according to these types of groups:
Archaeology and the Bible - ChristianAnswers.Net

Assyrian · Jan 6, 2012

SkyWriting said:
There is considerable support for the theory that there is no
"junk DNA". Only DNA that we don't know why it is there.
Considering the age of the field, that's much more likely.

TEs are no longer seen as junk and selfish pieces of DNA
the predominant view from the 1960s through the 1990s
but as major components of genomes that have played a
significant role in evolution...

You ok then with non coding DNA playing a significant role in evolution?

SkyWriting · Jan 7, 2012

Assyrian said:
You ok then with non coding DNA playing a significant role in evolution?

I'm not prepared to disagree with the publisher.
Others publishers may be.

Papias · Jan 10, 2012

SW asked for examples/ back up for these:

"There is no point in studying biology, just accept that God created it that way according to a literal reading of Genesis."
Not according the the founder of the field:
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)

Yes, some progress was made prior to understanding evolution, but in recent times, nearly all progress (as measured by published papers) is being made by evolution supporters. Creationist have done next to nothing in the past 100 years in terms of actual work to discover something.

"Don't try to develop anesthesia, that goes against God's plan for us." Not according to this:
CHLOROFORM JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)

Christian beliefs that to avoid pain was against Gods will were common, especially in rural America in the middle of the nineteenth century, and this too impeded the acceptance of anesthesia.
Anesthesia and Literature: Breathing "the Vapour of Ether"

"Why look at archeological evidence in Jericho, God gave us all the history there that we need in the Old Testament." and so on.
Not according to these types of groups:
Archaeology and the Bible - ChristianAnswers.Net

This is a great example of how attempts to "prove the Bible" right using archeology not only impede real work, they also distort discoveries to paint a false picture. This explains why there was little real archeology until the 1800's. You can see how much the ChristianAnswers.net page is wrong by looking at the actual archology, such as shown by this freely available documentary:

The Bible Unearthed | Watch Free Documentary Online

There is considerable support for the theory that there is no
"junk DNA". Only DNA that we don't know why it is there.

And please note that the paper you cited doesn't support your claim. The paper only shows some use from STRs, one kind of non-coding DNA. Showing that it has a function in no way shows that all DNA is functional, any more than showing that one kind of food is carcinogenic proves that all food is carcinogenic.

It's obvious that some DNA is useless by looking at genomes overall, as well as other evidence. For instance, how much information does it take to make a paramecium?

P. Caudentum and P. aurelia are nearly identical paramecia. Yet one has a genome of 200 Mb, the other of 9,000 MB (which is 45 times as big, and 3 times as big as your own genome!). So about 98% of that genome isn't needed.

Anyway, DNA is clearly another example of poor design - the hundreds of broken genes, such as GULOP, show that too - regardless of whether or not it's evenutally found that some way to use them has evolved.

Papias

Ref.

Li, W.-H. (1997) Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates. Li, W.-H. (1997) Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates.

SkyWriting · Jan 11, 2012

Papias said:
SW asked for examples/ back up for these:

?

Yes, some progress was made prior to understanding evolution, but in recent times, nearly all progress (as measured by published papers) is being made by evolution supporters. Creationist have done next to nothing in the past 100 years in terms of actual work to discover something.

You counter my evidence with more opinions? Can I do that too?

Christian beliefs that to avoid pain was against God’s will were common, especially in rural America in the middle of the nineteenth century, and this too impeded the acceptance of anesthesia.
Anesthesia and Literature: Breathing "the Vapour of Ether"

I'd never heard that before. This page says your idea is balogny.
is anesthesia safe

This is a great example of how attempts to "prove the Bible" right using archeology not only impede real work, they also distort discoveries to paint a false picture. This explains why there was little real archeology until the 1800's. You can see how much the ChristianAnswers.net page is wrong by looking at the actual archology, such as shown by this freely available documentary:

I don't debate videos. If one picture is worth a thousand words, then I don't have time to debate 10-60 frames per second worth.

And please note that the paper you cited doesn't support your claim. The paper only shows some use from STRs, one kind of non-coding DNA. Showing that it has a function in no way shows that all DNA is functional, any more than showing that one kind of food is carcinogenic proves that all food is carcinogenic. It's obvious that some DNA is useless by looking at genomes overall, as well as other evidence. For instance, how much information does it take to make a paramecium? P. Caudentum and P. aurelia are nearly identical paramecia. Yet one has a genome of 200 Mb, the other of 9,000 MB (which is 45 times as big, and 3 times as big as your own genome!). So about 98% of that genome isn't needed. Anyway, DNA is clearly another example of poor design - the hundreds of broken genes, such as GULOP, show that too - regardless of whether or not it's evenutally found that some way to use them has evolved.Papias
Ref.

Li, W.-H. (1997) Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates. Li, W.-H. (1997) Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates.

I appreciate that you have an opinion. If you are in sync with a good percentage of DNA experts then I'm SURE you could find one to back you up. That's wouldn't prove you were right, but it would be a start. Everything I find says your 13 year old source is hogwash. I'm not saying that all science opinions 13 yo are obsolete, but in this case, I think so.
So I'll start right down the list from the top:

Junk DNA" - Over 98 percent of DNA has largely unknown function

Noncoding DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't Throw It Out: 'Junk DNA' Essential In Evolution : NPR

A happy few did not need to rethink either the "central dogma of molecular biology" (Crick, 1956) or the misnomer of "junk" DNA (Ohno 1972), since they never believed them in the first place. The dictum claiming that a flow of information from proteins back to DNA "never happens" or the idea that 98.7% of the human genome should be disregarded as junk was never very believable.

Several lines of evidence indicate that many "junk DNA" sequences have likely but unidentified functional activity, and other sequences may have had functions in the past.
Junk DNA - What is Junk DNA?

Papias · Jan 11, 2012

SW wrote:

Yes, some progress was made prior to understanding evolution, but in recent times, nearly all progress (as measured by published papers) is being made by evolution supporters. Creationist have done next to nothing in the past 100 years in terms of actual work to discover something.

Click to expand...

You counter my evidence with more opinions? Can I do that too?

Are you seriously disagreeing with the fact that evolution supporters publish more actual research in biology than creationist do? You can look at any of the dozens of major biology journals and see papers in support of evolution (just do a search for the word "evolution", and you'll find literally thousands). Here is one such real scientific journal. International Journal of Biological Sciences Now, where are the thousands of creationist papers descibing real research that you seem to think exist?

Christian beliefs that to avoid pain was against Gods will were common, especially in rural America in the middle of the nineteenth century, and this too impeded the acceptance of anesthesia.
Anesthesia and Literature: Breathing "the Vapour of Ether"

Click to expand...

I'd never heard that before.

Click to expand...

Just because you are ignorant of medical history doesn't change the facts. Many sources document that anesthesia was opposed on Christian grounds in the 1800s. Here's another - this one a whole book that was written by doctors at the time to try to convince Christians that the use of anesthesia wasn't a sin. Answer to the religious objections advanced against the employment of anaesthetic agents in midwifery and surgery : Simpson, James Young,Sir,1811-1870 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

This page says your idea is balogny.
is anesthesia safe

That page says nothing about early Christian opposition to anesthesia, so I don't know why you bring it up. It does show that Muslims too had early objections to anesthesia on religious grounds, just as Christians did. While that's interesting, if anything it helps my point.

This is a great example of how attempts to "prove the Bible" right using archeology not only impede real work, they also distort discoveries to paint a false picture. This explains why there was little real archeology until the 1800's. You can see how much the ChristianAnswers.net page is wrong by looking at the actual archology, such as shown by this freely available documentary:

Click to expand...

I don't debate videos. If one picture is worth a thousand words, then I don't have time to debate 10-60 frames per second worth.

I was providing a source, just like any of the other sources I've provided. You are welcome, of course to also check out other sources. There are plenty of them that show that a literal reading of the Bible is shown to be false by archeaology. Here's another: Biblical History and Israel's Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History - Megan Bishop Moore, Brad E. Kelle - Google Books

And please note that the paper you cited doesn't support your claim. The paper only shows some use from STRs, one kind of non-coding DNA. Showing that it has a function in no way shows that all DNA is functional, any more than showing that one kind of food is carcinogenic proves that all food is carcinogenic. It's obvious that some DNA is useless by looking at genomes overall, as well as other evidence. For instance, how much information does it take to make a paramecium? P. Caudentum and P. aurelia are nearly identical paramecia. Yet one has a genome of 200 Mb, the other of 9,000 MB (which is 45 times as big, and 3 times as big as your own genome!). So about 98% of that genome isn't needed. Anyway, DNA is clearly another example of poor design - the hundreds of broken genes, such as GULOP, show that too - regardless of whether or not it's evenutally found that some way to use them has evolved.Papias
Ref.

Li, W.-H. (1997) Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates. Li, W.-H. (1997) Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that you have an opinion. If you are in sync with a good percentage of DNA experts then I'm SURE you could find one to back you up. That's wouldn't prove you were right, but it would be a start. Everything I find says your 13 year old source is hogwash. I'm not saying that all science opinions 13 yo are obsolete, but in this case, I think so.
So I'll start right down the list from the top:

Junk DNA" - Over 98 percent of DNA has largely unknown function

Noncoding DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't Throw It Out: 'Junk DNA' Essential In Evolution : NPR

A happy few did not need to rethink either the "central dogma of molecular biology" (Crick, 1956) or the misnomer of "junk" DNA (Ohno 1972), since they never believed them in the first place. The dictum claiming that a flow of information from proteins back to DNA "never happens" or the idea that 98.7% of the human genome should be disregarded as junk was never very believable.

Several lines of evidence indicate that many "junk DNA" sequences have likely but unidentified functional activity, and other sequences may have had functions in the past.
Junk DNA - What is Junk DNA?

You still seem to be completely misunderstanding both your claim and mine. Of course we don't understand all of what all DNA does. All of your references only show that in multiple cases, we have found some function for some small part of the genome, the vast majority of which still appears to have no function. From that, you somehow leap to the conclusion that we know the function of all of it, or at least that you, personally, have some evidence that every last scrap of DNA is performing some important funciton - a claim without any basis in evidence.

Do you see the difference between those two? I'm not claiming that all that was ever claimed as junk DNA is useless - I'm only claiming that your claim - which is that "all DNA is useful" is unsupported and likely wrong, especially when we see psuedogenes, ERVS, and the paramecium with apparently nearly all useless DNA.

If you understood why the paramecia were relevant, could you perhaps explain it back to me, so we can make sure we are communicating?

Papias

JediMobius · Jan 11, 2012

Endbag said:
Anyone ever wonder why much of creation seems to be made by a very poor designer?

Take for instance the human body: why would God place a procreation/entertainment system (penis, vagina) with a sewage system (urinary tract)? Why would God not give us different orifices to breath and eat/drink? Just imagine, there would never have been anyone to die of choking.

It's easy to focus on one piece of information to the exclusion of the whole. The fact that these systems tend to work without issue, and that complications such as infection and choking are quite rare within the whole population, is evidence that the designer knew what he was doing. (Even these rare occurrences are almost always user error, as it were.) Further, the fact that we even exist in a world with a clear atmosphere, to observe the sky and stars, that we can fathom, and that we can communicate ideas (not just survival) shows even more that he's got a handle on it.

If one really looks at the whole of creation, how perfectly-in-place all the universal laws and physical constants are, how well ecosystems work even after humanity disrupts them, how creation allows for all our technology and creativity and then some... it's a wonder anyone could think it wasn't well-designed, or wasn't designed at all. Even more, it's a wonder we're even here to talk about it.

SkyWriting · Jan 11, 2012

Papias said:
Are you seriously disagreeing with the fact that evolution supporters publish more actual research in biology than creationist do? You can look at any of the dozens of major biology journals and see papers in support of evolution (just do a search for the word "evolution", and you'll find literally thousands). Here is one such real scientific journal. International Journal of Biological Sciences Now, where are the thousands of creationist papers descibing real research that you seem to think exist?

Tell me you know the faith, denomination, and personal beliefs of even ONE of those authors.
I'll grant you. You may be able to find a handful who have publicly declared their faith in writing.
Until you do, you have an unscientific claim and a plain old fashioned rant.

Even then, I'm a literal 6-day Creationist. I could write about evolutionary theory and scientific facts about species change all day long. What I discover in biology about the awesome ability of a species to adapt to gut wrenching changes to its environment, brought on by man (sin) doesn't change what I believe to be the source of all this complexity,design, and adaptability.

Check out the director of the human genome project. He never mentions evolution here.
That's odd. You'd think they'd hire someone smart enough to give "evolution" all the credit.
Huh....go figure.

Just because you are ignorant of medical history doesn't change the facts. Many sources document that anesthesia was opposed on Christian grounds in the 1800s. Here's another - this one a whole book that was written by doctors at the time to try to convince Christians that the use of anesthesia wasn't a sin. Answer to the religious objections advanced against the employment of anaesthetic agents in midwifery and surgery : Simpson, James Young,Sir,1811-1870 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Your intent to prove your point by hiding it in history, as most Evo's attempt to do, is overshadowed by the current fear. You need to link the fear, which clearly exists in 30% of the population, with their religious beliefs...today. Actually you should be able to to that. But there is no point in hiding your data in historical opinion pieces to make your point.

I was providing a source, just like any of the other sources I've provided. You are welcome, of course to also check out other sources. There are plenty of them that show that a literal reading of the Bible is shown to be false by archeaology. Here's another: Biblical History and Israel's Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History - Megan Bishop Moore, Brad E. Kelle - Google Books

I scanned about half of the references searching on "archaeology".
Biblical History and Israel's Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History - Megan Bishop Moore, Brad E. Kelle - Google Books
Many were supportive of the literal interpretation, most were neutral, one was opposed.

You still seem to be completely misunderstanding both your claim and mine. Of course we don't understand all of what all DNA does. All of your references only show that in multiple cases, we have found some function for some small part of the genome, the vast majority of which still appears to have no function.

Amazing how you think your opinion trumps the authors opinions.
Yes, you could be right, and people who publish their work could be wrong. It happens all the time.

According to a comparative study of over 300 prokaryotic and over 30 eukaryotic genomes,[20] eukaryotes
appear to require a minimum amount of non-coding DNA.
This minimum amount can be predicted using a growth model for regulatory genetic networks, implying that it is required for regulatory purposes. In humans the predicted minimum is about 5% of the total genome.

Increasing evidence is now indicating that this DNA is not "junk" at all.
Especially, it has been found to have various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called "non-coding DNA" influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways.

"We used to call this junk DNA, and it's perfectly obvious
now what we used to call junk DNA is actually chock-filled with the information
that builds out organisms," says Stern.

In recent years, researchers have recognized that
non-coding DNA, which makes up about 98 per cent of the human genome, plays a critical role
in determining whether genes are active or not and how much of a particular protein gets churned out.

I COULD go on , but I'm simply going through the list top down
showing your conclusions to be opposite of the goal of the articles.

At least admit they have not reached your conclusions.

chris4243 · Jan 11, 2012

Why is there any reason to assume that if DNA were intelligently designed, it would have no "junk" DNA? Are you claiming to be smarter than God? Remember, DNA is not abstract data but a physical object -- why can't parts of the DNA be structural and parts data? And who are you to tell God that He may not use an evolutionary algorithm in His design process?

JediMobius · Jan 12, 2012

What hubris it takes scientists to declare non-coding DNA "junk" only because they don't know its function.

SkyWriting · Jan 12, 2012

chris4243 said:
Why is there any reason to assume that if DNA were intelligently designed, it would have no "junk" DNA? Are you claiming to be smarter than God? Remember, DNA is not abstract data but a physical object -- why can't parts of the DNA be structural and parts data? And who are you to tell God that He may not use an evolutionary algorithm in His design process?

That could well be the case, judging by the research coming in.

Here is an example of an evolutionist inadvertently making
a case for Intelligent Design.
James A. Shapiro: More Evidence on the Real Nature of Evolutionary DNA Change

I find mainstream science sources make a better case for Intelligent Design and Special Creation than anybody else.

Papias · Jan 12, 2012

Originally Posted by Papias

Are you seriously disagreeing with the fact that evolution supporters publish more actual research in biology than creationist do? You can look at any of the dozens of major biology journals and see papers in support of evolution (just do a search for the word "evolution", and you'll find literally thousands). Here is one such real scientific journal. International Journal of Biological Sciences Now, where are the thousands of creationist papers descibing real research that you seem to think exist?

Click to expand...

Tell me you know the faith, denomination, and personal beliefs of even ONE of those authors.

Please don't try to move the goalposts. I never claimed anything about denomination, faith, or such - only that they support evolution or creationism. Evolution support can be seen from the papers themselves, which show evolution, as well as the fact that practically all biologists support evolution.

You may be able to find a handful who have publicly declared their faith in writing.
Until you do, you have an unscientific claim and a plain old fashioned rant.

Why do you think I'd buy into your made up requirement that I provide information on faith? If you care about that, then feel free to go and look for it.

Check out the director of the human genome project. He never mentions evolution here.
That's odd. You'd think they'd hire someone smart enough to give "evolution" all the credit.
Huh....go figure.

Um, Dr. Francis Collins speaks out often in support of evolution from a Christian standpoint. You picked one of the most vocal evolution supporters (among everyone, Christian or not), and try to deny that he supports evolution? Were you joking, or were you really completely unaware of his constant and proliferate evolution support?

Here he is again defending evolution, which is a major topic of his recent book, "The Language of God"

Francis Collins - The Colbert Report - 2006-07-12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Just because you are ignorant of medical history doesn't change the facts. Many sources document that anesthesia was opposed on Christian grounds in the 1800s. Here's another - this one a whole book that was written by doctors at the time to try to convince Christians that the use of anesthesia wasn't a sin. Answer to the religious objections advanced against the employment of anaesthetic agents in midwifery and surgery : Simpson, James Young,Sir,1811-1870 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Click to expand...

Your intent to prove your point by hiding it in history, as most Evo's attempt to do, is overshadowed by the current fear. You need to link the fear, which clearly exists in 30% of the population, with their religious beliefs...today. Actually you should be able to to that. But there is no point in hiding your data in historical opinion pieces to make your point.

Hiding? How am I hiding anything when I give you a link to a whole book on it? If those beliefs are still prevalent today, then fine, that only proves my point more. Thanks for helping to prove my point.

I scanned about half of the references searching on "archaeology".
Biblical History and Israel's Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History - Megan Bishop Moore, Brad E. Kelle - Google Books
Many were supportive of the literal interpretation, most were neutral, one was opposed.

Well, DUH. Of course you'll find plenty in support of a literal view by doing a search - that turns up books, which are written to make money, often by laypeople who are clueless about actual archeology. The experts in archeology know quite well that a literal reading of the Bible is not supported (indeed contradicted) by archeology. I've provided two references by top researchers in archeology. If you prefer to go by jim-bob down the street, well, that's up to you.

You still seem to be completely misunderstanding both your claim and mine. Of course we don't understand all of what all DNA does. All of your references only show that in multiple cases, we have found some function for some small part of the genome, the vast majority of which still appears to have no function.

Click to expand...

Amazing how you think your opinion trumps the authors opinions.
Yes, you could be right, and people who publish their work could be wrong. It happens all the time.
.......
I COULD go on , but I'm simply going through the list top down
showing your conclusions to be opposite of the goal of the articles.

At least admit they have not reached your conclusions.

You still don't get it. I'm not contradicting them, we are both saying the same thing. I don't disagree with the experts on this or anything else - you are simply not understanding either of us, and so you think we disagree with each other, when in fact we both disagree with you.

Let me illustrate this with numbers.

Imagine a genome of 100 chunks of DNA. Say that we know what 18 of them do (code for proteins), and we have names for much of them (say another 62 which are STRs, ERVs, pseudogenes, and so on - but we don't know that they have any function.

Now imagine that from that 62, we find that 9 play a role in gene expression.

We could state that from the intial 82 stretches of "junk" DNA, we now can say that those 9 aren't "junk", in that they serve some purpose. We could say that the amount of "junk" DNA is being reduced as we find it is used in some way. We could further say that it is likely that other uses will be found for some of the remaining stretches for which we don't know the use.

That's all fine, and that's consistent with what both I and the experts are saying.

No expert is saying that we know that every piece of DNA is useful, as you seem to be picking up from them somehow.

You still don't seem to understand the paramecia point. If you don't, just ask me to repeat it. If you do, could you please state it, so I can see that you understand it? Thanks-

Papias

SkyWriting · Jan 12, 2012

Papias said:
Why do you think I'd buy into your made up requirement that I provide information on faith? If you care about that, then feel free to go and look for it.

You claim that "Creationist" views are not about faith? Wow. You've stumped me.

Anyway, What people publish is real work on actual facts they have in front of them....most of the time.
"Creationists" have done that from the beginning of time. You can't separate them from "Mainstream"
science because they work in science the same , or better, than non Creationists in research.
So your claim that they don't fails, unless you can provide facts on the matter.

Um, Dr. Francis Collins speaks out often in support of evolution from a Christian standpoint. You picked one of the most vocal evolution supporters (among everyone, Christian or not), and try to deny that he supports evolution? Were you joking, or were you really completely unaware of his constant and proliferate evolution support? Here he is again defending evolution, which is a major topic of his recent book, "The Language of God"

It's the design of God. Here is God's "language".
Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Not exactly in line with Natural Selection is it?

Hiding? How am I hiding anything when I give you a link to a whole book on it? If those beliefs are still prevalent today, then fine, that only proves my point more. Thanks for helping to prove my point.

You have the opportunity to make a point. It has no merit yet. You have not made a good argument
in your own words or using the words of published authors. You MAY be able to claim that current fears of
anesthesia are due to religious reasons. But you don't get to claim it with out supporting data.

Well, DUH. Of course you'll find plenty in support of a literal view by doing a search - that turns up books, which are written to make money, often by laypeople who are clueless about actual archeology. The experts in archeology know quite well that a literal reading of the Bible is not supported (indeed contradicted) by archeology. I've provided two references by top researchers in archeology. If you prefer to go by jim-bob down the street, well, that's up to you.

My mistake. I should have said I searched your particular book
using the word "archaeology" and didn't find support for your view that the bible was inaccurate.

You still don't get it. I'm not contradicting them, we are both saying the same thing. I don't disagree with the experts on this or anything else - you are simply not understanding either of us, and so you think we disagree with each other, when in fact we both disagree with you. Let me illustrate this with numbers.
Imagine a genome of 100 chunks of DNA. Say that we know what 18 of them do (code for proteins), and we have names for much of them (say another 62 which are STRs, ERVs, pseudogenes, and so on - but we don't know that they have any function. Now imagine that from that 62, we find that 9 play a role in gene expression. We could state that from the intial 82 stretches of "junk" DNA, we now can say that those 9 aren't "junk", in that they serve some purpose. We could say that the amount of "junk" DNA is being reduced as we find it is used in some way. We could further say that it is likely that other uses will be found for some of the remaining stretches for which we don't know the use. That's all fine, and that's consistent with what both I and the experts are saying. No expert is saying that we know that every piece of DNA is useful, as you seem to be picking up from them somehow.

In every link, they are saying, every single piece of DNA may indeed have a purpose. ALL have rejected the "junk DNA" myth. In SOME of those links, they are finding that the non-coding parts are structural in nature. That what we call "Useless" DNA is serving a function of shaping the proteins so they match or work a certain way. Meaning? Every part has a purpose.

This guy has pointed out that nobody actually said any part of DNA had no function in the first place. He is actually rejecting the "junk DNA" idea as a myth and saying NOBODY ever claimed there was useless DNA. It was just a catch phrase that was used for holding data that nobody had yet found relevant. Not that it wasn't relevant. Just that the amount of data is so large that it's impossible to investigate it all.

The Evolution of the Genome, Edited by T. Ryan Gregory.pdf - 4shared.com - document sharing - download - rebeca alvarez

Unintelligent Design?

Advocate of Truth

Listening to TW4

The Librarian

The Librarian

Listening to TW4

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

The Librarian

Listening to TW4

The Librarian

Listening to TW4

The Guy with the Face

The Librarian

Advocate of Truth

The Guy with the Face

The Librarian

Listening to TW4

The Librarian

Similar threads