Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Those are all natural processes. No special intervention by a "designer" seems to be required.Processes I have posted earlier associated with the EES such as developmental bias, plasticity, niche construction and extra genetic inheritance include epigenetics.
Thats the prevailing view. But from the evidence I have seen many of the neutral mutations are actually slightly deleterious. Non-beneficial mutations can be tolerated and these may be mistakenly seen as neutral. ie
But you're just making that up. You're treating a ratio of functional/non-functional proteins as a probability and assuming arbitrary dependence for said probability.
There is no basis for this.
This is just a soundbite from a news article. It's not a demonstrable scenario on how electric eels evolved.
Quite frankly it tells us nothing of real value.
You don't know that. In fact, I've noticed any time probability arguments get brought up invariably those invoking them completely ignore selection effects.
Think of a different example. None of us know enough about cell-phone circuity to make it any fun.ok so your main counter argument is natural selection. so lets be focus on that. do you think that we can design a complex system a step by step when every step is functional by itself? if so show me how. we can start with your cell phone. show me how your cell phine can be functional even in the first step and for what. and dont tell me that we cant compare living things with non-living things since in this case its irrelevant to the argument since you as designer can change anything you want, like mutations.
Pick up a suitable rock. By suitable, I mean a silicate rock containing the various elements that constitute a silicon chip that lies at the heart of cell phone technology. Now throw the rock at someone, using it as a a weapon. Even today this ancestral function is still found from time to time. If you don't believe me, you haven't met my wife. She often throws things at me, including cell phones. (Actually, I prefer the term "mobile phone". They are certainly mobile when they hit me.)ok so your main counter argument is natural selection. so lets be focus on that. do you think that we can design a complex system a step by step when every step is functional by itself? if so show me how. we can start with your cell phone. show me how your cell phine can be functional even in the first step and for what. and dont tell me that we cant compare living things with non-living things since in this case its irrelevant to the argument since you as designer can change anything you want, like mutations.
ok so your main counter argument is natural selection.
I would expect God to use natural processes in a natural world. But as opposed to blind and random Neo-Darwinism the EES processes and the like give life inbuilt mechanisms that allow them to change with environments. It makes sense that God would include the some ways where life can adapt to changing environments.Those are all natural processes. No special intervention by a "designer" seems to be required.
As far as I understand for bacteria just about all the DNA encodes for proteins. It is only in large portions of eukaryotic that DNA don't encode for proteins. But proteins are an important part that is the building blocks for life.This paper appears to specifically deals with mutations related to the production of proteins. Most of the genome doesn't encode for proteins. That paper doesn't support the idea that most mutations are deleterious.
If that's the case it sounds a lot like design. A process that guarantees to produce a certain outcome over and over again seems like it is not subject to blind and random processes that could produce any number of outcomes.The problem is that you don't know any of that, because we have only one example at hand of evolution producing a biosphere All that is required for us to be is to have a certain level of self-aware intelligence. We needn't be a primate or even a mammal. For all we know, evolution will always tend to produce some kind of creature with self-aware intelligence.
No that is not ID, that is supernatural creation. ID only looks for signs of ID. This means a level of complexity and functioning that is beyond chance. This may be seen in how the living cell operates or how the earth is finely tuned for intelligent life in that the odds of a chance process setting the many physical conditions to be just right is incredibly high to the point that it is beyond chance and coincidence. Scientists say that even within the first split seconds of the big band the parameters had to be just right to produce what we have today.Yes, but ID posits periodic acts of tinkering with molecular genetics by the "designer." Fine tuning of initial states with no mundane intervention subsequently is not ID.
I am not trying show God exists with science and I know that would be impossible. But I think we can see within those natural processes some order and design that go beyond chance. But I agree that natural processes can be used by God. What some see as nature creating itself therefore no God required can also be seen as Gods way of creation in a natural world.Yes. And I think that is exactly what God intended. The existence of everything natural can be explained by natural forces. You are not going to be able to show using science that God exists.
Have any such things been found?Yes, but ID posits periodic acts of tinkering with molecular genetics by the "designer."
ID only looks for signs of ID. This means a level of complexity and functioning that is beyond chance.
It is not just complexity but specified complexity. The info has to show signs of being directed towards something by Intelligence. So with SETI the info can be simple but it needs to be specified info such as Morse code, radio signals and other coded info that can only come from an intelligent mind. When it comes to biology there is also functional info such as with DNA with information processing systems. Information that directs the construction of functional proteins. As Bill Gates said DNA is like a computer program but far far more advanced than any software ever created.That's not how design is typically detected though.
This is why ID proponents have failed to come up with a methodology to detect design in biology. They have been focusing on the wrong things.
When you look at other examples of design detection (e.g. SETI, archeology, paleontology, GM organisms, etc.) complexity, function, and/or probability has nothing to do with it. If fact, those aspects are arguably irrelevant.
what about a car? can a car drive without wheels, chassis etc?.Think of a different example. None of us know enough about cell-phone circuity to make it any fun.
Pick up a suitable rock. By suitable, I mean a silicate rock containing the various elements that constitute a silicon chip that lies at the heart of cell phone technology. Now throw the rock at someone, using it as a a weapon. Even today this ancestral function is still found from time to time. If you don't believe me, you haven't met my wife. She often throws things at me, including cell phones. (Actually, I prefer the term "mobile phone". They are certainly mobile when they hit me.)
ok. we can speak about vision system if you want. can you as a designer able to made a minimal vision system that base on 1-2 parts?No. My counterargument is that you're using meaningless numbers to do a meaningless calculation to get a meaningless result.
As for the rest, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of discussing cell phones when the subject is biology. If you'd rather talk about cell phones then I suppose our discussion has come to an end.
Why does it matter how many parts it has?ok. we can speak about vision system if you want. can you as a designer able to made a minimal vision system that base on 1-2 parts?
With SETI what is being looked for is not "information" but a kind of narrow-band microwave signal used by humans for communication but not thought to be produced by any natural source. As usual, what is being looked for is not evidence of intelligent design directly, but evidence of intelligent manufacture.It is not just complexity but specified complexity. The info has to show signs of being directed towards something by Intelligence. So with SETI the info can be simple but it needs to be specified info such as Morse code, radio signals and other coded info that can only come from an intelligent mind. When it comes to biology there is also functional info such as with DNA with information processing systems. Information that directs the construction of functional proteins. As Bill Gates said DNA is like a computer program but far far more advanced than any software ever created.
The standard model of evolution already provides a way for life to adapt to changing environments. You just happen to believe that it is not adequate for that purpose. But the interesting thing is, that the additional mechanisms proposed by EES are thought to have evolved from that model.I would expect God to use natural processes in a natural world. But as opposed to blind and random Neo-Darwinism the EES processes and the like give life inbuilt mechanisms that allow them to change with environments. It makes sense that God would include the some ways where life can adapt to changing environments.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?