Does science actually admit "design"?

[tas8831]

Wake up! I did NOT say "Hey, look! Everything is designed!" Nor did I even imply such a baseless statement. I gave a specific example that simple observation demonstrates (in the consistent results), that can be tested (do as many tests as you want to show that a human embryo will not produce these specific HUMAN results, or that a gibbon embryo will not produce specifically gibbon results).

Wake up! People can read the papers you misrepresent!

pshun:
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279–317, 1983, clarifies that all australopithecine fossils are totally ape and nothing more. They do NOT represent apes on their way to becoming human. The myth that they do is politically necessary not scientifically factual.

You'd think an autodidact may have taught himself NOT to misrepresent published science when there are many people active on a forum that have a tendency to check creationist sources due to a history of creationists misrepresenting science.


Because I checked that source (which, uncharacteristically, you did not link to or quote), and found that your characterization of it was, shall we say, bovine feces:


The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis. - PubMed - NCBI

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1983 Mar;60(3):279-317.
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.


Abstract

The postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and the footprints from the Laetoli Beds of northern Tanzania, are analyzed with the goal of determining (1) the extent to which this ancient hominid practiced forms of locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality, and (2) whether or not the terrestrial bipedalism of A. afarensis was notably different from that of modern humans. It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality. A comparison of the specimens representing smaller individuals, presumably female, to those of larger individuals, presumably male, suggests sexual differences in locomotor behavior linked to marked size dimorphism. The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a "missing link." We speculate that earlier representatives of the A. afarensis lineage will present not a combination of arboreal and bipedal traits, but rather the anatomy of a generalized ape.

 

[pshun2404]

How can we test for design though? Your 'test' is simply going backwards from the facts and going "Hey look! Design!". That's all you're doing.

Have it your way, as you will anyhoo...you've already made up your mind, so why confuse you with the obvious facts?

We know that there is a blueprint for each specific protein and it is specified by genetic codons. The pre-specified arrangement with which these amino acids are ordered determine the exact type of proteins produced. In turn, this pre-encoded process determines the functions each subsequent cell will have. Mostly all cellular structure and function are pre-encoded in this DNA blueprint.

They are made in just this way with a further goal indicated, which is the resulting organism complete with all its interacting and inter-dependent forms, forces, and functions. “WE” are the result of this process, the instructions for which are all pre-coded into our DNA from the beginning (long before we become this final product). DNA is literally a storage house of all our most essential biological information.

All the information for the formation of the entire organism is contained in the chromosomes. This information directs the physical unfolding of what we will become and what we are, and it does so by biochemical processes. However NO biological model (even computer models) can tell us how that information got into DNA in the first place.

Biologist George Williams (see Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenge, 1992) "The gene is a package of information, not an object."

DR. Mark Krasnow of Stanford University, while studying the Lung, has asked “How living creatures build their branching organs from standard designs encoded in DNA?”

Tabitha M Powledge in the NIH primer on “Genetics and Disease” says “Scientists have known for a long time that the program does NOT generate branches randomly...Since there is a standard design for the human lung, that design MUST BE in our DNA instruction manual.”

However , in addition she asks, “how does the animal encode in its genes the programs for making a complex , three dimensional structure like an organ?” Now though she KNOWs that the animal DOES NOT literally encode this information and intent into its own genes (which itself is the product of), what she is really asking is the same question as Dr. Kasnow. HOW does this happen? Or better yet HOW can it happen?

Now I am sure that as time passes they, like the many others exploring these issues, will come up with viable concrete answers, but I believe what is of interest in this discussion is analysis of the language they use. Dr. Krasnow for example has no doubt that “standard designs” for what will become the lung are already encoded in the DNA. This means there is a plan (like a blue print of sorts) in the form of encoded information already present in the DNA long before there ever is the development of a lung in the creature. There is a built in purpose in this information to produce a very specific (as opposed to others) purposely functional structure.

Ms. Powledge takes it even a step further. She also recognizes “designs” already encoded but she sees this (and it is a legitimate way to describe it) as a type of “program” and assures us that many have known for a long time that these inherent “programs” are NOT random they are part of the “DNA instruction manual”.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Have it your way, as you will anyhoo...you've already made up your mind, so why confuse you with the obvious facts?

We know that there is a blueprint for each specific protein and it is specified by genetic codons. The pre-specified arrangement with which these amino acids are ordered determine the exact type of proteins produced. In turn, this pre-encoded process determines the functions each subsequent cell will have. Mostly all cellular structure and function are pre-encoded in this DNA blueprint.

They are made in just this way with a further goal indicated, which is the resulting organism complete with all its interacting and inter-dependent forms, forces, and functions. “WE” are the result of this process, the instructions for which are all pre-coded into our DNA from the beginning (long before we become this final product). DNA is literally a storage house of all our most essential biological information.

All the information for the formation of the entire organism is contained in the chromosomes. This information directs the physical unfolding of what we will become and what we are, and it does so by biochemical processes. However NO biological model (even computer models) can tell us how that information got into DNA in the first place.

Biologist George Williams (see Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenge, 1992) "The gene is a package of information, not an object."

DR. Mark Krasnow of Stanford University, while studying the Lung, has asked “How living creatures build their branching organs from standard designs encoded in DNA?”

Tabitha M Powledge in the NIH primer on “Genetics and Disease” says “Scientists have known for a long time that the program does NOT generate branches randomly...Since there is a standard design for the human lung, that design MUST BE in our DNA instruction manual.”

However , in addition she asks, “how does the animal encode in its genes the programs for making a complex , three dimensional structure like an organ?” Now though she KNOWs that the animal DOES NOT literally encode this information and intent into its own genes (which itself is the product of), what she is really asking is the same question as Dr. Kasnow. HOW does this happen? Or better yet HOW can it happen?

Now I am sure that as time passes they, like the many others exploring these issues, will come up with viable concrete answers, but I believe what is of interest in this discussion is analysis of the language they use. Dr. Krasnow for example has no doubt that “standard designs” for what will become the lung are already encoded in the DNA. This means there is a plan (like a blue print of sorts) in the form of encoded information already present in the DNA long before there ever is the development of a lung in the creature. There is a built in purpose in this information to produce a very specific (as opposed to others) purposely functional structure.

Ms. Powledge takes it even a step further. She also recognizes “designs” already encoded but she sees this (and it is a legitimate way to describe it) as a type of “program” and assures us that many have known for a long time that these inherent “programs” are NOT random they are part of the “DNA instruction manual”.

Did you ever stop and think that there was no better word that scientists could have used to describe what they see in DNA without using a word that isn't already loaded with a supposition and maybe, JUST MAYBE, you and many others might be reading far too much into this?

 

[Speedwell]

Did you ever stop and think that there was no better word that scientists could have used to describe what they see in DNA without using a word that isn't already loaded with a supposition and maybe, JUST MAYBE, you and many others might be reading far too much into this?

It's the standard creationist equivocation: Design as purpose or intent vs. design as functional arrangement of components.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well golly... The scribes of the scrolls that were later edited, translated, and compiled into what we now call Genesis were all living in the middle east, so...

Well golly, wolves lived in the middle east and gave rise to the American Duschound. So we should rename them? All life arose from the middle east. But a Poodle does not resembles the wolf, so why would you expect Adam and Eves descendants to to be recognizable to Adam and Eve, except as the same species?

The bible story.

The Bible told you Adam was created perfect, What, now you gonna pick and choose? But show me were the Bible told you there were identical?

Evidence for this crazy assertion that is 100% contradictory to all known genetics mechanisms and phenomena?

Genetics. Try looking up how the junk DNA or non-functional DNA originated sometime. Its junk and non-functional, because that is what mutations cause to happen to functioning genomes. And it is 100% compatible, which is again why you provide no sources in contradiction.

Evidence for this continued question begging?

I thought you were aware of what the Bible said? Are you not aware that part of Adam was used to create Eve? And in light of todays knowledge, we understand it is the genome which is taken half from the male, and half from the female, and united again to become one flesh or life.

Through centuries of selective breeding premised on the acquisition of new alleles (not "allies') via mutation. Since that is where new alleles come from - not from hybridization.

That's Funny, the Grants through over 25 years of actual observation and testing found just the opposite of what you claim to be true in the real world, under natural conditions.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277516740_Grant_PR_Grant_BR_Phenotypic_and_genetic_effects_of_hybridization_on_Darwin's_finches_Evolution_48_297-316

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation.
Grant PR, Grant BR.. Phenotypic and genetic effects of.... Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277516740_Grant_PR_Grant_BR_Phenotypic_and_genetic_effects_of_hybridization_on_Darwin's_finches_Evolution_48_297-316 [accessed Apr 10 2018]."


Your claims fall woefully short of reality.

How easily the non-biologist question-begging creationist forgets that most dog breeds are produced via the selective breeding of different breeds.

Where did those different breeds come from in the first place, if we started out with wolves?

How easily the evolutionists like to forget the DNA data.

Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia

"DNA evidence indicates that the dog, the modern gray wolf (above) and the now-extinct Taimyr wolf diverged from a now extinct wolf that once lived in Europe."

But you wont even accept the evolutionists own field proven evidence about hybridization being two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation. So I wouldnt expect you to understand, since all you can hold in your head are thoughts of useless mutations.

Not as astonishing as the fact that you main argument - Asian+ African yields Afro-Asian despite not being able to explain where an African or Asian came from in the first place.

Told you 100 times, the same way we got dogs from wolves, interbreeding. But from above it seems you have not yet accepted the genetic facts about dogs, so I can understand your confusion.

You do avoid it every time, and you do not seem to understand even basic genetics to see that your claims are laughable.

Tell you what genius - if you think you are correct, and that dog breeding is analogous to getting all of the human 'races' we have today from a single breeding pair of middle easterners in just a few thousand years, how about you look at the wolf genome:

The wolf reference genome sequence ( Canis lupus lupus ) and its implications for Canis spp. population genomics

and compare it to a handful of dog breeds. Surely you should be able to find that the wolf genome possesses ALL of the alleles that these other breeds do.

Its already been compared, didnt you read anything?

Dog family tree reveals how modern breeds came to be | CBC News

By golly, look how they all lead backwards to just two.................... Oh my, imagine that, but you shouldn't have to imagine, you were already told that.

https://www.the-scientist.com/?arti...tle/Dogs-Have-a-Single-Genetic-Origin--Study/

"According to the study’s authors, the results of this analysis suggest that all modern-day dogs originated from a single group of wolves domesticated around 40,000 years ago in Europe.

“Given the high degree of sharing of sweeps [genetic signatures] between these ancient samples and modern samples, it seems clear that these dogs descend from a single domestication origin,” Adam Boyko, a geneticist at Cornell University who was not involved in the work, told The Washington Post in an email.


I mean please, they can trace their lineage genetically all the way back to those wolves. Your arguments are false and inconsistent with DNA data. Accept the facts and get over it already....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nice irrelevant diversions.

Concession accepted. Any further ranting from you on "design" will be considered trolling.

The point is that the 'experts' don't always get it right, and some of us 'obvious' guys do.

I have also devised a way of 'hand splitting' firewood that is easier and much safer than the traditional method.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nope, it is still there. Maybe your profile page :gasp: evolved that link by itself?

Makes no sense, oh well.

 

[bhsmte]

The point is that the 'experts' don't always get it right, and some of us 'obvious' guys do.

I have also devised a way of 'hand splitting' firewood that is easier and much safer than the traditional method.

When it comes to evaluating science, please don't take it personal, if I rely on the experts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When it comes to evaluating science, please don't take it personal, if I rely on the experts.

As I said I love science, evolution being an exception.

 

[VirOptimus]

As I said I love science, evolution being an exception.

Not accepting physical reality is a loosing position and, quite frankly, stupid.

 

[pshun2404]

Did you ever stop and think that there was no better word that scientists could have used to describe what they see in DNA without using a word that isn't already loaded with a supposition and maybe, JUST MAYBE, you and many others might be reading far too much into this?

I agree that there is no better word to describe what they see. Thank you. Yes some people who believe in a creator or not have suppositions (I believe I have shown this to you before). And via the suppositions, they INTERPRET to support them. But that what is encoded there produces these same designs is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consider more regarding our lungs. Lungs do have a definite design to them. The right is always a bit shorter to make room for the liver (coincidence? convenience? Could be...might be....) the left always a little narrower for the heart (again, coincidence? Convenience? Could be...might be...). They have predisposed particular functions...not only respiration, but waste disposal. They are always (with very rare genetic abnormality) just the right size and capacity to support the organism they are in. And all this is coded for in the genetics from when we are a mere embryo.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree that there is no better word to describe what they see. Thank you. Yes some people who believe in a creator or not have suppositions (I believe I have shown this to you before). And via the suppositions, they INTERPRET to support them. But that what is encoded there produces these same designs is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consider more regarding our lungs. Lungs do have a definite design to them. The right is always a bit shorter to make room for the liver (coincidence? convenience? Could be...might be....) the left always a little narrower for the heart (again, coincidence? Convenience? Could be...might be...). They have predisposed particular functions...not only respiration, but waste disposal. They are always (with very rare genetic abnormality) just the right size and capacity to support the organism they are in. And all this is coded for in the genetics from when we are a mere embryo.

Yeah, but here's the nub: for you to claim that the areas of the DNA were purposefully coded that way, you have to show evidence for a being with the intent to code those areas that way.
No evidence for a creation, no claim for creation.

 

[pshun2404]

Yeah, but here's the nub: for you to claim that the areas of the DNA were purposefully coded that way, you have to show evidence for a being with the intent to code those areas that way.
No evidence for a creation, no claim for creation.

The fact that they are "encoded that way" is not related to whether or not "a being with the intent to code those areas that way." My never saying that does not change the logic or reasoning of the fact noted. You decide for you how it happens that it is "encoded that way" for yourself.

I made no gesture to interpret the data though any supposition (that such a being is the source or that there is no such being). That was never part of OUR conversation. Those two suppositions (that there is or is not) have no relevance since neither supposition can be proved or disproved by purely material means.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The fact that they are "encoded that way" is not related to whether or not "a being with the intent to code those areas that way." My never saying that does not change the logic or reasoning of the fact noted. You decide for you how it happens that it is "encoded that way" for yourself.

I made no gesture to interpret the data though any supposition (that such a being is the source or that there is no such being). That was never part of OUR conversation. Those two suppositions (that there is or is not) have no relevance since neither supposition can be proved or disproved by purely material means.

But if there is design, then there is, by simple logic inference, a designer.
If you make the claim for their being design, then you open up yourself to questions about there being a designer. Do you accept this logic or not?

 

[pshun2404]

But if there is design, then there is, by simple logic inference, a designer.
If you make the claim for their being design, then you open up yourself to questions about there being a designer. Do you accept this logic or not?

"But if there is design, then there is, by simple logic inference, a designer."

If YOU draw that as the logic inference ("there is no better word to describe what they see") then that is one YOU can make, and you should not fear reprisal, or the mischaracterization of your intelligence or person. If that is the inference you feel you must draw then so be it. To thine own self be true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"But if there is design, then there is, by simple logic inference, a designer."

If YOU draw that as the logic inference ("there is no better word to describe what they see") then that is one YOU can make, and you should not fear reprisal, or the mischaracterization of your intelligence or person. If that is the inference you feel you must draw then so be it. To thine own self be true.

Are you seriously trying to twist my words? I DIDN'T SAY THERE WAS A DESIGNER NOR IS THERE A DESIGN.
You're the one along with oldwiseguy who says there is design, not me.

And why do some Christians on this website have a hard time answering simple questions? For your sake, I'll repeat myself: If you make the claim for there being design, then you open up yourself to questions about there being a designer. Do you accept this logic or not?

 

[Jimmy D]

Your claims fall woefully short of reality.

LOL

 

[Jimmy D]

"According to the study’s authors, the results of this analysis suggest that all modern-day dogs originated from a single group of wolves domesticated around 40,000 years ago in Europe.

Errr...

"The ancestor of all those Chihuahuas, spaniels and tiny terriers likely came from the Middle East, a new study finds.

All domestic dog breeds that exist in the world today in their myriad forms are the result of the domestication of the gray wolf. And gradually, as humans selected for traits they wanted in their dogs — herding ability, particular temperaments and size — dogs diversified.

And while this gene signature was absent in wolves, the IGF1 gene found in small dogs was most closely related to genes found in Middle Eastern gray wolf populations, which suggests that small domestic dogs arose there several thousand years ago.

So a closely related gene already existed in the Middle Eastern Grey wolf, or it couldn't be closely related, now could it....."

 

[tas8831]

My thread. If you don't like it, leave.

Concession accepted.


You've got nothing.

 

[tas8831]

Are you seriously trying to twist my words? I DIDN'T SAY THERE WAS A DESIGNER NOR IS THERE A DESIGN.
You're the one along with oldwiseguy who says there is design, not me.

And why do some Christians on this website have a hard time answering simple questions? For your sake, I'll repeat myself: If you make the claim for there being design, then you open up yourself to questions about there being a designer. Do you accept this logic or not?

Probably best to ignore pshun. Note that he is totally ignoring my exposure of his purposeful deception re: the Stern and Susman paper. He will not even admit to documented errors. He is not an honest broker. I have caught him plagiarizing several times, and even doctoring quotes, to prop up his failing beliefs. Pretty sad, really.