Evidence for Design (3)

[OllieFranz]

okay how about peer reviewed ID literature, look some up and you can find CSI, half CSI, twice CSI and 1/3 CSI

lets start here:

The coherence of an engineered world

reviewed here:

Pro-Intelligent Design Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper Argues for an "Engineered World" - Evolution News & Views
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Paper Cites Guillermo Gonzalez's Galactic Habitable Zone as Evidence Earth is a Privileged Planet - Evolution News & Views
Scientific Paper Reviews Dembski and Behe's Methods of Detecting Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views

if thats what you want:

There are many more pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific papers listed at:

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

many listed here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7541282-24/#post58029153

The first paper looks interesting, but it does not appear, from the abstract, to mention CSI at all. Maybe it does in the body of the paper, but I don't have access to that.

I looked at the three evolutionnews articles which review it, and I'm still not sure why you think that it answers my challenge. Maybe if you explain in your own words why you think it does, I'll be able to see your point.

As for the sites listed with plenty of "peer-reviewed papers," how am I supposed to know which ones are the ones that might answer the questions I posed? Maybe if you just linked to one or two of the actual papers, and explained in your own words why you chose them as representing the answer to my question.

 

[createdtoworship]

The first paper looks interesting, but it does not appear, from the abstract, to mention CSI at all. Maybe it does in the body of the paper, but I don't have access to that.

I looked at the three evolutionnews articles which review it, and I'm still not sure why you think that it answers my challenge. Maybe if you explain in your own words why you think it does, I'll be able to see your point.

As for the sites listed with plenty of "peer-reviewed papers," how am I supposed to know which ones are the ones that might answer the questions I posed? Maybe if you just linked to one or two of the actual papers, and explained in your own words why you chose them as representing the answer to my question.

CSI is a general term to explain design, irreducible complexity is one in which I gave a peer review for (as an example of CSI). Peer reviews don't have CSI as it is not a wide held scientific term, design in a general sense is. So please review all the above links read everything and get back to me with your questions on it. If you don't ask questions I don't know where you are coming from, so please ask questions on the material given, not my own opinions as the whole point is peer review.

 

[createdtoworship]

okay how about peer reviewed ID literature, look some up and you can find CSI, half CSI, twice CSI and 1/3 CSI

lets start here:

The coherence of an engineered world

reviewed here:

Pro-Intelligent Design Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper Argues for an "Engineered World" - Evolution News & Views
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Paper Cites Guillermo Gonzalez's Galactic Habitable Zone as Evidence Earth is a Privileged Planet - Evolution News & Views
Scientific Paper Reviews Dembski and Behe's Methods of Detecting Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views

lets start with engineered = CSI, that is a good discussion. eVerywhere where engineered is used in the reviews insert CSI. As they are basically the same thing as designed.

below quote from peer reviewed paper:

"When the propeller was first engineered, the developers found the basis of their
design by looking at a cell and analyzing a flagellum. Scientists and engineers
then used reverse-engineering to discover how the flagellum was able to produce
movement of the cell and applied these principles to large-scale systems that we
now use for transportation. ... It is like an outboard boat motor only much faster and more
efficient, and if a single part were missing, it clearly would not work. [29]"

the bacterial flagellum is more importantly similiar to this

ATPsynthase:

ATPsynthase.mp4 - YouTube

 

[Kylie]

I'll ask again here...

If I see something, how can I tell if it was designed or not? I know it was answered in the previous thread, but I have no idea how to quote from a closed thread.

 

[biggles53]

Can you explain what you just wrote? I don't understand your post.

Ah.....you've met Grady then.....!?

 

[createdtoworship]

Can you explain what you just wrote? I don't understand your post.

chemical expertise is how that happens. You can't arrange to have 100% right handed or left handed nucleotides without chemical expertise, no chance chemistry will do this.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'll ask again here...

If I see something, how can I tell if it was designed or not? I know it was answered in the previous thread, but I have no idea how to quote from a closed thread.

other than all the peer reviews I posted?

those are evidence of design.

try this page:

Intelligent Reasoning: Measuring Complex Specified Information with Respect to Biology

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2007/09/biological-specification-dembski-csi.html

a little about falsification and design inference:
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_archive.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

other than all the peer reviews I posted?

those are evidence of design.

try this page:

Intelligent Reasoning: Measuring Complex Specified Information with Respect to Biology

Intelligent Reasoning: Biological Specification (Dembski CSI) and My explanation of CSI

a little about falsification and design inference:
Intelligent Reasoning: January 2006

None of those are peer reviewed articles.

In fact those are reportable articles since they use a term for evolutionists that would not be allowed here. Besides the disparaging term he added to "evo" can only correctly be applied to the word "crea".

 

[createdtoworship]

None of those are peer reviewed articles.

In fact those are reportable articles since they use a term for evolutionists that would not be allowed here. Besides the disparaging term he added to "evo" can only correctly be applied to the word "crea".

go ahead and report them,

in the meanwhile I will double check, which link was it?

 

[createdtoworship]

None of those are peer reviewed articles.

In fact those are reportable articles since they use a term for evolutionists that would not be allowed here. Besides the disparaging term he added to "evo" can only correctly be applied to the word "crea".

I reread them I didn't see anything, which article please, that I posted had a ba word?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I reread them I didn't see anything, which article please, that I posted had a ba word?

All three. It is in the header.

 

[createdtoworship]

technically speaking, links are not posts. So I didn't say it. He did.

so I don't think these are reportable posts

so I think I will leave them.

I personally don't like much of the websites that are posted but if they are only links there is really nothing you can do.

they prove the point about CSI so,

 

[Ursus scientia]

maybe when you wake up you can post sources for your information, and a new rule, sources FOR your sources. (to avoid being dishonest apparently).

You are commiting a red herring here.

You changed subjects from cambrian to pre,

and as such are commiting a fallacy and changing the bars.

good nite.

also:how many years was the cambrian? Just curious

Fine.

I'd challenge you to explain to me which fallacy, specifically, I just committed: I am explaining phylogeny to you so you understand why your quote from J. Wells

"Darwins tree is a reverse cone shape. Very unexpectedly our research is convincing us that major phyla is starting down below at the beginning of the cambrian. The base is wide and gradually narrows. This is almost turned a different way."

...simply shows that he doesn't understand undergraduate biology. Because prokaryotes, which emerged very early on during evolution, can swap DNA, a wide base is exactly what we would expect to see. As for the thin end of the cone, well there he's simply wrong.

The Cambrian era spanned from 541 (+/-1) million years ago (MA) to 485 (+/-2) MA, though I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Phylogeny and Horizontan Gene Transfer: nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v282/n2/pdf/scientificamerican0200-90.pdf

Cambrian duration: stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2012.pdf

 

[Ursus scientia]

chemical expertise is how that happens. You can't arrange to have 100% right handed or left handed nucleotides without chemical expertise, no chance chemistry will do this.

You can if you have a catalyst present which selects for nucleotides of a given chirality. DNA/RNA polymerase are examples of these catalysts in human cells, and it's likely a much simpler biomolecule played this role during life's beginnings.

Also, quickly:
You do not seem to understand what peer review is. In order to peer review, the reviewers have to be experts in the relevant field. Almost all of the hacks at evolutionnews are not experts in the relevant field, and their declared political bias would exempt them from any actual peer review process.

Your comparison between ATPase and the flagellum is confusing. The flagellum and the Type 3 secretion system is a better example. These protein complexes contain components with high levels of similarity, implying they resulted from a gene duplication event and subsequent divergence through mutation. I'm sure that was what you were trying to say.

 

[createdtoworship]

You can if you have a catalyst present which selects for nucleotides of a given chirality. DNA/RNA polymerase are examples of these catalysts in human cells, and it's likely a much simpler biomolecule played this role during life's beginnings.

Also, quickly:
You do not seem to understand what peer review is. In order to peer review, the reviewers have to be experts in the relevant field. Almost all of the hacks at evolutionnews are not experts in the relevant field, and their declared political bias would exempt them from any actual peer review process.

Your comparison between ATPase and the flagellum is confusing. The flagellum and the Type 3 secretion system is a better example. These protein complexes contain components with high levels of similarity, implying they resulted from a gene duplication event and subsequent divergence through mutation. I'm sure that was what you were trying to say.

are you sure? What evidence do you have that these processes will contain 100% right or left handed nucleotides with chance chemistry.

DO YOU have any peer review articles that say that chance chemistry will produce the above?

peer review is peer review, they were all peer reviewed that I posted the links to the abstracts are there. The guys at evolution news are just summarizing the papers as many of them cost money.

but you don't seem to be thankful for that either.

 

[createdtoworship]

committed: I am explaining phylogeny to you so you understand why your quote from J. Wells


...simply shows that he doesn't understand undergraduate biology. Because prokaryotes, which emerged very early on during evolution, can swap DNA, a wide base is exactly what we would expect to see. As for the thin end of the cone, well there he's simply wrong.

well then the other science periodicals here are also wrong:
The Cambrian Explosion | Genesis Park

The Cambrian era spanned from 541 (+/-1) million years ago (MA) to 485 (+/-2) MA, though I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Phylogeny and Horizontan Gene Transfer: nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v282/n2/pdf/scientificamerican0200-90.pdf

Cambrian duration: stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2012.pdf

regarding anything over 10 million year cambrian explosion...
here is another one for you...
Undead: The Myth of the 80-Million-Year Cambrian Explosion - Evolution News & Views

 

[Subduction Zone]

well then the other science periodicals here are also wrong:
The Cambrian Explosion | Genesis Park



regarding anything over 10 million year cambrian explosion...
here is another one for you...
Undead: The Myth of the 80-Million-Year Cambrian Explosion - Evolution News & Views

Neither of those sources are valid. They are both lying creationist sources.

 

[Ursus scientia]

are you sure? What evidence do you have that these processes will contain 100% right or left handed nucleotides with chance chemistry.

DO YOU have any peer review articles that say that chance chemistry will produce the above?

This stuff is such basic chemistry that you can find it in textbooks. Any undergraduate chemistry textbook worth its price will have info on chiral-specific catalysis in it.

 

[mzungu]

This stuff is such basic chemistry that you can find it in textbooks. Any undergraduate chemistry textbook worth its price will have info on chiral-specific catalysis in it.

You really from or living in Japan?

 

[Ursus scientia]

You really from or living in Japan?

Yep! I graduated from University of Birmingham in the UK and came to Japan on a scholarship a year ago. Currently researching Alzheimer's disease at RIKEN, Japan's premier research institute. It's fun. : D