How We Detect Design

[Oncedeceived]

"Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water."--Michael Behe
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-on-falsification/

Your point?

 

[Loudmouth]

You didn't show how ID would not produce a nested hierarchy.

I showed why it would take tons of extra energy and resources to produce a nested hierarchy for no other purpose than to make it look like evolution happened.. Are you going to address it or not?

No, I said ID as a science would be falsified if an evolutionary pathway for IC systems did not provide step by step increments that were beneficial and functional for an organism.

Same thing.

Show where they have been solved.

The gorilla and orangutan genome papers are really good examples. They compare the whole genomes of humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans to get the full picture of evolution in our clade. When you use whole genomes you find the full extent of incomplete lineage sorting that can confound comparisons where only a handful of genes are used.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7388/full/nature10842.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7331/full/nature09687.html

And your point?

What you propose doesn't affect the species we are looking at.

You are really reaching.

Seriously????? This is the point I have been with FROM THE VERY START!!!!!

Rolling my eyes.

Ignoring the evidence, as usual.

Show me anyone who has constructed a nested hierarchy of automobiles based on shared and derived features. Just one. Show me. So far you haven't.

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When humans design life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When have humans designed life?

Yes. You will notice that when humans design life THEY VIOLATE THE NESTED HIERARCHY!!!!!!!!!

Your mistaken assumption once again...if evolution no God.

Your unfalsifiable dogma.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your point?

My point is the one you keep running from.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I showed why it would take tons of extra energy and resources to produce a nested hierarchy for no other purpose than to make it look like evolution happened.. Are you going to address it or not?

Why would the purpose be to make it look like evolution happened. Evolution does happen.

Same thing.

No, not really.

The gorilla and orangutan genome papers are really good examples. They compare the whole genomes of humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans to get the full picture of evolution in our clade. When you use whole genomes you find the full extent of incomplete lineage sorting that can confound comparisons where only a handful of genes are used.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7388/full/nature10842.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7331/full/nature09687.html

Are you claiming that the paper I provided was incorrect and faulty in their conclusions?

What you propose doesn't affect the species we are looking at.

I think we are looking at all of them.

Seriously????? This is the point I have been with FROM THE VERY START!!!!!

I don't think your idea of what we are talking about and mine are the same.

Ignoring the evidence, as usual.

I think it is you who isn't.

Show me anyone who has constructed a nested hierarchy of automobiles based on shared and derived features. Just one. Show me. So far you haven't.

I did. Did you miss it?

Yes. You will notice that when humans design life THEY VIOLATE THE NESTED HIERARCHY!!!!!!!!!

1. Humans are not designing life.
2. Humans design with materials that are not genetically inclined.
3. This is irrelevant because it doesn't provide a reason why ID would not produce nested hierarchy.

Your unfalsifiable dogma.

Pot kettle black

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would the purpose be to make it look like evolution happened. Evolution does happen.

You have denied that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with all other vertebrates. If you think I am wrong, then now would be the time to explain that you have no problem with it.

No, not really.

Notice that you can't describe the difference between them.

Are you claiming that the paper I provided was incorrect and faulty in their conclusions?

Not at all. Your understanding of the paper is incorrect and faulty. The problems that they describe are real. What you ignore is the solutions that are used to overcome these problems.

I did. Did you miss it?

What did I miss? Show me where you used the shared and derived features of cars to produce a nested hierarchy with several different models.

1. Humans are not designing life.
2. Humans design with materials that are not genetically inclined.
3. This is irrelevant because it doesn't provide a reason why ID would not produce nested hierarchy.

You didn't address the main argument. Why would a designer change the sequence of an entire genome FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of making it consistent with what evolution produce? If you can't produce an answer, then you have your reason. There is absolutely no reason why ID should produce a nested hierarchy. As William of Conches once said:

[They say] "We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.​

Show us a reason why God would create life so that it would fall into a nested hierarchy. If you can't, you have no explanation.

Pot kettle black

I have an objective measure for nested hierarchies that is falsifiable. You don't for design. You lose.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have denied that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with all other vertebrates. If you think I am wrong, then now would be the time to explain that you have no problem with it.

Show me where I have denied that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with all vertebrates. I want thread, post number and exact quote in context.

Notice that you can't describe the difference between them.

A path can always be hypothesized and has been but it hasn't been shown that each of these steps would allow strong working function to select from.

Not at all. Your understanding of the paper is incorrect and faulty. The problems that they describe are real. What you ignore is the solutions that are used to overcome these problems.

What am I not understanding incorrectly?
I asked for the paper that shows they found solutions.

What did I miss? Show me where you used the shared and derived features of cars to produce a nested hierarchy with several different models.

You are adding to your request now. You didn't include "with several different models" in your request. I showed you what you asked for.

You didn't address the main argument. Why would a designer change the sequence of an entire genome FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of making it consistent with what evolution produce? If you can't produce an answer, then you have your reason. There is absolutely no reason why ID should produce a nested hierarchy. As William of Conches once said:

[They say] "We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.​

I want you to read this very carefully. Really think about what I am saying. Evolution is a term we have chosen for a process seen in nature. Nature that has been around long before this concept of evolution has been around. Evolution is a process that God has created, He doesn't make anything to look like evolution. Evolution is what we see of God's creation and interpret what we find.

Show us a reason why God would create life so that it would fall into a nested hierarchy. If you can't, you have no explanation.

Shifting the burden again.

I have an objective measure for nested hierarchies that is falsifiable. You don't for design. You lose.

You haven't shown why ID wouldn't produce it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Show me where I have denied that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with all vertebrates. I want thread, post number and exact quote in context.

Do you accept it or not? I am asking you.

Lemme guess, you won't answer the question.

What am I not understanding incorrectly?
I asked for the paper that shows they found solutions.

I gave you those papers and explained what the solutions are.

You are adding to your request now. You didn't include "with several different models" in your request. I showed you what you asked for.

You need several different models in order to have a nested hierarchy. A single species does not a nested hierarchy make.

I want you to read this very carefully. Really think about what I am saying. Evolution is a term we have chosen for a process seen in nature. Nature that has been around long before this concept of evolution has been around. Evolution is a process that God has created, He doesn't make anything to look like evolution. Evolution is what we see of God's creation and interpret what we find.

So you have no problem with IC systems evolving?

Shifting the burden again.

My argument is proven by your inability to produce an explanation. As I said, there is no reason why God would create separate species so that they fall into a nested hierarchy. The fact that you can't name a reason is my proof.

You haven't shown why ID wouldn't produce it.

The fact that you can't show why it would is all the proof I need.

 

[MikeEnders]

.

It would appear this thread is about design and ID. Further attempts to muddy the waters will be noted.

ID and design extends to DNA and life. LOL....you can note whatever you wish but i doubt seriously a mod will say DNA and its origin is excluded from any identification of design

 

[MikeEnders]

y

When you know how it works,

We don't we are still learning. claiming we are almost certain in that context remains gibberish no matter what emperor with the new clothes gambit you try to pull

 

[bhsmte]

ID and design extends to DNA and life. LOL....you can note whatever you wish but i doubt seriously a mod will say DNA and its origin is excluded from any identification of design

Again, ID does not discuss the origin of life and neither does evolution.

If you wish to open a thread on the origin of life, feel free and you can explain to us the exact mechanisms of how life originated and how it came to be.

 

[MikeEnders]

Again, ID does not discuss the origin of life and neither does evolution. If you wish to open a thread on the origin of life,

Intelligent design discusses Dna and it being designed so it s just nonsense to claim that talking about life and the origin of life does not relate to intelligent design.

Total nonsense.

If you wish to go ask a mod to tell me people who are IDist cannot talk about the design implicit in DNA then go try your luck but you certainly as an atheist will not be defining for anyone else what they adhere to as in ID and not.

DNA shows all the hallmarks of Intelligent design and the implausibility of it no being designed will be discussed in this thread unless you go fool some mod that it does not relate.

 

[bhsmte]

Intelligent design discusses Dna and it being designed so it s just nonsense to claim that talking about life and the origin of life does not relate to intelligent design.

Total nonsense.

If you wish to go ask a mod to tell me people who are IDist cannot talk about the design implicit in DNA then go try your luck but you certainly as an atheist will not be defining for anyone else what they adhere to as in ID and not.

DNA shows all the hallmarks of Intelligent design and the implausibility of it no being designed will be discussed in this thread unless you go fool some mod that it does not relate.

Can you provide a scientific definition of design?

Can you please provide a reliable test to determine if ID is present, that is falsifiable?

 

[MikeEnders]

Can you provide a scientific definition of design?

Better. I can give you an illustration - DNA. You know one of the basic building blocks of life. You know what I was talking about before - the beginning of life

Can you please provide a reliable test to determine if ID is present, that is falsifiable?

Better - anything that can't be shown rationally (not imaginatively) to be derived by natural processes like the complexibility of DNA and umm the origin of LIFE as I was discussing before.

Now that I have answered your question your turn

Do you have a workable provable model of abiogenesis and the Origin of LIFE

 

[bhsmte]

Better. I can give you an illustration - DNA. You know one of the basic building blocks of life. You know what I was talking about before - the beginning of life



Better - anything that can't be shown rationally (not imaginatively) to be derived by natural processes like the complexibility of DNA and umm the origin of LIFE as I was discussing before.

Now that I have answered your question your turn

Do you have a workable provable model of abiogenesis and the Origin of LIFE

Now why didn't Michael Behe think of that when he was on the stand and under oath selling ID? I'm sure that would have caused the judge to rule differently.

I don't know how life originated. When I do, I will let you know.

 

[MikeEnders]

Now why didn't Michael Behe think of that when he was on the stand

Don't know. Read slowly and you will see it says Mike Enders not Mike Behe

I don't know how life originated. When I do, I will let you know.

Great we will be here waiting and mean while thanks for establishing that "I dunno" is an acceptable answer to any question you should ask.

 

[HitchSlap]

Better. I can give you an illustration - DNA. You know one of the basic building blocks of life. You know what I was talking about before - the beginning of life



Better - anything that can't be shown rationally (not imaginatively) to be derived by natural processes like the complexibility of DNA and umm the origin of LIFE as I was discussing before.

Now that I have answered your question your turn

Do you have a workable provable model of abiogenesis and the Origin of LIFE

All this, and Greek, and Hebrew? Amazing

 

[bhsmte]

Don't know. Read slowly and you will see it says Mike Enders not Mike Behe



Great we will be here waiting and mean while thanks for establishing that "I dunno" is an acceptable answer to any question you should ask.

There is no question that could be asked you that you don't know????

Since I don't roll by making stuff up, that is my answer; I don't know, yet.

 

[MikeEnders]

All this, and Greek, and Hebrew? Amazing

Hey not everybody is a slacker.

 

[MikeEnders]

There is no question that could be asked you that you don't know????

Ummmm........I dunno?

 

[HitchSlap]

Hey not everybody is a slacker.

Indeed. Cthulhu would be pleased.