Intelligence Inquiry

[pitabread]

Evolutionists have the same issue they accuse adherents of ID of - they have to prove a theory is "law".

That's not at all how this works. Theories do not become "laws" in science. In fact, the very term "law" is a somewhat archaic term within science.

 

[DaisyDay]

so if someone will create a walking creature it will be a robot by definition since it was made by design?

What? I asked you what you considered a robot to be since this was your question. I haven't said anything about any walking creature made by design is a robot - I'm trying to get your definition of "robot containing DNA" so we can discuss it.

Again, how can you tell if something is "made" or if it occurred naturally? Is there anything not made or not created by design?

 

[pitabread]

And that despite seeing its tracks.

That's not the case at all. ID proponents have yet to come up with a scientifically verifiable method for detecting design in biology.

You guys really need to take a closer look at the real state of ID, because you are assuming all sorts of things about it that just aren't there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Intelligent design is the proverbial elephant in the Darwinian evolutionist's living room!

A thing that no-one can find evidence for? Yup, bang on.

 

[xianghua]

I assume you mean that you think that there is some barrier in the DNA that prevents a lot of small changes from adding up to a big change. We have yet to discover such a barrier.

i will give you 2. the first one is a minimal complexity. this protein for instance has a minimal barrier of about 310 amino acids:

Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli.

it means that even if you will remove\change a single amino acid the protein will not function anymore.

the second barrier is the design itself. a wing for instance is clearly a product of design. therefore only design can explain the existence of a code for a wing in the first place (even if evolution is possible).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And that despite seeing its tracks.

What tracks?

 

[xianghua]

What? I asked you what you considered a robot to be since this was your question. I haven't said anything about any walking creature made by design is a robot - I'm trying to get your definition of "robot containing DNA" so we can discuss it.

so you tell me. why a walking penguin for instance isnt a robot according to you?

 

[inquiring mind]

What tracks?

tracks=complexity

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

tracks=complexity

'Complexity' is a ridiculous way to go about it because complexity is a very subjective term. And also, I have yet to see a single Intelligent Design proponent give a description of what they see as 'complexity'.

 

[inquiring mind]

Is there anything not made or not created by design?

A man that used to be an ape???

 

[VirOptimus]

A man that used to be an ape???

Man is ape by definition.

 

[inquiring mind]

Man is ape by definition.

Sorry, not by mine.

 

[VirOptimus]

Sorry, not by mine.

You dont get to make your own definitions of terms. You have no authority.

 

[pitabread]

tracks=complexity

Complexity alone is not an indication of design. Complexity can arise from non-intelligent processes.

 

[DaisyDay]

so you tell me. why a walking penguin for instance isnt a robot according to you?

What are you talking about? I asked you for your definition of a "robot with DNA". You said it was something that was "made" - which leads to the question: what is the difference between something that is "made" and something that is "not made" and how can you tell?

If everything that exists is "made", then having "made" as the distinguishing feature becomes meaningless because there is nothing to distinguish.

so if someone will create a walking creature it will be a robot by definition since it was made by design?

Are you trying to say that anything "made by design" is a robot?

Btw, the movie "Batman Returns" with Danny DeVito as the Penguin had walking (and swimming!) robot penguins, but they did not have DNA afaik.

 

[DaisyDay]

A man that used to be an ape???

No, you don't understand the question - is there anything that exists that has not been made or created by design? If so, then how can you tell?

It's pointless to say that something that doesn't exist has not been made or created.

 

[inquiring mind]

Complexity alone is not an indication of design. Complexity can arise from non-intelligent processes.

Is TOE a non-intelligent process?

 

[VirOptimus]

Is TOE a non-intelligent process?

Yes.

 

[inquiring mind]

Yes.

I was pretty sure of that basic.

 

[The Righterzpen]

It's not an assumption. The conclusion of the evolutionary history of life is based on direct investigation, empirical testing and observation from various independent lines of evidence.

It is the explanatory power of evolution (eg understanding how organisms evolve and the mechanisms involved in that process) which gives it its application.

The conclusion that there is life on this planet is based on direct investigation, empirical testing and observation from various independent lines of evidence.

The scientific method in no way proves ANY theory!

Evolution assumes that organisms exist with all the complexity that they have and how those complexities interact with the environment (i.e. their "application") - all by chance. The fact that life exists does not prove Darwin's theory.

If what is observed, (let's say humans with Down's Syndrome, humans with Primordial Dwarfism and humans with neither). All three of those groups of people technically have different genomes. Two of those groups' genomes are caused by genetic mutations.

Now we know that women who have children when they are older, have a greater chance of having a baby with Down's Syndrome. What causes the mutation that causes primordial dwarfism, they don't know.

Yet if you were to find skeletal remains of a these three groups all in the same community; would you the evolutionist automatically assume they are different species of humans? And if so; why? That's called "observer bias".

Now say in the next layer of fossil, you discover more dwarf and DS skeletons than in the previous layer. Are you now going to assume that these "subspecies" "interbreeding" was the cause of the population increase? When in reality, there were just more DS babies because the women didn't have children until they were older.

Those are all assumptions made by the observer who fails to understand that the current imperial evidence of the time these populations lived, is that those with Down's Syndrome and Primordial Dwarfism do not reproduce. Now theory says that they can; yet in medical literature there's no evidence that any ever have.

So moral of the story is you can not make assumptions on evidence you don't have. Thus the same thing you accuse the ID people of not having - (by the way).

Scientific method DOES NOT PROVE THEORY!