Intelligent Design / Evolution

[RickG]

Again, all explanation no facts to back anything up. Common descent has had many false predictions. I rest my case.

Really? Name some and give citation in the scientific literature to support it.

 

[USincognito]

heirarchies are based on similarities which could also be common design.

Yes, but that argument can only be made in an ad hoc basis. Cetaceans are a perfect example of how common ancestry has more explanatory power than "common design". Why don't dolphins have gills? Common ancestry explains that while "common design" just throws up it's hands? Why do dolphins ungulate up and down like mammals rather than side to side like fish? Common ancestry explains that while "common design" just throws up it's hands.

Morphology of the fossil record and molecular homology are conflicting.

Do you have any examples of this?

Stratification of fossils? I will give you that one. That is one of the best arguments for increasing complexity of organisms, but not so much common ancestry. From single cells to cambrian explosion, no gradual progression of fossils. (counter predictive of evolution)

I'm sorry, but what? There are numerous lineages of progression found in the fossil record. Fish to terrestrial tetrapods. Terrestrial tetrapods into reptiles that lead to Synapids that lead to mammals and dinosaurs that lead to birds.

Prediction of ID:

These "predicitons" were made when? In 1996 or so? Long after evolution had given C/IDers plenty of evidence to work with and retrodict their "predictions"? Do you have a citation for this list you provide or is it something C/IDers, after a decade or two have finally come up with as an ad hoc rationalization for their unscientific assertions?

junk dna has function

I corrected you on this earlier. Not all junk dna has function. Some genes are definately identifiable, but clearly broken. And Ohno was describing genes that hadn't been fully studied at the time - 1972 - and regrets using the appellation "junk dna".

common design will show common components throughout living things

Pure ad hoc. But as I've already noted above - why are there no swapped modules? Why don't dolphins have gills or move like a a fish instead of a mammal that evolved to live in the oceans? Why are insect, pterosaur, bird and bat wings so very different? Common descent explains why, "common descent" does not.

dna would be very similar in all life

This is just more ad hoc borrowing from evolution and raises the question of why. Beings with exoskeletons could do just fine using iron in the structures of their protection - especially sedentary ones like coral - so why do arthropods use the same genetic instructions to make their "skin" from the same materials as plants and motile animals?

life can not spontaneously arise

No, this is not an ID claim. It's a Creationist claim and uses the loaded word "spontaneously" which is C/IDer code word for straw man.

complexity is not self organizing

This, finally is a post hoc ID claim/prediction. Of course one must then define complexity and I've seen you're going with the "specified complexity" argument that doesn't withstand scrutiny.

systems and structures of living things will have emergent properties (IC)

IC is based on the false notion that a 5 step process had to appear suddenly and without any precourser in the same way that a bridge with 4 supports and a road had to appear suddenly without a bridge that was comprised of 8 supports and 4 of them had been removed.

There are no vesigial features in living things.

More ad hoc... and unfortunately not supported by the evidence. Of course C/IDers try and throw out the 19th Century red herring that vestigials means "useless", but that's not the contemporary or evidenced definition of the term. It means reduced or changed in original function. The human - and chimp - coccyx is clearly a reduced tail that had been adapted to serve other purposes. The muscles that wiggle our ears, flare our nostrils or allow us to pick up objects with our toes are also clearly vestigial.

engineers will be instrumental in biological discoveries.

Cite?

Computer network engineers will decipher dna

Cite?

functional information only comes from intelligence

Cite? And could you give us a quantifiable definition of "functional information"?

 

[Hobz]

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If that's your proof, it's easily shown to be flawed, premise number 2 is begging the question and therefore your argument is circular. This was the whole point of my argument with an unknown and undescribable designer. If we accept your first premise, your second premise becomes:

2) DNA is created by a concious mind.

However, this is the point you're trying to prove, how can it be a premise?

I'll show you how to make it a valid premise, change it as so:

2) All codes of known origin are created by a concious mind, there is no natural process known to science which creates coded information.

However, your conclusion no longer follows, why? Because we don't know the origin of DNA or the hallmarks of an unknown designer, it's really that simple.

So if those 3 statements constitute your "proof," it's time to get back to the drawing board and replace premise numero due.

 

[Hobz]

IC does hold up, no one has demonstrated anything but ideas as to how the flagellum may have originated. I just came off an Atheist creation/evolution site and after 50 pages of back and forth, I still had not one, example of how the flagellum came about by random mutation, or co-option, or duplication, or anything else. Everything presented is theory, in the worlds sence not the scientific sense. The closest paper to come to it I have read is Matzke, but even that is, this or that could have happened.

Pallen et al. 2006, “Evolutionary links between FliH/YscL-like proteins from bacterial type III secretion systems and second-stalk components of the FoF1 and vacuolar ATPases.” Protein Science, 15(4), 935-941.

Pallen and Matzke 2006, “From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella.” Nature Reviews Microbiology, 4(10), 784-790.

To say theory is not scientific is downright fallacious, but that's not the main point here. The main point is a POSSIBLE mechanism has been proposed, it may not be the correct mechanism, but by simply proposing a possibility, how can the flagellum be IRREDUCIBLY complex? Those papers reduce the complexity down to an evoltionary acceptable mechanism quite eloquently. Whether you choose to agree or not is one thing, but the fact is the problem is reducible to evolutionary mechanisms, hence IC does not hold. These papers also describe perfectly what I meant by translocation, substitution, and deletion of various biological components and how these processes "shred" IC.

Heirarchies are based on similarities which could also be common design. It is not surprising that genome similarity is high given life processes are very similar.

Life processes are very similar? The only similarity I see between ALL living things, is that they're alive. Praytell, what is the similarity between an amoeba and a great spuce, I'm dying to know.

There have been many genome discoveries that conflict with predictions. for example, bacteria with genes their ancestors did not have (Horizontal Gene Tranfer) was used to fix that prediction problem. DNA in organisms points to one tree while their RNA points to another tree. Morphology of the fossil record and molecular homology are conflicting. The tree is not a tree it is a web of interconnecting organisms. This is not a prediction of evolution which predicted a vertical gene transfer. It is however a prediction of ID as common design, common programming. Many genes would be used in a variety of organisms which would make a tree look all over the place. Which is what is seen.

This is just ad hoc reasoning, it doesn't really matter what the evidence is, since we have no familiarity with this designer, he could have done anything. If all life-forms were totally unique you would be harping on about how this shows a designer using specific tools for specific purposes.

Stratification of fossils? I will give you that one. That is one of the best arguments for increasing complexity of organisms, but not so much common ancestry. From single cells to cambrian explosion, no gradual progression of fossils. (counter predictive of evolution)

This is the missing links argument, which is quite counter intuitive when fully explained, it generally goes something like this:

A: We have fossils A and C which show 2 steps in the evolutionary process.
B: But what about the missing link? How do you know they evolved? Your missing what happened between A & C!
A: We just had a new discovery of fossil B, it sits right in between fossil A & C, it's the fossil you were asking for!
B: Ummm... how we have 2 missing links?

Once you realise fossilisation is a unique process which requires very specific conditions to occur, you will realise it is very rare for it to occur. To demand a perfect gradual fossil record is to be out of touch with how geology/fossilisation operates.

Prediction of ID:
1. junk dna has function
2. common design will show common components throughout living things
3. dna would be very similar in all life
4. life can not spontaneously arise
5. complexity is not self organizing
6. systems and structures of living things will have emergent properties (IC)
7. There are no vesigial features in living things.
8. engineers will be instrumental in biological discoveries.
9. Computer network engineers will decipher dna
10. functional information only comes from intelligence

1. Not all junk DNA has function, some genes are nonfunctional due to irreparable damage.

2. Give me an example of this, I see more differences than similarities at a biological component level. Look at ATP Synthase for example, another little "rotor" like the flagellum, ATP synthase is required to produce ATP from ADP in the mitochondria, a process responsible for ATP generation in the majority of biological species. Given a common designer, we'd expect the same structure in every animal, however they're all different, why would a designer do this? Why would he change the genetic code in mitochondria so it was different? We can say anything was designed if we don't know the nature of the designer.

3. DNA is similar to a point, for example mitochondrial DNA, and some bacterial species use a modified code also.

4. This is not a prediction of your theory, as design does not rule out abiogenesis, they could occur seperately.

5. Complexity definitely can be self-organising, this is a major part of nanotechnology; look up self-assembly and have a browse.

6. I don't understand what you're trying to say here could you elaborate?

7. Yes there are, look at the human vestigiality page on wiki until I can link better sources.

8 - 9. Evolution agrees. (I'm self-admittedly playing the ad-hoc game here too.)

10. This is what you're trying to prove.

Many of the same claims common ancestry makes ID can make with common design features. You can't rule one out over the other on just similarity. Where I look at it as leaning to ID is where predictions for common descent fail. As more scientists realize that DNA is a language code, of networked manufacturing instructions and processes, ID will gain more and more respect.

This is a fallacy since you don't know the nature of the designer, I've mentioned this before. If all life was totally different and unique, you'd be arguing the same point, but you'd be telling me it's specific design for specific purpose. Since there's some level of similarity (or percieved similarity) you argue it's common design for a purpose. This is a HUGE sticking point, unless you know the nature of the designer, you can't infer the nature of the design.

If evolution is one unifying theory, it has to include origins. If evolution can only be seen a naturalistic, then the origin has to be as well. Science will never find life spontaneously arising. Evolution has no answer for origins, ID does.

Evolution is not a GRAND unifying theory so no, it doesn't have to encompass everything, it simply need the theory to cover multiple fields, which it does. It is always better to admit not knowing than to pretend you do, science has no problem with this.

Can you determine an individuals personality by examining his physical brain? There are things beyond physics and matter. What is consciousness?, instinct, emotion, morality and intuitiveness. These are all things beyond physics and matter but they do exist.

This is an argument from incredulity, ID has enough of this going on, just step up to the plate and say "I don't know," it reaks of honesty.

DNA is the signature of an intelligence. This is the next scientific revolution.

You still havn't convinced me, but I'm still open to hear more of your argument.

 

[Hobz]

You propose language is an example of a designed code.

Explain to me how the English language was designed, who/or whom designed it, and the process they followed to produce the finished design.

I propose language evolved over thousands of years, and new words are continually being added based on natural selection of diction. For example the recent usage of "fail" as a noun online, it has spread to common culture and it now being used throughout society. How is this design? It seems more akin to an addition mutation than intelligent design.

I'd agree languages such as Tolkien's Elfish, Esperanto, etc, are an exception to this rule, and were truely designed languages.

 

[idscience]

Explain to me how the English language was designed, who/or whom designed it, and the process they followed to produce the finished design. I propose language evolved over thousands of years, and new words are continually being added based on natural selection of diction. For example the recent usage of "fail" as a noun online, it has spread to common culture and it now being used throughout society. How is this design? It seems more akin to an addition mutation than intelligent design. I'd agree languages such as Tolkien's Elfish, Esperanto, etc, are an exception to this rule, and were truly designed languages.

You are missing the point Hobz. Language isn't design, it's the result of intelligence. It was developed and used by intelligent beings. Language has to be taught because the arbitrary symbols have no meaning unto themselves. It didn't just start growing like a weed and everyone understood? common buddy. you just slagged me for a primary school statement, I think? Can't remember but it wasn't nice either way. Your statement is a little ridiculous. DNA is a language. It is understood by computer systems analysts,, and network communications experts that are knowledgeable of DNA because they recognize it for what it is. language code. Instructions to manufacture, maintain, repair, and replicate.

Information can't be grown, it can't evolve. How does something with no mass, independent of physical existence evolve? What did it evolve from? Information is independent of physical media. An instruction can be delivered on a disc, through the air, on paper with ink or even with the hands with sign language. The information itself is independent of physics, energy, and mass. The only known cause for information in the known universe is an intelligent agent. the SETI program is based on this premise. What do you think they would conclude if they received the information content of one gene digitally over radio waves or light wave? It would take them 5 seconds to declare they we have been contacted by an intelligence.

• Decoding Life's Instruction Book "Yet a book is what the genome, the entire set of DNA in an organism, is often called: “life’s instruction book,”as the title of this year’s Penn State Lectures on the Frontiers of Science put it."
• Genes: The Instruction Manuals for Life "A gene is a how-to book for making one product—a protein."
• University of British Columbia "Computing tools and computational thinking help us understand how DNA stores information and how that information directs activity in the cell. This module aims both to support the learning goals for the data and processes modules and to provide some background for understanding connections between computerscience and molecular biology, particularly at the cellular level."

Clearly DNA is a language. No papers have been writen that I know of about the evolution or origin of information that is not pure speculation. There is only one source for language, instructions, and code. That is intelligence. There are whole new sciences emerging building computers with DNA. It is a machine, a computer. Of this, computer scientists have no doubt.

 

[idscience]

double post

 

[Incariol]

No, DNA is not language. It has no words, no syntax, no grammer. It is four molecules repeating in base pairs. ATTTGCATCGCGCTA and so on, that code for amino acids.

 

[idscience]

No, DNA is not language. It has no words, no syntax, no grammer. It is four molecules repeating in base pairs. ATTTGCATCGCGCTA and so on, that code for amino acids.

So, in your world, words are the only language? If there are no words it can't be a language? Is a computer language made up of words? how aobut Ascii or binary languages? You are some mighty weak ground here my friend.

 

[idscience]

Yes, but that argument can only be made in an ad hoc basis. Cetaceans are a perfect example of how common ancestry has more explanatory power than "common design". Why don't dolphins have gills? Common ancestry explains that while "common design" just throws up it's hands? Why do dolphins ungulate up and down like mammals rather than side to side like fish? Common ancestry explains that while "common design" just throws up it's hands.

• Why don't apples have orange skins? what are you talking about!

I'm sorry, but what? There are numerous lineages of progression found in the fossil record. Fish to terrestrial tetrapods. Terrestrial tetrapods into reptiles that lead to Synapids that lead to mammals and dinosaurs that lead to birds.

• No there isn't why doesn't anybody sourse this crap. The only fossil evolutionist found to brag about was Tiktaalik. In fact one of the 15 evolutionary Gems. Number 2 I believe. Widely proclaimed as a transitional fossil, dated exactly where it was supposed to be, until tetrapod tracks were found that were 18 million years older than tiktaalik.
• Tiktaalik Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints

These "predicitons" were made when? In 1996 or so? Long after evolution had given C/IDers plenty of evidence to work with and retrodict their "predictions"? Do you have a citation for this list you provide or is it something C/IDers, after a decade or two have finally come up with as an ad hoc rationalization for their unscientific assertions?

• Your big on asking for citations, try one yourself. Evolutionists are constantly revising predictions as they fall in the dumpster. I cited several earlier so won't again.

I corrected you on this earlier. Not all junk dna has function. Some genes are definately identifiable, but clearly broken. And Ohno was describing genes that hadn't been fully studied at the time - 1972 - and regrets using the appellation "junk dna".

• He wasn't alone. It was a consensus among evolutionists. It is a prediction. It doesn't have to me proven true as you evo's like to put it, it has to be falsified. Give it time, function will be found for 99% of it. Some will be effected by mutation.

Pure ad hoc. But as I've already noted above - why are there no swapped modules? Why don't dolphins have gills or move like a a fish instead of a mammal that evolved to live in the oceans? Why are insect, pterosaur, bird and bat wings so very different? Common descent explains why, "common descent" does not.

• Common descent explains nothing. Morphology connections of common ancestry is made on as little evidence as an ear bone. In evolutionary language it just means much farther down the tree. There is only subjective inferrence and assumption. No one can prove a bats wing and a dogs leg came from the same ancestor. No one. Scientists see what they expect and want to see. The entire fossil record (tree) is based on the premise common ancestry is a fact. No bias there. Ok boys, this is what happened so now lets look at the evidence and make it all fit. It's all being made up as they go along.

No, this is not an ID claim. It's a Creationist claim and uses the loaded word "spontaneously" which is C/IDer code word for straw man.

• What would you call it. Your reaching by the way. It almost sounds like your getting your instructions from someone else. When something goes from non life to life with no helping hand, It's pretty bad when your opposition has to argue and criticise the use and definition of a word. Give me a break. spon·ta·ne·ous/spänˈtānēəs/
• Adjective:
  • Performed or occurring without premeditation or external stimulus: "spontaneous applause".

This, finally is a post hoc ID claim/prediction. Of course one must then define complexity and I've seen you're going with the "specified complexity" argument that doesn't withstand scrutiny.

• Really? thats it? I have to take your word on that?

IC is based on the false notion that a 5 step process had to appear suddenly and without any precourser in the same way that a bridge with 4 supports and a road had to appear suddenly without a bridge that was comprised of 8 supports and 4 of them had been removed.

• Where do you get this stuff? IC isn't a false notion. You may disagree with it's application here but many things are IC in the world. how manyparts can you take off a light bulb before it stops working. What parts do you want to remove from your wifes braking system on her car? The rotor, wheel bearing, bearing nut, locking cap, caliper, caliper bolts, pad lining, pad backing, brake line, fluid, peddle, piston, seals, clips, rivets, pedle arm, pivot, pivot bolt, cotter pin? Take any of these away in she is in trouble. They all work together for a greater purpose then themselves. For that brake to stop the car, they all have to be present and working at the same time.
• No process has proven IC wrong. No pathway has been proven, only a couple "maybe this is the way it could have happened" ideas. Since when can those who condemn ID for not following the rule of science to the letter and beyond, get away with disproving something with only an idea? That isn't science, that is plain personal bias.

More ad hoc... and unfortunately not supported by the evidence. Of course C/IDers try and throw out the 19th Century red herring that vestigials means "useless", but that's not the contemporary or evidenced definition of the term. It means reduced or changed in original function. The human - and chimp - coccyx is clearly a reduced tail that had been adapted to serve other purposes. The muscles that wiggle our ears, flare our nostrils or allow us to pick up objects with our toes are also clearly vestigial.

• That is such a reach I can't even reply. Your seeing what you want to see. Ear wiggling and picking things up with our toes is proof of common descent??? Man! we are in more trouble than I thought.

Cite? yourself
Cite? yourself
Cite? And could you give us a quantifiable definition of "functional information"? I have given you several times what I regared as functional information, your getting boring.

My answers are all above in red.

 

[idscience]

Pallen et al. 2006, “Evolutionary links between FliH/YscL-like proteins from bacterial type III secretion systems and second-stalk components of the FoF1 and vacuolar ATPases.” Protein Science, 15(4), 935-941.
Pallen and Matzke 2006, “From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella.” Nature Reviews Microbiology, 4(10), 784-790.

To say theory is not scientific is downright fallacious, but that's not the main point here. The main point is a POSSIBLE mechanism has been proposed, it may not be the correct mechanism, but by simply proposing a possibility, how can the flagellum be IRREDUCIBLY complex? Those papers reduce the complexity down to an evoltionary acceptable mechanism quite eloquently. Whether you choose to agree or not is one thing, but the fact is the problem is reducible to evolutionary mechanisms, hence IC does not hold. These papers also describe perfectly what I meant by translocation, substitution, and deletion of various biological components and how these processes "shred" IC.

Life processes are very similar? The only similarity I see between ALL living things, is that they're alive. Praytell, what is the similarity between an amoeba and a great spuce, I'm dying to know.

This is just ad hoc reasoning, it doesn't really matter what the evidence is, since we have no familiarity with this designer, he could have done anything. If all life-forms were totally unique you would be harping on about how this shows a designer using specific tools for specific purposes.

This is the missing links argument, which is quite counter intuitive when fully explained, it generally goes something like this:

A: We have fossils A and C which show 2 steps in the evolutionary process.
B: But what about the missing link? How do you know they evolved? Your missing what happened between A & C!
A: We just had a new discovery of fossil B, it sits right in between fossil A & C, it's the fossil you were asking for!
B: Ummm... how we have 2 missing links?

Once you realise fossilisation is a unique process which requires very specific conditions to occur, you will realise it is very rare for it to occur. To demand a perfect gradual fossil record is to be out of touch with how geology/fossilisation operates.

1. Not all junk DNA has function, some genes are nonfunctional due to irreparable damage.
2. Give me an example of this, I see more differences than similarities at a biological component level. Look at ATP Synthase for example, another little "rotor" like the flagellum, ATP synthase is required to produce ATP from ADP in the mitochondria, a process responsible for ATP generation in the majority of biological species. Given a common designer, we'd expect the same structure in every animal, however they're all different, why would a designer do this? Why would he change the genetic code in mitochondria so it was different? We can say anything was designed if we don't know the nature of the designer.

3. DNA is similar to a point, for example mitochondrial DNA, and some bacterial species use a modified code also.

4. This is not a prediction of your theory, as design does not rule out abiogenesis, they could occur seperately.

5. Complexity definitely can be self-organising, this is a major part of nanotechnology; look up self-assembly and have a browse.

6. I don't understand what you're trying to say here could you elaborate?
7. Yes there are, look at the human vestigiality page on wiki until I can link better sources.
8 - 9. Evolution agrees. (I'm self-admittedly playing the ad-hoc game here too.)
10. This is what you're trying to prove.

This is a fallacy since you don't know the nature of the designer, I've mentioned this before. If all life was totally different and unique, you'd be arguing the same point, but you'd be telling me it's specific design for specific purpose. Since there's some level of similarity (or percieved similarity) you argue it's common design for a purpose. This is a HUGE sticking point, unless you know the nature of the designer, you can't infer the nature of the design.

Evolution is not a GRAND unifying theory so no, it doesn't have to encompass everything, it simply need the theory to cover multiple fields, which it does. It is always better to admit not knowing than to pretend you do, science has no problem with this.

This is an argument from incredulity, ID has enough of this going on, just step up to the plate and say "I don't know," it reaks of honesty.

You still havn't convinced me, but I'm still open to hear more of your argument.

WOW, I just cramped my fingers with the other USincognito. I will go through this and try to answer what I didn't with my last post. I appreciate the cites. You went to a lot of trouble posting and I want to get to it. I agree with your top point. It is the best offering for evolution of the flagellum but it is only conjecture at this point. I will get to all that later. its 3:15 again, and I need my beauty sleep.

 

[Split Rock]

Can we agree DNA is full of instructions, buiding plans?

You cannot look at DNA and determine what the organism will look like, therefore it is not a "building plan," or a blueprint. Rather, it is more like a recipe. While recipes are created by people, they are created via empirical trial and error. Therefore, even DNA bears the hallmark of a trial and error "design." Trial and error is exactly how evolution works.

You may find some of this interesting. It is a debate from "Infidels" or you may think he is an IDiot too. I submit it to you anyway. I have not read it through but I have read some of his other stuff too. He is a computer network guy.

• Gentlemen:
• The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:
• 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
  2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
  3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
• If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
  occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
• Perry Marshall
• The discussion continued for more than 4 months and 300 posts. At the end, nearly all participants dropped out, having failed to topple my proof or produce any new objections that had not already been addressed. In the course of a very detailed and vigorous discussion my argument did not suffer the slightest injury.
• There were six major counter-arguments to information as proof of intelligent design. You can follow these links for a thorough summary of the discussion threads:

This is interesting for techy's DNA motors that run on a track

Circular argument.
1. DNA is a code. (depending on your definition)
2. Codes are only designed by intelligence. (assertion)
3. No natural process can create a code (assertion)
3. Therefore, DNA was intelligently designed.

I can easily provide you with an example of a naturally occurring code: DNA. Done.

 

[Davian]

You cannot look at DNA and determine what the organism will look like, therefore it is not a "building plan," or a blueprint. Rather, it is more like a recipe. While recipes are created by people, they are created via empirical trial and error. Therefore, even DNA bears the hallmark of a trial and error "design." Trial and error is exactly how evolution works.

I like this analogy. To add to this, I would take it one more step; put the ingredients from the recipe into a bowl, mix them, the hand the bowl to someone else that is not aware of what you are making, and ask them to describe what the finished product will be like.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Therefore, even DNA bears the hallmark of a trial and error "design." Trial and error is exactly how evolution works.

This is a very important observation... From a creationist's viewpoint, you wouldn't predict there to be even a shred of junk DNA. Everything should be perfectly made with no superfluous parts.

Their only excuse is "DNA errors are a result of sin! Adam and Eve had perfect DNA, that's how they lived so long!"

However, Junk DNA makes perfect sense from a natural viewpoint. We would expect to see evidence of trial and error in DNA as organisms evolved.

 

[idscience]

This is a very important observation... From a creationist's viewpoint, you wouldn't predict there to be even a shred of junk DNA. Everything should be perfectly made with no superfluous parts.

Their only excuse is "DNA errors are a result of sin! Adam and Eve had perfect DNA, that's how they lived so long!"

However, Junk DNA makes perfect sense from a natural viewpoint. We would expect to see evidence of trial and error in DNA as organisms evolved.

Of course there would be some errors due to mutation and variation. Entropy, poisons, environment all play a part in corrupting what was once perfect.

You hold onto that junk DNA stance as long as you can. It never ceases to amaze me how many times someone will declair a fact in science just to see it over turned later. The preiction is that most all what is thought to be Junk today will be shown to be functional.

Evolutionists want it both ways. There is so much junk is it evidence of trial and error, and, nature conserved it all because it was so important. You guys can't even agree with each other.

I agree if it was all junk your postion would be logical, except maybe why nature would spend all that energy continuing to produce the junk in the first place. It should all be selected out and lost.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Of course there would be some errors due to mutation and variation. Entropy, poisons, environment all play a part in corrupting what was once perfect.

You hold onto that junk DNA stance as long as you can. It never ceases to amaze me how many times someone will declair a fact in science just to see it over turned later. The preiction is that most all what is thought to be Junk today will be shown to be functional.

Evolutionists want it both ways. There is so much junk is it evidence of trial and error, and, nature conserved it all because it was so important. You guys can't even agree with each other.

I agree if it was all junk your postion would be logical, except maybe why nature would spend all that energy continuing to produce the junk in the first place. It should all be selected out and lost.

No one denies the existence of junk DNA, just how much there is.

FACT: Junk DNA.

HYPOTHESIS 1: It was caused by trial and error mutations as organisms evolved.

HYPOTHESIS 2: It was caused by sin.

Creationists explain everything with something supernatural.
You can't win an argument against a creationist. The "GOD DID IT" card will beat you hands down every time!

Sorry, but a theory that explains everything explains NOTHING!

 

[idscience]

I like this analogy. To add to this, I would take it one more step; put the ingredients from the recipe into a bowl, mix them, the hand the bowl to someone else that is not aware of what you are making, and ask them to describe what the finished product will be like.

Interesting, but I don't see it like that. The cell is more of a manufacturing plant, than a cake mix. There is a progression as building goes on. There are checks and balances where as if you mess up the cake mix your beat.

To say DNA does not closely resemble computer networking code is a stretch. As prev posted, the University of BC has a computer science course linked to DNA. I don't think I have seen a baking class linked to it yet. But you never know.

 

[Blayz]

It never ceases to amaze me how many times someone will declair a fact in science just to see it over turned later.

You see science's greatest strength as a weakness, which is understandable from someone that thinks a 2000 year old book is inviolate. Your low incredulity threshold is also unsurprising.

The preiction is that most all what is thought to be Junk today will be shown to be functional.

Possibly true. How exciting that will be. Of course, we could take the Goddidit approach and just not bother investigating any more.

Evolutionists want it both ways. There is so much junk is it evidence of trial and error, and, nature conserved it all because it was so important. You guys can't even agree with each other.

As opposed to you Christians and your 37000 denominations, all just fully agreeing. Not.

Regardless, "not agreeing" is also not a sign of weakness. I'll tell you this though, you will not find a single scientist on either side of the fence yelling "you're not a True Scientist" at the other.

I agree if it was all junk your postion would be logical, except maybe why nature would spend all that energy continuing to produce the junk in the first place. It should all be selected out and lost.

An excellent point. The Fugu fish probably agrees.

Interesting, but I don't see it like that. The cell is more of a manufacturing plant, than a cake mix.

This issue is not what the cell is doing once it gets to where it is going, but how systems biology comes together to make the cell in the first place.

To say DNA does not closely resemble computer networking code is a stretch.

It's not a stretch, it's blindingly obvious. Cellular processes are stochastic. When was the last time that appeared in computer networking code?

 

[Davian]

I like this analogy. To add to this, I would take it one more step; put the ingredients from the recipe into a bowl, mix them, the hand the bowl to someone else that is not aware of what you are making, and ask them to describe what the finished product will be like.

Interesting, but I don't see it like that. The cell is more of a manufacturing plant, than a cake mix.

The comparison was to DNA, not cells. So what *do* you see? Can you decipher the DNA 'code', and tell us what you would get from seeing the sequence?

Do you think you could decipher the finished product from what was handed to you in that bowl?

There is a progression as building goes on. There are checks and balances where as if you mess up the cake mix your beat.

What *digital* checks and balances exist in embryonic development?

To say DNA does not closely resemble computer networking code is a stretch.

Please detail the comparison points on how DNA works, say, in the context of embryonic development as compared to a computer program. As I am programmer, I would be interested in seeing these points.

As prev posted, the University of BC has a computer science course linked to DNA.

Do you have details on this? I am on contract to UBC and could pick up that info the next time I am at that end of the campus.

I don't think I have seen a baking class linked to it yet. But you never know.

Again to the analogy, you might have better success in the Chemistry department.

 

[Hobz]

Well we've got 14 pages now, and still no-one is convinced, we still don't have a working definition of "intelligent design." You missed all my posts too, I'd love if you could respond to the logical argument with the begging the question fallacy and I related it to your lack of "intelligent design" definition.

IC can't be supported, ID can't be defined, the predictions are few, and the applications are none whatsoever; I'd be nice and say this is a sinking boat, but this little cruise ship hit its iceberg long, long ago.