On Intelligent Design...

[Ana the Ist]

That is my belief, yes.

Well then what's all this nonsense about "waiting until we have a better/full understanding of DNA" before deciding if it's evidence for the existence of god/higher intelligence?

Or are you just using that as an explanation for junk DNA even though you don't really believe in it yourself?

 

[bhsmte]

That is my belief, yes.

Based on what evidence?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I still think that the fact that we observe apparent design in DNA

You use the word "observe", but what you really mean rather seems to be "assert".

Also, that which appears to be, is entirely in the eye of the beholder. In other words, it's subjective stuff. Do you have an objective method to find out if design is present, or is your entire reason for believing that design is present, based on nothing more then "appearances"?

points to a designer more significantly than it points to nondesign.

Have you heared about evolution theory? It actually explains why DNA looks the way it looks. With all the junk and redundancy found therein, which can't be explain with a "perfect designer".

A "perfect designer" would not give a chicken the genes to build teeth.
A "perfect designer" would not give a mole non-functioning eyeballs hidden behind a layer of skin.

Evolution actually explains why those genes are present. Your "designer" explains nothing. You can't even demonstrate that such a designer even exist. Worse then that, you can't even demonstrate that such a designer could exist.

If DNA were not designed, I'd expect to not see apparent coding of information within it, yet this is exactly what we see.

Again, have you heared about evolution theory? It actually explains why DNA is the way it is.

I'm left with the only obvious conclusion, until it's proven that DNA has developed from meaningless processes.

Again, it's called evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Also, I find it interesting that some of the DNA appears useless. I don't view it as useless, but rather as potential. If we assume a designer then possibly this "useless" DNA we perceive is simply just not being used yet because the designer has future plans for that "useless" DNA.

No.

The ancestors of chickens had teeth. Chickens do not. But they still have the genes to build them.

The ancestors of moles had functioning eyeballs. Moles do not. They still have eyesockets. Heck, they still have eyes. But they don't work. And they are covered by a layer of skin.

Some design...

Again, evolution explains these things.
A designer does not.

And let's not even get into the hierarchical nature of DNA.... Which is something no designer would do. Any company would fire you instantly if you design product lines that way.

This is far more interesting to me that simply saying there is no point or reason for why our DNA is the way it is.

There is a very good reason for DNA being the way it is. It's called evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, because the theory of evolution cannot explain why or how life came to exist on this planet.

And it doesn't need to. Not even in this context.
Evolution explains all the diversity of living things, starting with ultra simple beginnings.

It explains junk DNA, redundant DNA, the hierarchical nature of DNA,..

"design" explains NOTHING.

Evolution is not fact

No, evolution most definatly is a fact.
Life shares ancestry.

, it's a theory

Theories explains facts.
The theory of evolution explains the mechanism behind the fact of evolution.

Evolution most definatly happened. Life most definatly shares ancestry. That's just a fact of genetics.

The theory explains how it happened.
But it factually happened.

that interprets evidence in a particular way. This particular way of interpreting the evidence could be wrong because any interpretation of evidence is fallible.

Yes, that's why we test theories. Evolution theory past those test. Perhaps even better then any other theory known to man. It's one of the most solid ideas in all of science.

The truth is what counts, to me at least.

Ow my.... here we go again.

As I have said a gazillion times to you already: your only path to knowing what the truth is, is evidence.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A question I was wondering about, people say that mutation is random in relation to fitness (ie its not caused by how firt it makes the offspring, juts occurring in a random pattern). But is this also related to gene switches, and epigenetic biology etc, as well as conventional 20thC genetic theory?

I read somewhere that a scientist calculated that there wasnt sufficient time to account for complexity of life forms, even 5 billion yeary, with what was known about mutation and DNA etc. One scientist, or a mathematician I think.

This doesnt imply design, I just wonder whether some present beliefs about biology will be overthrown. Its almost certain, judging from the way science develops over time.

Personally I like to think that an organism under stress (hardship) mutates more - I think that's an established fact, and maybe genes under stress mutate more. Or gene switches under stress mutate more, or are turned on and off over the genrations (something like Lamarkian inheritance?).

But theres somatic DNA (eg in the liver) and germline DNA (eg in the sperm). If the liver is under stress, how would the germline DNA "know" of this?

 

[Chriliman]

And it doesn't need to. Not even in this context.
Evolution explains all the diversity of living things, starting with ultra simple beginnings.

It explains junk DNA, redundant DNA, the hierarchical nature of DNA,..

"design" explains NOTHING.

I agree that the theory of evolution can explain the changes we see in life, but I'm more interested with how and why life came to exist. That's still the big question. I think once we find an answer to that question our views of evolution may change, but maybe not.

No, evolution most definatly is a fact.
Life shares ancestry.




Theories explains facts.
The theory of evolution explains the mechanism behind the fact of evolution.

Evolution most definatly happened. Life most definatly shares ancestry. That's just a fact of genetics.

The theory explains how it happened.
But it factually happened.



Yes, that's why we test theories. Evolution theory past those test. Perhaps even better then any other theory known to man. It's one of the most solid ideas in all of science.



Ow my.... here we go again.

As I have said a gazillion times to you already: your only path to knowing what the truth is, is evidence.

I'm not against the idea that different species adapt to changing environments by developing new uses for existing features, which may then render other features, like eyes, useless. We see this in blind people all the time, their other senses are heightened because their eyes no longer work. What I don't agree with is the idea that life came to exist through meaningless process and that this first life is the source of all life we see today through processes of evolution. I don't believe one species can evolve into another species. I believe one species can adapt to it's environment and take on changes as a result. My belief that God created life explains a lot of things about what I perceive in my reality, therefore, until this truth is proven wrong, I will continue to believe it.

Obviously, until God is proven true to you, you will continue to not believe.

 

[Chriliman]

Well then what's all this nonsense about "waiting until we have a better/full understanding of DNA" before deciding if it's evidence for the existence of god/higher intelligence?

I believed in God before this evidence of design was found in DNA.

Or are you just using that as an explanation for junk DNA even though you don't really believe in it yourself?

I can't say for sure why there is "junk" DNA, but I can speculate. One possibility is that it isn't actually junk DNA, it could be that we just don't fully understand why its there. Remember when science used to think we only use 10% of our brains? Now that has been shown to be false. We actually use 100% of our brains, but its the energy used that's limited. If our brains could harness more energy, we could heighten our senses to unimaginable levels. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't lock in your belief that God may not exist quite yet because a lot of the evidence and reasonable thinking is pointing to a creator who has a plan.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree that the theory of evolution can explain the changes we see in life, but I'm more interested with how and why life came to exist. That's still the big question. I think once we find an answer to that question our views of evolution may change, but maybe not.

It's a question that remains unanswered. Yet, you are all over the thread asserting "design" and "designer". What's that about?

Furthermore, you previously mentioned "junk DNA" as being "potential DNA in the design plan of the designer", which actually completely contradicts what you are saying now....

The existance of junk DNA is explained through evolution theory. We know why it is there. And it has nothing to do with "potential" and everything with "ancient remnants". Like chickens having genes for teeth. Or moles having genes for non-functioning eyes.

I'm not against the idea that different species adapt to changing environments by developing new uses for existing features, which may then render other features, like eyes, useless. We see this in blind people all the time, their other senses are heightened because their eyes no longer work.

This literally has nothing to do with how blind people tend to have more intense other senses. The fact that you even think this is a proper analogy or comparision, says how little you understand of the underlying concepts of evolution and how such features like non-functioning eyes develop over time.

What I don't agree with is the idea that life came to exist through meaningless process and that this first life is the source of all life we see today through processes of evolution.

And why don't you agree with that, without invoking your religion?
Or is this all rooted in your a priori religious beliefs, as I would expec?

I don't believe one species can evolve into another species.

In other words, you deny evolution theory accross the board.

I believe one species can adapt to it's environment and take on changes as a result.

Fortunatly, what you "believe" is quite irrelevant.

My belief that God created life explains a lot of things about what I perceive in my reality, therefore, until this truth is proven wrong, I will continue to believe it.

Classic.

Obviously, until God is proven true to you, you will continue to not believe.

Obviously.

However, proving a god exists wouldn't change one iota of evolution theory. It would be as solid as ever.

Even proving that this god created first life, wouldn't change anything.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I believed in God before this evidence of design was found in DNA.



I can't say for sure why there is "junk" DNA, but I can speculate. One possibility is that it isn't actually junk DNA, it could be that we just don't fully understand why its there. Remember when science used to think we only use 10% of our brains? Now that has been shown to be false. We actually use 100% of our brains, but its the energy used that's limited. If our brains could harness more energy, we could heighten our senses to unimaginable levels. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't lock in your belief that God may not exist quite yet because a lot of the evidence and reasonable thinking is pointing to a creator who has a plan.

"Science" never thought that we only used 10% of our brains. You're talking about a misunderstanding between the media and statements some scientists have made. This happens all the time really...another example is the observer relationship with particle duality. People thought that scientists were saying that we can control the way particles act just by observing them (a lot of people still think this...there's one on our forum here named stevevw). These people didn't realize that in the experiment scientists were talking about..."observer" referred to a device placed in the path of the particles to record their positions.

Yet another example would be the way people seem to have misunderstood what scientists mean when they say there is "information" in DNA. Some people read this and jumped right to the conclusion that something must have "written" this information into the DNA...when all scientists meant was "there is information in DNA".

There's information in nearly anything really. There's information within a single atom of hydrogen. There's information on a blank page of paper (for example, the information that no one has written anything on the paper). The existence of information doesn't point to...nor is it evidence of an intelligence creating that information. If you sincerely believe it is...then you'll need to show why it's evidence for an intelligent creator. Simply claiming that it's evidence isn't enough.

As for your advice on waiting until our understanding of DNA is complete...I'll pass...

I'll admit that on the surface, it appears to be really good advice. However, I don't generally follow advice that the advisor himself ignores. If the person giving the advice really thought it was good advice...he would be following it himself, not ignoring it and doing the exact opposite.

 

[Chriliman]

This literally has nothing to do with how blind people tend to have more intense other senses. The fact that you even think this is a proper analogy or comparision, says how little you understand of the underlying concepts of evolution and how such features like non-functioning eyes develop over time.

I understand the basic theory of evolution. Basically it states that through random mutations in DNA, the changes either have a positive, negative or neutral effect on the offspring. Depending on the effect, the offspring will either live on or die out. However, when looking at fossil evidence there is no clear way to tell if what your looking suggests a change from one species to another or just variations from within one species.

For me, the fact that we don't see evolution happening today, as in one species changing into another species over an extended period of time means that we shouldn't assume this happened in the past. What we should safely assume is that certain species adapt to their environments and take on changes accordingly.

If you can demonstrate one species changing into another species without showing me a bunch of different images of what could easily be the same species then I'd be more inclined to believe that species can evolve into different species.

 

[Chriliman]

"Science" never thought that we only used 10% of our brains. You're talking about a misunderstanding between the media and statements some scientists have made. This happens all the time really...another example is the observer relationship with particle duality. People thought that scientists were saying that we can control the way particles act just by observing them (a lot of people still think this...there's one on our forum here named stevevw). These people didn't realize that in the experiment scientists were talking about..."observer" referred to a device placed in the path of the particles to record their positions.

Yet another example would be the way people seem to have misunderstood what scientists mean when they say there is "information" in DNA. Some people read this and jumped right to the conclusion that something must have "written" this information into the DNA...when all scientists meant was "there is information in DNA".

There's information in nearly anything really. There's information within a single atom of hydrogen. There's information on a blank page of paper (for example, the information that no one has written anything on the paper). The existence of information doesn't point to...nor is it evidence of an intelligence creating that information. If you sincerely believe it is...then you'll need to show why it's evidence for an intelligent creator. Simply claiming that it's evidence isn't enough.

As for your advice on waiting until our understanding of DNA is complete...I'll pass...

I'll admit that on the surface, it appears to be really good advice. However, I don't generally follow advice that the advisor himself ignores. If the person giving the advice really thought it was good advice...he would be following it himself, not ignoring it and doing the exact opposite.

I understand. I think its important to determine where the information that is in everything came from. Generally, I try not to believe things can come from nowhere. Thanks for your time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I understand the basic theory of evolution. Basically it states that through random mutations in DNA, the changes either have a positive, negative or neutral effect on the offspring. Depending on the effect, the offspring will either live on or die out. However, when looking at fossil evidence there is no clear way to tell if what your looking suggests a change from one species to another or just variations from within one species.

Euh... no.

Just.... no.

For me, the fact that we don't see evolution happening today, as in one species changing into another species over an extended period of time means that we shouldn't assume this happened in the past

Right, you don't see a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years in your 80 years that you are on this planet, if you are lucky.

However, every single aspect of the theory of evolution has been observed in the small scale. Even small scale speciation has been observed, in both the wild as well as the lab.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

What we should safely assume is that certain species adapt to their environments and take on changes accordingly.

Yes. And not only do they take on such changes, but they also accumulate such changes.

Meaning that after a couple generations, small changes have taken place compared to the original reference generation. And after MANY generations, BIG changes will have taken place compared to the original reference generation. So big, that it will essentially be vastly different from that original one.

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+............ = many millions.

If you can demonstrate one species changing into another species without showing me a bunch of different images of what could easily be the same species then I'd be more inclined to believe that species can evolve into different species.

I already did with the talk-origins link.

I just note here that you, who's always so big on how you value "truth" and "evidence", are arguing against one of the most solid theories in all of science.

This is a new low for you...

 

[DogmaHunter]

I understand. I think its important to determine where the information that is in everything came from.

What method do you propose to find out?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I understand. I think its important to determine where the information that is in everything came from. Generally, I try not to believe things can come from nowhere. Thanks for your time.

Well...you read my example, right? The blank page of paper?

Where did the information "it hasn't been written on" come from?

 

[Chriliman]

Well...you read my example, right? The blank page of paper?

Where did the information "it hasn't been written on" come from?

Intelligence.

 

[Chriliman]

Euh... no.

Just.... no.

Right, you don't see a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years in your 80 years that you are on this planet, if you are lucky.

However, every single aspect of the theory of evolution has been observed in the small scale. Even small scale speciation has been observed, in both the wild as well as the lab.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html




Yes. And not only do they take on such changes, but they also accumulate such changes.

Meaning that after a couple generations, small changes have taken place compared to the original reference generation. And after MANY generations, BIG changes will have taken place compared to the original reference generation. So big, that it will essentially be vastly different from that original one.

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+............ = many millions.



I already did with the talk-origins link.

I just note here that you, who's always so big on how you value "truth" and "evidence", are arguing against one of the most solid theories in all of science.

This is a new low for you...

On the contrary, I appreciate the information you've provided. I'll view the link and interpret the evidence provided for myself and decide what to believe. Thanks for your time

 

[Ana the Ist]

Intelligence.

Whose intelligence? The person looking at the blank page?

 

[Percivale]

That evolution happened seems pretty conclusive from the evidence. To me 'Intelligent Design' refers not to whether evolution happened, but what caused it to take the course it did. If the only mechanism is random mutation and natural selection, that is not intelligent design, but if at certain key points the right mutations were caused by an intelligent agent, that is. The way the fossil record shows that the biggest changes (Cambrian explosion, radiation of mammals) tend to happen faster than smaller changes seems to support some intelligent design. I know God exists for many other reasons, such as experiencing miracles (events for which the best explanation is a superhuman agent, such as healing or word of knowledge (mind reading)), so it would be no surprise to me if he intervened at certain points in the evolutionary process, even though he prefers to lets things follow the usual course of nature most of the time.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is definition of design I'm going for here...

"purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object."

I don't see a whole lot of purpose or planning in something like "clutter"...so I don't think it would fit any definition of design.

Where did you get this definition of "bad design"?

Many computers have this function: You highlight text, then right click and search for the quote.

http://www.canistercreative.com/blog/what-separates-good-design-bad