The flaws in Intelligent design

[tas8831]

There are some good books on the problems of the evolution theory, which you most likely have not read.

I have read Sarfati's books, Wells' first book, ReMine's book, Marsh's book, IL Cohen's book, Wysong's book, Behe's first book, Denton's first book, Johnson's first book, etc.

Which one do you have in mind?

Many of them are apparently under Satan.

Nothing says "I've got nothing" like invoking religious concepts in a science discussion.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I have read every post in this thread so far and seen nothing remotely resembling evidence.

Can you point it out to me?

A lot of it boils down to assumptions taken before looking at the same data

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Intriguing - you write that as if this is known, that there is evidence for it, that this part of the "genetic code" has been identified.

I have taught Genetics at the college level for many years. I teach an upper-level Evolutionary Biology class. Please explain to me or show me the evidence for this, for I have not read about or heard of any such thing in my 2+ decades of involvement in these matters.

It's observable.

 

[We Never Know]

Learn to read. I have very clearly stated that one cannot prove or disprove the idea of God (the "Intelligent Designer" ) through scientific, empiric means. One can examine the DESIGN that way, though, whether it was 'designed' deliberately or not.

One cannot prove or disprove a God with or without science. However we do know it's faith based.

How can you tell if something that is living is/was deliberately designed?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder what prompted

How is your subjective judgment better than any theist making one. Most people who are theist say all of existence is the evidence. But you are making the judgment it is not evidence at all. Why is your subjective judgment the rational one or better one?

Any person could also claim that all of existence is the evidence for natural processes. So here we are, right back where we started. Obviously, that broad and sweeping claim is useless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please provide a single legitimate example of the some of all the scientific progress that "disputes it."

Good luck with that. All that is ever offered is the claim that there is scientific evidence to dispute evolution. When the rubber hits the road so do the people that make the claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Right. "God" has some good reason for every awful
thing that happens What a guy!

It is not just that I have never understood the reasoning, but it is that it almost offends me to hear someone comment about another person suffering in the midst of horrible tragedy, that 'God was watching out for them'.

I know of a family friend that was in a horrible car accident that left her paralyzed from the hips down, and took out her entire family and people made comments to the effect that 'God was watching out for her' because she survived. I am thinking 'How?' She was in a horrible auto accident. Her family was killed. She was crippled. She had to sit conscious in that vehicle with her dead and dying family for a long time while others had to find the wreck and then remove her.

It does not make any sense to me.

 

[tas8831]

DNAs code of instructions.

Here is some DNA:

1 gatcacaggt ctatcaccct attaaccact cacgggagct ctccatgcat ttggtatttt
61 cgtctggggg gtatgcacgc gatagcattg cgagacgctg gagccggagc accctatgtc
121 gcagtatctg tctttgattc ctgcctcatc ctattattta tcgcacctac gttcaatatt
181 acaggcgaac atacttacta aagtgtgtta attaattaat gcttgtagga cataataata
241 acaattgaat gtctgcacag ccactttcca cacagacatc ataacaaaaa atttccacca
301 aaccccccct cccccgcttc tggccacagc acttaaacac atctctgcca aaccccaaaa
361 acaaagaacc ctaacaccag cctaaccaga tttcaaattt tatcttttgg cggtatgcac
421 ttttaacagt caccccccaa ctaacacatt attttcccct cccactccca tactactaat
481 ctcatcaata caacccccgc ccatcctacc cagcacacac acaccgctgc taaccccata
541 ccccgaacca accaaacccc aaagacaccc cccacagttt atgtagctta cctcctcaaa
601 gcaatacact gaaaatgttt agacgggctc acatcacccc ataaacaaat aggtttggtc
661 ctagcctttc tattagctct tagtaagatt acacatgcaa gcatccccgt tccagtgagt
721 tcaccctcta aatcaccacg atcaaaagga acaagcatca agcacgcagc aatgcagctc
781 aaaacgctta gcctagccac acccccacgg gaaacagcag tgattaacct ttagcaataa
841 acgaaagttt aactaagcta tactaacccc agggttggtc aatttcgtgc cagccaccgc
901 ggtcacacga ttaacccaag tcaatagaag ccggcgtaaa gagtgtttta gatcaccccc
961 tccccaataa agctaaaact cacctgagtt gtaaaaaact ccagttgaca caaaatagac
1021 tacgaaagtg gctttaacat atctgaacac acaatagcta agacccaaac tgggattaga
1081 taccccacta tgcttagccc taaacctcaa cagttaaatc aacaaaactg ctcgccagaa
1141 cactacgagc cacagcttaa aactcaaagg acctggcggt gcttcatatc cctctagagg
1201 agcctgttct gtaatcgata aaccccgatc aacctcacca cctcttgctc agcctatata
1261 ccgccatctt cagcaaaccc tgatgaaggc tacaaagtaa gcgcaagtac ccacgtaaag
1321 acgttaggtc aaggtgtagc ccatgaggtg gcaagaaatg ggctacattt tctaccccag
1381 aaaactacga tagcccttat gaaacttaag ggtcgaaggt ggatttagca gtaaactaag
1441 agtagagtgc ttagttgaac agggccctga agcgcgtaca caccgcccgt caccctcctc
1501 aagtatactt caaaggacat ttaactaaaa cccctacgca tttatataga ggagacaagt
1561 cgtaacatgg taagtgtact ggaaagtgca cttggacgaa ccagagtgta gcttaacaca
1621 aagcacccaa cttacactta ggagatttca acttaacttg accgctctga gctaaaccta
1681 gccccaaacc cactccacct tactaccaga caaccttagc caaaccattt acccaaataa
1741 agtataggcg atagaaattg aaacctggcg caatagatat agtaccgcaa gggaaagatg

Show me the "code of instructions".

 

[whirlingmerc]

One cannot prove or disprove a God with or without science. However we do know it's faith based.

How can you tell if something that is living is/was deliberately designed?

And of course naturalism is faith based as well since it carries considerable baggage that the only explanation accepted is a natural one, ruling out all others

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So... no evidence, then.

Isn't just so amazingly coincidental that one can only know the evidence for God if you pre-accept that he is real.

So cool.

It is cool. It also works for Bigfoot. Aliens. UFO's. NDE's. ESP. Ghosts. Goblins. And Donald Trump.

There are some people with very strange ideas about how the world works. They have added so much unnecessary baggage to their belief systems, they cannot present a rational argument even about things that have no real impact on what they choose to believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is some DNA:

1 gatcacaggt ctatcaccct attaaccact cacgggagct ctccatgcat ttggtatttt
61 cgtctggggg gtatgcacgc gatagcattg cgagacgctg gagccggagc accctatgtc
121 gcagtatctg tctttgattc ctgcctcatc ctattattta tcgcacctac gttcaatatt
181 acaggcgaac atacttacta aagtgtgtta attaattaat gcttgtagga cataataata
241 acaattgaat gtctgcacag ccactttcca cacagacatc ataacaaaaa atttccacca
301 aaccccccct cccccgcttc tggccacagc acttaaacac atctctgcca aaccccaaaa
361 acaaagaacc ctaacaccag cctaaccaga tttcaaattt tatcttttgg cggtatgcac
421 ttttaacagt caccccccaa ctaacacatt attttcccct cccactccca tactactaat
481 ctcatcaata caacccccgc ccatcctacc cagcacacac acaccgctgc taaccccata
541 ccccgaacca accaaacccc aaagacaccc cccacagttt atgtagctta cctcctcaaa
601 gcaatacact gaaaatgttt agacgggctc acatcacccc ataaacaaat aggtttggtc
661 ctagcctttc tattagctct tagtaagatt acacatgcaa gcatccccgt tccagtgagt
721 tcaccctcta aatcaccacg atcaaaagga acaagcatca agcacgcagc aatgcagctc
781 aaaacgctta gcctagccac acccccacgg gaaacagcag tgattaacct ttagcaataa
841 acgaaagttt aactaagcta tactaacccc agggttggtc aatttcgtgc cagccaccgc
901 ggtcacacga ttaacccaag tcaatagaag ccggcgtaaa gagtgtttta gatcaccccc
961 tccccaataa agctaaaact cacctgagtt gtaaaaaact ccagttgaca caaaatagac
1021 tacgaaagtg gctttaacat atctgaacac acaatagcta agacccaaac tgggattaga
1081 taccccacta tgcttagccc taaacctcaa cagttaaatc aacaaaactg ctcgccagaa
1141 cactacgagc cacagcttaa aactcaaagg acctggcggt gcttcatatc cctctagagg
1201 agcctgttct gtaatcgata aaccccgatc aacctcacca cctcttgctc agcctatata
1261 ccgccatctt cagcaaaccc tgatgaaggc tacaaagtaa gcgcaagtac ccacgtaaag
1321 acgttaggtc aaggtgtagc ccatgaggtg gcaagaaatg ggctacattt tctaccccag
1381 aaaactacga tagcccttat gaaacttaag ggtcgaaggt ggatttagca gtaaactaag
1441 agtagagtgc ttagttgaac agggccctga agcgcgtaca caccgcccgt caccctcctc
1501 aagtatactt caaaggacat ttaactaaaa cccctacgca tttatataga ggagacaagt
1561 cgtaacatgg taagtgtact ggaaagtgca cttggacgaa ccagagtgta gcttaacaca
1621 aagcacccaa cttacactta ggagatttca acttaacttg accgctctga gctaaaccta
1681 gccccaaacc cactccacct tactaccaga caaccttagc caaaccattt acccaaataa
1741 agtataggcg atagaaattg aaacctggcg caatagatat agtaccgcaa gggaaagatg

Show me the "code of instructions".

You have to stare passed it and sort of focus just beneath the surface, then you can see the sailboat.

 

[tas8831]

Also replication does not account for the code of information itself and its origin.

What "code of information"?

Also mutation usually degrades a organism, not helps it.

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-genetic-mutations-common-thought.html

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Surely you can present, say, 2 examples? And EXPLAIN why you think they were proven false (links to creationist web essays won't do).

1. Archaeopteryx was presented as a creature transitioning from reptile to bird, but when the bones were studied by ornithologists, they stated that its skull and bone structure indicated that it was a bird, not a reptile in transition.

2. Coelacanth was also promoted as an extinct transitory form until it was discovered that it is not extinct and is not in transition. It's still the same old fish according to ichthyologists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's observable.

This will be simple then. If something is observable, then it can be communicated and explained to others so that they can observe it too.

I cannot wait to see the observations. I'll make the popcorn.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What "code of information"?



https://phys.org/news/2018-04-genetic-mutations-common-thought.html

Not only that, but most mutations are neutral. You are dealing with someone whose scientific knowledge is based on what he believes is scientific knowledge without knowing anything about science.

 

[tas8831]

You mean like those promoting Ernst Haekle's embryos?

Examples, please. But do make sure that they are endorsing Haeckel's 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny', which was debunked, and are not just comparing embryos.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1. Archaeopteryx was presented as a creature transitioning from reptile to bird, but when the bones were studied by ornithologists, they stated that its skull and bone structure indicated that it was a bird, not a reptile in transition.

All the research that has been done on Archaeopteryx indicate that it shares features of both its reptilian ancestry and the derived characters that are found in modern birds. That is a transitional form. That it may be somewhat more closely related to birds to the point that it can be classified as a bird does not alter the fact of its transitional nature.

2. Coelacanth was also promoted as an extinct transitory form until it was discovered that it is not extinct and is not in transition. It's still the same old fish according to ichthyologists.

Discovering a creature whose lineage was thought to be extinct, even for millions of years, is a noteworthy discovery, but it does not mean that it refutes evolution. The Coelacanth species found today, reveal a conserved external morphology with their fossil relatives, but they are not the same species as those fossilized relatives. The coelacanth exists in a very stable environment that is millions of years old and there has been no significant selection to drive larger evolutionary changes and, as a group, they have remained in what is known as evolutionary stasis. They still possess derived characteristics that place them in a transition from fish to land creatures.

 

[Audie]

Just like your post.

Except for a lack of examples; easy to say,
but kinda tough to substantiate. Try!

But good anyway, that you concede
that what you write is as characterized-

slogans, mantras, and logical fallacies. Nothing of real value, though

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Examples, please. But do make sure that they are endorsing Haeckel's 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny', which was debunked, and are not just comparing embryos.

I think it says a lot for the strength of evolution as a theory and a foundation of biology, that after more than 150 years and countless volumes of research, the only evidence of any impropriety that can be found is Haeckel and a fraud committed on science and not by science that was determined to be a fraud by science.

Haeckel and Piltdown man get bandied about like they are the silver bullet, when they insignificant and blown well out of proportion. It is all they have and they grasp it tenaciously and desperately, like any drowning victim would.

 

[tas8831]

How is your subjective judgment better than any theist making one.

I don't recall claiming that one must 'believe in' evolution to see the evidence for it.

Most people who are theist say all of existence is the evidence. But you are making the judgment it is not evidence at all.

Correct.

Why is your subjective judgment the rational one or better one?

Because I am simply recognizing the fluff.

"All of existence" is not evidence of anything except for the existence of all of existence. A Buddhist can make the exact same claim. So could a Hindu, a Muslim, an animist, etc. So could I. 'Evidence' that supports any and all 'interpretations' is not evidence for any one thing.

I can and have presented what I and many others see as objective evidence for evolution as indicated at the genetic level (the use of tested DNA sequence analysis methods applied to questions of shared ancestry). The usual suspects engaged in their usual denials and evasions, but could not produce any kind of legitimate counter, nor could they present similarly vetted evidence for their mere beliefs.

My "subjective" position is supportable with analyses employing tested empirical methodologies.

The ID/creationists have not even tried to meet such a standard.

That is why.