A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

So do you grant these points 1-5? yes or no?

accordign to you what is it that is being discussed?

This is not a "yes no" type of question. As you presented it the best one could say is "No". Try to avoid false dichotomies. You cannot refute evolution with:

"Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well feel free to ask me a series of questions that would indicate if I understand the concept

And no, you havent presented any evidece.
I challenge you to quote any previous comment that you made, where evidence was presented

You have already demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basics. That is why I offered to go over them with you. Let's begin. Here is a simple flow chart of the scientific method, do you have any problems with it:

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what, ? Non coding regions also had to evolve,

Yes, and those regions can evolve more quickly than genes that are needed. To ad to @tas8831 's post on gene duplication. Once a gene is duplicated it can undergo mutation without threatening the organism. The copy can undergo a mutation that "turns it off". For example the evolution of venom in snakes:

From genome to “venome”: Molecular origin and evolution of the snake venom proteome inferred from phylogenetic analysis of toxin sequences and related body proteins

A rather specific change like this can be traced to the genes involved and how they evolved.

 

[tas8831]

So what, ? Non coding regions also had to evolve,


The ancestral worm had 1B bais pairs, we humans have 3b, therefore 2B bais pairs had to evolve .......

There is evidence of a couple of genome duplications in our history, along with many segmental duplications in which huge numbers of bps are duplicated.

"...provides unmistakable evidence of two distinct genome duplication events early in vertebrate evolution indicated by clear patterns of four-way paralogous regions covering a large part of the human genome..."

Your implication, as I read it, is that this billions of bps had to arise one bp at a time, which is ludicrous.

Obviously I don't know how many bp did the worm had, but to me it sounds reasonable to say that it had 1 billion ... Am I wrong ?

Yes, I already provided the number of a living 'simple' worm - 100 million bp.

But billions of mutations were not at all required for the collective vertebrate genome to grow to billions. It just took a few rounds of genome duplication, followed by several rounds of segmental duplication along with other types of duplications. All of this is pretty well documented. I suggest reading up on it.

 

[Valjean]

Sure some articles suggest that evolution by natural selection and random mutations is true, and other articles propose some other mechanism.

This is why we can savelly say that there is a controversy

There's also a flat-Earth controversy -- with a similar level of scientific support.

Scientists are debating on the mechanism that causes worm to man evolution.
1 Some say random mutations and natural selection
2 Others say random mutatios and genetic drift
3 Others say natural genetic engineering

What's natural genetic engineering?

4 Others say epigenetics

Who says this? How can a gene or chromosome be switched on when it's not there in the first place?

5 Others say "I don't know" but number "1" seems probably wrong.

No, I think not.

This is what I mean by controversy, and quite honestly this is what everyone means by controversy.
So do you now accept that evolution by random mutatios and narural selection is controversial?

No, not as commonly understood. Out of millions of scientists you can find only a handful of religiously motivated individuals who reject evolution. Usually these are in unrelated fields or are recognized outliers. There are other scientists cited who publish novel findings about various details of the process, that creationists interpret as dissent from the fact of evolution or natural selection.[/QUOTE]

 

[leroy]

You have already demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basics. That is why I offered to go over them with you. Let's begin. Here is a simple flow chart of the scientific method, do you have any problems with it:

I have no problems with it

 

[leroy]

This is not a "yes no" type of question. As you presented it the best one could say is "No". Try to avoid false dichotomies. You cannot refute evolution with:

"Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

questions.

Yes, I know you like to avoid direct answers

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no problems with it

If you understood it you would see that ID does not follow that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know you like to avoid direct answers

Now now, don't tell lies about others. I explained to you why so many of your questions are improper. Whenever you demand a "Yes,no" answer and have no clue as to what you are talking about the question is almost always dishonest.

 

[leroy]

If you understood it you would see that ID does not follow that.

Well justify your asertion, at what step does ID fail?.

How does evolution by random mutatios and natural selection follow the scientific method?


......let me guess.....you will find an excuse for not answering the questions

 

[leroy]

There is evidence of a couple of genome duplications in our history, along with many segmental duplications in which huge numbers of bps are duplicated.

"...provides unmistakable evidence of two distinct genome duplication events early in vertebrate evolution indicated by clear patterns of four-way paralogous regions covering a large part of the human genome..."

Your implication, as I read it, is that this billions of bps had to arise one bp at a time, which is ludicrous.

Yes, I already provided the number of a living 'simple' worm - 100 million bp.

But billions of mutations were not at all required for the collective vertebrate genome to grow to billions. It just took a few rounds of genome duplication, followed by several rounds of segmental duplication along with other types of duplications. All of this is pretty well documented. I suggest reading up on it.

Ok with that said, can you explain how a major trait (like the eye, or the ear) evolved by those mechanisms? Which which round of genome duplication had to happen? Which segmental duplications occured?

 

[leroy]

There's also a flat-Earth controversy -- with a similar level of scientific support.

Are there peer review papers that suggest a flat Earth ?

What's natural genetic engineering?

A mechanism that allows organisms to change their genome to respon to selective preassur.
Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia

Who says this? How can a gene or chromosome be switched on when it's not there in the first place?

A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?

Some studies seem to support epigenetics as a main mechanism for evolution.

No, not as commonly understood. Out of millions of scientists you can find only a handful of religiously motivated individuals who reject evolution.

That is what you see on youtube and forums, but the truth is that in scientific checked there is a controversy , scientists are skeptical on whether if evolution by random mutations and natural selection is the main cause for the complexity of life.

ID is just one of many alternatives that have been proposed, most alternatives are naturalistic.

Usually these are in unrelated fields or are recognized outliers.

Take for example James Shapiro (who proposes natural genetic engineering) is he a lier?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well justify your asertion, at what step does ID fail?.

How does evolution by random mutatios and natural selection follow the scientific method?


......let me guess.....you will find an excuse for not answering the questions

ID never forms a testable hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok with that said, can you explain how a major trait (like the eye, or the ear) evolved by those mechanisms? Which which round of genome duplication had to happen? Which segmental duplications occured?

Your questions are in error. You are assuming only one possible path.

 

[gnostic]

Well justify your asertion, at what step does ID fail?.

How does evolution by random mutatios and natural selection follow the scientific method?


......let me guess.....you will find an excuse for not answering the questions

Have you read the Wedge Strategy, leroy?

It is the Discovery Institute’s manifesto and mission statement.

It was written by Phillip E Johnson, the chief founder of the Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science. It is dishonest because it ID is actually literal Christian creationism, and yet they are to pretend to not be one (Creationism). And instead of using science, it used propaganda, spread by media and by creationists that served at school board and by politicians, judges and lawyers.

The two Discovery Institute founders, Bruce Chapman and George Gilder, are not men with science backgrounds, journalists and in Chapman’s case a politician, while Gilder’s was economist.

Johnson, like Chapman and Gilder, also have no background in science. He is a former law professor and his qualification is English literature. But since retiring from law, he has been a Protestant clergyman, hence more a theologian than a scientist.

Stephen Meyer may be a geophysicist, his specialty is not physical cosmology or biology.

So the biggest name involved relating to biology, is the biochemist Michael Behe, and he cannot even be honest, as demonstrated in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case. He brought both his Irreducible Complexity and Darwin’s Black Box into the trial, and not once has he ever provide reviewable data,nor testable evidences to support his claim of the Designer. His only data come from computer simulations, that’s not testable evidences.

Even his own department, dismissed his Irreducible Complexity as pseudoscience:

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q (Mr Rothschild) This is a statement that was issued by the Lehigh Department of Biological Sciences?

A (Behe)Yes, it is.

Q And what it says is, "The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and the recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, that has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position" -- and I think they're just referring to your department at this point -- "Professor Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of intelligent design. While we respect Professor Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

So you ve not even been able to convince your colleagues, any of them, Professor Behe?

A They all endorse this statement, but I would like to point out, if you would, the entire first paragraph is something that I would completely agree with: Committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function; unwavering support for academic freedom; the utmost respect for the scientific method; integrity in the conduct of research, and so on.

That's a wonderful statement. I agree with it completely. What does it have to do with the arguments that I make?

The department faculty is unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory. What does that mean? To commit one's self to a theory, to swear allegiance to a theory. That's not scientific.

If they could point to a paper in the literature, something that, say, Russell Doolittle overlooked which explains how complex molecular systems could be put together by gradual means, by unintelligent means, then I would be happy to agree that Darwinian evolution could explain this. But one can't issue statements and say that a theory is correct if one does not have the papers to back it up.

And you'll notice that even in this statement, you see no citations, no citations to explanations for these complex molecular systems. And in the absence of that, while that's fine for them to express their views, it doesn't mean -- it doesn't carry the weight of a single journal paper.

All Behe did, was make excuses.

The Theory of Evolution does meet with the high standard of scientific method, but Behe’s Irreducible Complexity, and his book Darwin’s Black Box don’t.

His department respect Behe's belief, but not his phony science "Irreducible Complexity" and his continuing association with Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute that promote his papers and books.

And to this date, Behe still have not provided any methodology of testing his Irreducible Complexity.

The people at Discovery Institute, including Behe, have no integrity.

 

[leroy]

ID never forms a testable hypothesis.

Specified conolexcom can only come from a mind. ..... Why is this testestable?

BTW you fail to answer my other question, how does evolution by random mutations and natural selection follows and passes the scientific method?

 

[leroy]

Your questions are in error. You are assuming only one possible path.

Nope, we are assuming many potencial paths. Care to show just 1?

 

[gnostic]

That is wrong, one can say that Egyptians where responsable for building the pyramids even if one can't describe the steps.

Not to mention that you can't describe the steps ether

Now that's a weak argument.

The Intelligent Design is a clumsy attempt at explaining natural events, such as physical cosmology or the origin of life, not the engineering feats of the Egyptians.

Engineering here, is man-made construction, not build by nature.

People who focused on the pyramids, often look at the ones built in the 4th dynasty at Giza. But the pyramids of Giza are not the oldest pyramids. The first pyramid was built for Djoser, the founder of the 3rd dynasty, which was known as the Step Pyramid at Saqqara.

All design were based on Djoser's original design. It just that others pyramids before Khufu's massive pyramid, showed improvements with each generation. Khufu's pyramid is definitely the best and biggest pyramid, and a true pyramid in shape.

But even Khufu's pyramid isn't the first true pyramid. That Golden Oscar goes to pyramid of Khufu's father, Sneferu, known as the Red Pyramid, built at Dahshur.

And Djoser's architect/engineer didn't design the first pyramid (Step Pyramid of Djoser) from scratch. It is based on the earlier dynasties (1st & 2nd), where the tombs were mostly mastaba in design.

Basically, the step pyramid design is building a smaller mastaba on top of the larger mastaba, stacking them up so they resemble the step pyramid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Specified conolexcom can only come from a mind. ..... Why is this testestable?

You have not defined your terms or how they would be tested. We went over this a long time ago. Not only I but others point out your failure to do this. No one in ID has done this. It is why it is in the area of "Not even wrong".

BTW you fail to answer my other question, how does evolution by random mutations and natural selection follows and passes the scientific method?

Really? You have that little knowledge and you are arguing against evolution? A simple test would be that the theory predicts no violation of phylogeny. You have heard about the Precambrian Bunny Rabbit, haven't you? Another way it would be shown wrong is if a true chimera existed, a species made up of part of other species. A pegasus for example would violate the theory of evolution, yet it should be possible with creationism

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, we are assuming many potencial paths. Care to show just 1?

Look at that snazzy shirt: