A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

Avoiding answers once again?

Nope, I am tired of rudeness. Rudeness and ignorance is a bad combination.

 

[leroy]

Different species are competing for the same resources. That tends to produce complexity as they adapt to each other using those resources.

source?

The observed examples of natural selection tend to make organisms simpler (sure with some exceptions) but the overall trends seems to be simplicity………..but you can provide a source and prove me wrong

 

[leroy]

I always answer properly asked questions. You should try it some time.

You are accusing me for making a circular argument, but you haven’t supported your accusation. …why won’t you support your accusation? *edit*

 

[Jose Fly]

Because there is nothing in the properties of amino acids that would force them to organize themselves in the pattern required to produce self replicating agents.

Well, that may be a bit of a straw man.

From my understanding, the primary hypotheses regarding the origin of life don't propose that amino acids self-assembled into proteins all on their own. Rather, the scenario is that nucleotides self-assembled into chains inside of lipid membranes, and that eventually one of those lipid-contained nucleotide chains was able to replicate. Once that replication began, selective pressures favored more efficient replicators.

It wasn't until after all that occurred that the nucleotides began coding for amino acids and proteins.

If instead of ice you have hexagonal patterns of iron, you could conclude design, because there is nothing in the laws of nature that would force “iron” to organize itself in hexagonal patterns.

That would seem to be an argument from ignorance, in that you're not proposing any sort of actual mechanism for "design", but instead are arguing that since our current understanding of natural mechanisms can't fully explain "specified complexity", then "design" (by an unknown entity using unknown means) wins by default.

Is that about right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are accusing me for making a circular argument, but you haven’t supported your accusation. …why won’t you support your accusation?............well because you are a lying troll

Now you know better than that. No need to break forum rules.

 

[Riders]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”


In other words you don't believe people built the pyramids that they just popped up out of nature? Sounds like you don't want to credit the Egyptians for the beautiful perfect creative intelligent building of the pyramids they did..........

ROTFLMFAO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA pyramids that pop up from nature LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL rolling around on the big belly laugh

 

[Valjean]

1 Life, or to be specific “replication” I would argue that replicating systems are specified and complex. And therefore designed.

1: Evolution works both ways. Sometimes it simplifies and reduces apparent complexity. It 'selects' the best design for the situation.
By "specified" you mean supernatural. There is no evidence of this. There is no need for magic to explain complexity.
The natural mechanisms by which complexity may be generated have been shown to you. It does not follow that complex means intentionally designed.

The problem is that “natural selection” doesn’t aims at complexity, it aims at adaptability. NS tries to produce creatures that are well adapted. There is no reason for why “simple life” evolved in to “complex life” natural selection could have maintained life “simple” but well adapted.

And it did. Archaea, bacteria, protozoa, &c are all still thriving. Moreover, as I stated above, evolution works both ways. It doesn't always go from simple to complex.

In other words, NS explains why are organisms adapted, but it doesn’t explain why are they complex.

Yes it does! Have you not been paying attention?
How did you not learn this in school?[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Valjean]

Hey, play by Audies rules, and stay out for now, ya
swab!!! Or else.

Stay yer tongue, ya scurvy wench! I've had men keelhauled for less.

 

[Valjean]

Because there is nothing in the properties of amino acids that would force them to organize themselves in the pattern required to produce self replicating agents.

Yes there is.

 

[Audie]

Stay yer tongue, ya scurvy wench! I've had men keelhauled for less.

Keelhauling girls is not nice. Anyway, some
pirate (pirunt, is more like it) you is.

YOU dont even know a pirates favourite letter
of the alphabet, does ya.

 

[Valjean]

"arrrgh!"

 

[leroy]

Well, that may be a bit of a straw man.

From my understanding, the primary hypotheses regarding the origin of life don't propose that amino acids self-assembled into proteins all on their own. Rather, the scenario is that nucleotides self-assembled into chains inside of lipid membranes, and that eventually one of those lipid-contained nucleotide chains was able to replicate. Once that replication began, selective pressures favored more efficient replicators.

It wasn't until after all that occurred that the nucleotides began coding for amino acids and proteins.

Ok let’s assume that we already have nucleotides inside a lipid membrane….then what? My claim is that in order to have self replication you need thousands of nucleotides organized in the correct pattern in order to get something that might reproduce.

+And there is not a natural principle that would favor that particular order.

The claim is falsifiable, perhaps you don’t need many nucleotides to create self replicating protein, perhaps there are “many*” of possible combinations that would create self replicating agents or perhaps there is natural principle that favors that particular order. These are all possible scenarios that would falsify my claim, it is easy to imagine a parallel universe where any of these scenarios is true, but apparently none of these scenarios is true in this universe.


*with many I mean a veeeeery big number (something with dozens of zeros)




What are the odds of typing letters in your computer randomly and end up with the instructions of how to bake a delicious chocolate cake?.....I would argue that the origin of the first replicating agent would be a lot like that.

That would seem to be an argument from ignorance, in that you're not proposing any sort of actual mechanism for "design", but instead are arguing that since our current understanding of natural mechanisms can't fully explain "specified complexity", then "design" (by an unknown entity using unknown means) wins by default.

Is that about right?

The claim is that nature can’t create specified complexity; we have positive and observable evidence that suggests that design is the only possible cause for specified complexity.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok let’s assume that we already have nucleotides inside a lipid membrane….then what?

Then at some point you have self-replicating nucleotides. That part has been demonstrated in the lab.

What are the odds of typing letters in your computer randomly and end up with the instructions of how to bake a delicious chocolate cake?.....I would argue that the origin of the first replicating agent would be a lot like that.

Unless you have some actual probability calculations to share, you're not really making an argument as much as you're just making an empty assertion.

The claim is that nature can’t create specified complexity;

Given how you've stated that arising outside of natural mechanisms is one of the criteria for "specified complexity", the above makes your argument circular.

we have positive and observable evidence that suggests that design is the only possible cause for specified complexity.

Such as?

 

[Skwim]

Aye, so many may think.

But no.

. ​

 

[Polymath257]

source?

The observed examples of natural selection tend to make organisms simpler (sure with some exceptions) but the overall trends seems to be simplicity………..but you can provide a source and prove me wrong

Really? Can you give examples where the result tends towards simplicity?

The computer simulations go all the way back to the program Tierra, which simulated an ecosystem with mutations and competition for resources. It got as far as producing parasites and some very complex interactions. This was one of the first such programs. Later examples only supported the results.

Artificial life - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

IF the OP seriously wants to learn about abiogenesis this is a good site to visit:

Szostak Lab: Home

Jack Szostak is a Nobel Prize winning scientist that is heavily into studying abiogenesis.

 

[Audie]

View attachment 24520

. ​

As a old barnacle like you would know,
'tis a true pirate's first love.

 

[Walterbl]

The origin of life by random processes is near imnpossible. Even the smallest form of life reveals a complexity far beyond a modern factory.

 

[ecco]

One of the things that convinced me of the power of mutation and natural selection was when I wrote my own version of the weasel program. I allowed for 90 symbols in each location (uppercase, lower case, space, punctuation) and, if I recall, a line with 70 symbols.
If you *randomly* select 70 characters, then *randomly* select 70 again, etc, the predicted time to find a target string is more than the age of the universe, even with the fastest computers.

Years ago,I wrote a similar program using 32 characters. Thousands of each one. I then randomly took 32 of them seeing if I could get ABC...456. Never happened. I think the closest I got in 24 hours of running was a couple of ABCDEs

But, if you allow each string to have 50 'children' and select the child that is closest to the target as the new 'parent', the target string can *easily* be found in just a couple thousand generations. That is almost immediate.

I took a different approach. Recognizing that in simple molecules, like water, certain atoms naturally "combine" and these "combinations" likewise "combine" to form ever longer chains. So I put thousands of As,Ws,3s etc into box a.

I randomly reached into the box of characters and took out two. If the were adjacent, eg GH, UV, 34, I considered them to be "combinable" and put them into box b, if not, I discarded them.

Then I randomly reached into box b and and took out two "pairs". If they were "combinable" eg LM & NO or Z1 & 23, I put them into box c, if not, I discarded them. I followed the same procedure to get quads, eights, 16s and 32s.

I discarded all the 32's that were not ABC...456 (the vast majority). But withing hours I had multiple ABC...456s.

This same technique would work for any large "viable" string.

 

[tayla]

those who deny ID don’t really present an argument

I think it's the opposite.

ID proponents don't prove their view except by analogy. You can apply the analogy that: "if something looks designed, then it is designed", to anything. The clumping of matter after the big bang, hydrogen atoms forming H2, space dust collecting into clumps and later into stars and galaxies. Everything looks designed.

But the problem with ID is showing the mechanism by which the design occurs via the natural laws.

By the way, I believe in ID.