A simple case for intelligent design

[tas8831]

Ok with that said, can you explain how a major trait (like the eye, or the ear) evolved by those mechanisms?

When did I write or imply that the eye evolved via duplications?

I am trying to explain how our genome got larger since you seemed perplexed about all this, and now you jump to unwarranted extrapolations and just start asking more questions about things I never mentioned?

Disingenuous much?

How about just writing - "Oh, thank you for that information. Despite the fact that I have been arguing about these topics for (probably) years, I never got around to actually learning anything about them. So again, thanks for explaining some basic genetics that I should have learned about BEFORE I made a fool of myself by presenting assertions that I didn't understand were ignorant and irrelevant." and then sticking to the topic at hand?


That would have been the Christian thing to do, it seems to me.

Which which round of genome duplication had to happen? Which segmental duplications occured?

None of them had to. The evidence indicates that they DID.

Again, why misrepresent me? Is this your game - protect your flimsy faith at all costs, humility and honesty and integrity be damned? Because that is sure what it is starting to look like.

YOU asked about genome size, I presented information on it. You asked about how the human genome got so big, I presented information in it. Then you shift gears to the evolution of the eye via duplication???

How about YOU start offering up some evidence FOR your position for once?

Do you think your 'only ask questions' game works forever?

Instead of playing these tedious games (your response is rather like one I described here), how about you do what I did to find the reference, and, you know, actually look this stuff up for yourself?

YOU started a thread on a topic that you you apparently have very limited knowledge of , and go on to get into sub-arguments premised on the same, all the while demanding others hand-hold you through the grown-up parts. which you, dutifully, ignore or dismiss out of hand as your move the goal posts.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Sheesh Leroy, pay attention.....evolution via random mutation and natural selection is an observed fact.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

So that's your game, eh? Point out that evolutionary biologists are debating over the mechanisms behind evolution, and then try and slip ID creationism in as one of those mechanisms, even though no scientist has formally proposed such a thing.

Not very honest of you Leroy.

 

[leroy]

So that's your game, eh? Point out that evolutionary biologists are debating over the mechanisms behind evolution, and then try and slip ID creationism in as one of those mechanisms, even though no scientist has formally proposed such a thing.

Not very honest of you Leroy.

No that is not my strategy, these are meant to be separate points,

1 evolution is controvertial in science

2 ID is the best explanation for the complexity of life

I am not implying that proving 1 would automatically prove 2, these are meant to be independent points.

 

[leroy]

Sheesh Leroy, pay attention.....evolution via random mutation and natural selection is an observed fact.

Nobody would deny that, the question is: is evolution by random mutations and natural selection the main mechanism to account for the diversity of life, not even the most conservative YEC would deny that evolution by random mutation and natural selection account for some diversity, but you are claiming that it accounts for all (or most) of the diversity of life…………how is that statement supported by science? How does it follow and passes the scientific method?

 

[leroy]

When did I write or imply that the eye evolved via duplications?

I am trying to explain how our genome got larger since you seemed perplexed about all this, and now you jump to unwarranted extrapolations and just start asking more questions about things I never mentioned?

Disingenuous much?

How about just writing - "Oh, thank you for that information. Despite the fact that I have been arguing about these topics for (probably) years, I never got around to actually learning anything about them. So again, thanks for explaining some basic genetics that I should have learned about BEFORE I made a fool of myself by presenting assertions that I didn't understand were ignorant and irrelevant." and then sticking to the topic at hand?


That would have been the Christian thing to do, it seems to me.


None of them had to. The evidence indicates that they DID.

Again, why misrepresent me? Is this your game - protect your flimsy faith at all costs, humility and honesty and integrity be damned? Because that is sure what it is starting to look like.

YOU asked about genome size, I presented information on it. You asked about how the human genome got so big, I presented information in it. Then you shift gears to the evolution of the eye via duplication???

How about YOU start offering up some evidence FOR your position for once?

Do you think your 'only ask questions' game works forever?

Instead of playing these tedious games (your response is rather like one I described here), how about you do what I did to find the reference, and, you know, actually look this stuff up for yourself?

YOU started a thread on a topic that you you apparently have very limited knowledge of , and go on to get into sub-arguments premised on the same, all the while demanding others hand-hold you through the grown-up parts. which you, dutifully, ignore or dismiss out of hand as your move the goal posts.

You are the one who is making this tedious, ou are the one who is focusing on irrelevant stuff.

Just provide evidence that shows that worm-like to human evolution is plausible via the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection, whether if this process requires billions of mutations or not is irrelevant, just show your evidence.


About showing evidence for my position, well I can show with a high degree of confidence that specified complexity can only come from a mind and that life is specified and complex. Would that count as evidence for my position? If not why not? What would you accept as evidence for ID?

What do I mean by specified complexity? Since my previous definition was misleading I will change the words and try to provide a better definition.

If something has many parts, the parts are organized in an objective pattern that would allow a function, and if there are many different configurations allowed by the laws of nature, where only a minority of such possible configurations would produce something functional.

So by this definition cars are specified and complex because:

- A car has many parts

- The parts are organized in such a way that would allow the car to have a function

- There are many possible configurations in which this parts can exist, for example it is physically possible to have the wheels inside the car, but only few configurations would produce a functional car.


Is the definition clear? If not please feel free to ask for clarification.


So the argument is that life is specified and complex (analogous to a car) and that specified complexity can only come from a mind …………so if I show that these 2 statements are probably true, would you accept ID?

 

[leroy]

Look at that snazzy shirt:

Ok, so can you show that the path described by Dawkins is achievable by the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection?

 

[Jose Fly]

Nobody would deny that

Good. Keep that in mind.

the question is: is evolution by random mutations and natural selection the main mechanism to account for the diversity of life, not even the most conservative YEC would deny that evolution by random mutation and natural selection account for some diversity, but you are claiming that it accounts for all (or most) of the diversity of life…………how is that statement supported by science? How does it follow and passes the scientific method?

Like I noted, I see the game you're trying to play here. Yes, there is debate among evolutionary biologists about the mechanisms of evolution and their relative roles. However, that in no way, shape, or form means that ID creationism is among the mechanisms being considered.

 

[leroy]

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

Honestly you are pathetic, nobody is denying phylogeny, I have told you this docens of times. A bunny in the Precambrian or a chimera would also be inconsistent under my view.

We both accept that humans came from worm-like ancestors, the disagreement is on whether if the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection was mainly responsible for such a change.

Can you prove that your statement uncontrovertibly true? Or would you rather join me and scientists and say that the statement is controversial and that there is room for reasonable doubt.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

But, we know things like the eye evolved naturally without any design. Doesn't that fact contradict your hypothesis here?

 

[leroy]

Good. Keep that in mind.


Like I noted, I see the game you're trying to play here. Yes, there is debate among evolutionary biologists about the mechanisms of evolution and their relative roles. However, that in no way, shape, or form means that ID creationism is among the mechanisms being considered.

I have never said nor implied that ID is among those mechanism, I am simply establishing the fact evolution by random mutations and natural selection is controversial. ……….I would never say that “therefore ID is true”

 

[Jose Fly]

I have never said nor implied that ID is among those mechanism, I am simply establishing the fact evolution by random mutations and natural selection is controversial. ……….I would never say that “therefore ID is true”

Then what is your point?

Evolutionary scientists are debating the mechanisms of evolution and their relative roles, therefore.....................?

 

[Bear Wild]

Honestly you are pathetic, nobody is denying phylogeny, I have told you this docens of times. A bunny in the Precambrian or a chimera would also be inconsistent under my view.

We both accept that humans came from worm-like ancestors, the disagreement is on whether if the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection was mainly responsible for such a change.

Can you prove that your statement uncontrovertibly true? Or would you rather join me and scientists and say that the statement is controversial and that there is room for reasonable doubt.

Since you accept that humans could come from a worm-like ancestor and there is no other provable way for this to happen other than evolution then there is no argument. You have no proof other than your imagination meaning there is no proof for any other way. Therefor it is just easiest to accept evolution and appreciate how amazing it is.

 

[leibowde84]

I have never said nor implied that ID is among those mechanism, I am simply establishing the fact evolution by random mutations and natural selection is controversial. ……….I would never say that “therefore ID is true”

Why is evolution by natural selection controversial. Human intuition when it comes to spotting design is not evidence of anything. We can determine through evidence that artificial structures and such were designed, but it is irrational to use the same test when it comes to natural organisms that can easily be explained by natural selection.

 

[leroy]

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.

Irrelevant, it is still a fact that one can in principle conclude that the Egyptians made the pyramids, even if nobody one cannot explain the mechanism used by the Egyptians.

 

[leroy]

Since you accept that humans could come from a worm-like ancestor and there is no other provable way for this to happen other than evolution then there is no argument. You have no proof other than your imagination meaning there is no proof for any other way. Therefor it is just easiest to accept evolution and appreciate how amazing it is.

I just provided multiple alternatives for evolution by natural selection and random mutations, these alternative mechanism have passed the peer review process, if there are other plausible mechanisms, then it is fair to conclude that evolution by natural selection and random mutations is controversial and that there is room for reasonable doubt.

 

[leibowde84]

Irrelevant, it is still a fact that one can in principle conclude that the Egyptians made the pyramids, even if nobody one cannot explain the mechanism used by the Egyptians.

We know that the pyramids are artificial constructions. The same test cannot be used for living organisms. Complexity does not evidence design when discussing natural organisms.

 

[leroy]

Why is evolution by natural selection controversial. Human intuition when it comes to spotting design is not evidence of anything. We can determine through evidence that artificial structures and such were designed, but it is irrational to use the same test when it comes to natural organisms that can easily be explained by natural selection.

Sure if you can explain the complexity of life by random mutations and natural selection, then ID would be wrong (or at least unnecessary)

 

[leibowde84]

I just provided multiple alternatives for evolution by natural selection and random mutations, these alternative mechanism have passed the peer review process, if there are other plausible mechanisms, then it is fair to conclude that evolution by natural selection and random mutations is controversial and that there is room for reasonable doubt.

Every piece of evidence found supports evolution by natural selection, and there hasn't been any evidence that contradicts evolution by natural selection. These alternatives would have to meet the same standard to even compete with evolution and make it controversial. The only arguments against evolution are arguments from ignorance and, thus, not logically sound. The mere fact that we cannot fully explain something naturally in no way evidences that it is designed.

 

[leibowde84]

Sure if you can explain the complexity of life by random mutations and natural selection, then ID would be wrong (or at least unnecessary)

We can. So, what's the problem?