Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[Dan From Smithville]

No, the one pointed out to me, is one I commented on.... You think that was 'shredding' my argument?

Hah! He posted no refutations at all.

Be happy in your cocoon.

You are hilarious. Are you sure you read the Bible. You may want to look into this thing about false witness.

I responded to each and everyone of your points. You did not. You just linked my post and claimed it did not shred yours. It did. To pieces. We can't even find the pieces it was shredded so finely.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They're following in Richard Dawkins' footsteps. It's called the 'two-step shuffle', lol.

I remember, he plainly said for his "followers" to 'deride and make fun of' IDers/ creationists.

That really supports healthy dialogue, don't it?! It's just suppression in disguise.

Like anything you do supports healthy dialogue. Remember that one post where you tried to attack me for being Christian instead of sticking to the topic and presenting responses to my shredding of your post. What difference do my beliefs matter. We are talking about how you use science to reject the theory of evolution. Except we haven't seen any science or evidence from you. Lots of assertions and made up names for things that sound sciencey, but aren't used by any scientist.

 

[Howard Is]

Darwinian processes have no evident creative power, to explain such scale we observe.... oops, there’s empirical data again!)

Well, according to my ancestors, the sun is a pulse fusion reactor.

When the reaction is ‘on’, the sun heats and...expands. At a certain point this expansion causes sufficient loss of density for the reaction to stop. The sun still shines. As it cools, the density again reaches a value which triggers the next pulse.

That means that there are hot and cold periods re solar radiation, which can alter genetic information.

We are in a relatively cold period now.

This explains why the current observable rate of natural mutation is insufficient to explain periods of sudden explosion in genetic diversity.

I can’t access the ancestor’s files right now because...a bureaucratic and potentially military crisis is happening in near orbit.

So you’ll just have to take my word for it or write me off as a nutter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1) Evolution explains that developed exactly?) It is design.

There, fixed




2) Lasted close on 550 million years, thats over 8 times as long as it has been since dinosaurs lived. So 'explosion' can only be seen as exploding in geological terms.



3) see one



Irreducible complexity, the only people defending it are the descovery institute and that should tell you plenty. It is based on a total and deliberate misunderstanding of genetics, cannot be falsified or even verified, he [behe] refuses to identify his methods to science so his claim can be peer reviewed. Almost as though he is scared of the results. The arguments he does give are circular and 'god dun it' without evidence of god, is not even an argument.

For your edification. Enjoy

I actually like the concept of irreducible complexity. It is novel and interesting. I almost wish it were supported in some sense, just because it is an elegant idea on the face of it. At first blush, it seems like a difficult hurdle to pass. But digging deeper, it falls apart in example as well as conceptually.

One of Behe's often used examples of IR was the spring mousetrap. Consisting of five basic parts, removal of parts would render it useless for catching mice. Behe goes further and claims that the mousetrap would not only no longer function at catching mice, but would have no function if even one part were removed. Ken Miller famously refuted that by removing two parts from the trap and using it as a very functional tie clip.

One of the flaws of creationists understanding of IR, and with IR itself, is that reducing something down can eliminate function in a particular role, but not eliminate other potential functions. They do not understand that the reduced structure could function in some other way for some other system. The bacterial flagellar motor was found in a reduced, but functional state in Yersinia, where it served a secretory role. Work in blood clotting has also revealed reduced clotting systems that refute Behe's example of the irreducible status of the clotting cascade.

What is suggested by irreducible complexity is that no possible iteration of a structure or system could exist where it was reduced and the reduced structure or system would have a function. This represents another problem for the claim. The more complex a system, the more possibilities exist for reduced states. How could all the possibilities ever be examined? They simply cannot. You would never be able to know if you examined them all. It is similar to the claim of immortality and how it would be impossible to know if something were immortal, even if it were. You would have to be immortal in order to have the ability to determine the immortality of something else. Even then, there is no certainty. Either you could be destroyed or the other could at some point along the way, refuting the immortality. It is simply impossible to test.

So irreducible complexity fails as a concept of any utility for having no means to test it. It fails for having all the examples refuted. It simply fails.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is 'shredding'?

<a href="Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?">Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?</a>

It's the only response you gave, with any substance. It refutes nothing!

Lol.

While you sit there gloating for no reason, I would remind you that I asked a number of questions in that shredding and you have yet to answer them. I know gloating is important to you and I do not want to interrupt that special time for you, but do you think you could answer one, some or all of those questions?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, according to my ancestors, the sun is a pulse fusion reactor.

When the reaction is ‘on’, the sun heats and...expands. At a certain point this expansion causes sufficient loss of density for the reaction to stop. The sun still shines. As it cools, the density again reaches a value which triggers the next pulse.

That means that there are hot and cold periods re solar radiation, which can alter genetic information.

We are in a relatively cold period now.

This explains why the current observable rate of natural mutation is insufficient to explain periods of sudden explosion in genetic diversity.

I can’t access the ancestor’s files right now because...a bureaucratic and potentially military crisis is happening in near orbit.

So you’ll just have to take my word for it or write me off as a nutter.

It has as much evidence for it as anything he has posted. Not only that it was more interesting and creative than anything he has posted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm a bit vary. Usually I'm inclined to correct all misinformed and misinforming YEC but Hockeycowboy is a JW and JWs seem to enjoy a protected status here.

I had not noticed this, but have not been paying attention for it. I wouldn't let it stop you from correcting the many errors and flaws they employ to deny science and generally belittle other people.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sayin' it, ain't showin' it.

Which applies just as much to your statements in the OP. Seriously, why don't you do a search first and then address the answers that are readily available?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

‘Hold my hand’? Your attempt to belittle is noted.

Your lack of reference, also noted.

I said I did not think I needed to hold the hand of an expert and lead them through the literature. How is that belittling? I said I didn't think it.

Yet you have offered no evidence to support your position. Obviously, you need something to get you started.

 

[Heyo]

I had not noticed this, but have not been paying attention for it. I wouldn't let it stop you from correcting the many errors and flaws they employ to deny science and generally belittle other people.

I did but, like you, I am ignored. That doesn't bother me, though. I have no illusion to convince someone who's livelihood depends on believing in YEC. But it is important that he can't sow doubt in the scientific methods without opposition. And if I can make him run from my simple questions, his reputation is ruined and his claims become doubtful themselves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did but, like you, I am ignored. That doesn't bother me, though. I have no illusion to convince someone who's livelihood depends on believing in YEC. But it is important that he can't sow doubt in the scientific methods without opposition. And if I can make him run from my simple questions, his reputation is ruined and his claims become doubtful themselves.

I agree. There is likely no reasonable possibility to convince a person whose denial is bound by religious doctrine, economics, politics or other reasons to consider a scientific view, it is important to present the facts and oppose their emotional assertions.

He has shown a propensity at running from questions. It does not serve him very well and I cannot believe he is not aware of the flaw, but is just pretending it is not there and hoping that bluff can carry him through.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1) Purposeful interactive systems. Like between flora and fauna (carbon dioxide, and oxygen reciprocation.) Even down to the clownfish / anemone symbiosis. (Evolution explains that developed, how exactly?) It is design.

2) The Cambrian Explosion. Separate creative events. (Where are the obvious precursors? Surely they’re there...right?) The mammalian Explosion, 66 mya, is similar.

3) The sheer diversity of organic body plans. Those living and extinct, it numbers over a billion species! (Darwinian processes have no evident creative power, to explain such scale we observe.... oops, there’s empirical data again!)

4) Irreducibly complex systems. Like the bacterial flagellar motor (which apparently came after the T3SS), the blood-clotting cascade, and others, suggested by Behe.

(I was told, by @Dan From Smithville , that this has been refuted...but he provided no reference.)

These are just some obstacles to evolutionary mechanisms. But these evidences support an Intelligence behind them. Antony Flew finally recognized this.

The purposeful nature of these examples, indeed of all systems, imply design.

Many organisms attack humans (and other creatures) and make us sick, even kill us.
Was this part of the original design? No.
Adam’s rebellion created many problems. But when we read Isaiah 11:6-9, esp.vs 9, it tells us that peace “will” exist, according to Jehovah’s purpose. Ephesians 1:10 states God’s will is “to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth, through Christ.”

All 4 of your points amount to nothing more or less then arguments from incredulity / ignorance.
So it just reads like a huge fallacy.

Having said that, you don't support "design" by trying to poke holes in evolution.
If you want to support a "design" hypothesis, you're going to actually have to come up with POSITIVE evidence FOR that hypothesis instead of "negative evidence" concerning another idea.

Also, it might help if you actually had a proper design hypothesis to begin with... which you don't.

More evidence will be posted.​

Don't kid yourself with the word "more".
Also, you won't be able to post ANY evidence unless you first come up with a proper hypthesis that makes testable predictions and is actually falsifiable. Otherwise, you have NOTING to support in the first place​

 

[Heyo]

I agree. There is likely no reasonable possibility to convince a person whose denial is bound by religious doctrine, economics, politics or other reasons to consider a scientific view, it is important to present the facts and oppose their emotional assertions.

He has shown a propensity at running from questions. It does not serve him very well and I cannot believe he is not aware of the flaw, but is just pretending it is not there and hoping that bluff can carry him through.

Could it be that JW have extended their proselytising from door-to-door to online, maybe as an option for the physically impaired and/or elderly? That would explain his persistence to post and his laziness to answer the difficult questions. Fulfilling the quota with the least effort?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Typical atheist response. sarcasm, and belittling.

You demand evidence, then when one posts what they think is evidence, you go into the standup routine.

Why not address his points ? You seem to be an expert in evolution, and know where to find all the refutation.

This is the new atheist approach, all based in patronizing. smug superiority.

All this nonsense in the OP has already been addressed a bazillion times over and creationists just keep on repeating it like mantra as if it wasn't addressed at all.

Honestly, people will try only so many times to bring these falsehoods to their attention before it turns into sarcastm and satire.

 

[Audie]

Yeah he did, cowboy. He ripped apart each and every argument you made and you had absolutely no viable response to any of it. It IS sad and pathetic that instead of responding, you ran over here to try again and just hope no one noticed. But then, I notice that you do that quite a lot.

We call it "chasing a squirrel through the treetops".

You'd think the squirrels would have more self-respect.

 

[Audie]

All this nonsense in the OP has already been addressed a bazillion times over and creationists just keep on repeating it like mantra as if it wasn't addressed at all.

Honestly, people will try only so many times to bring these falsehoods to their attention before it turns into sarcastm and satire.

Could quit indulging this one.

 

[ChristineM]

I actually like the concept of irreducible complexity. It is novel and interesting. I almost wish it were supported in some sense, just because it is an elegant idea on the face of it. At first blush, it seems like a difficult hurdle to pass. But digging deeper, it falls apart in example as well as conceptually.

One of Behe's often used examples of IR was the spring mousetrap. Consisting of five basic parts, removal of parts would render it useless for catching mice. Behe goes further and claims that the mousetrap would not only no longer function at catching mice, but would have no function if even one part were removed. Ken Miller famously refuted that by removing two parts from the trap and using it as a very functional tie clip.

One of the flaws of creationists understanding of IR, and with IR itself, is that reducing something down can eliminate function in a particular role, but not eliminate other potential functions. They do not understand that the reduced structure could function in some other way for some other system. The bacterial flagellar motor was found in a reduced, but functional state in Yersinia, where it served a secretory role. Work in blood clotting has also revealed reduced clotting systems that refute Behe's example of the irreducible status of the clotting cascade.

What is suggested by irreducible complexity is that no possible iteration of a structure or system could exist where it was reduced and the reduced structure or system would have a function. This represents another problem for the claim. The more complex a system, the more possibilities exist for reduced states. How could all the possibilities ever be examined? They simply cannot. You would never be able to know if you examined them all. It is similar to the claim of immortality and how it would be impossible to know if something were immortal, even if it were. You would have to be immortal in order to have the ability to determine the immortality of something else. Even then, there is no certainty. Either you could be destroyed or the other could at some point along the way, refuting the immortality. It is simply impossible to test.

So irreducible complexity fails as a concept of any utility for having no means to test it. It fails for having all the examples refuted. It simply fails.

Like it? Not me, it reeks of "its a guess, nothing to support the guess but i am going to hype it in favour of supported evidence because god"

I really have no time for deliberate dishonesty.

 

[shmogie]

All this nonsense in the OP has already been addressed a bazillion times over and creationists just keep on repeating it like mantra as if it wasn't addressed at all.

Honestly, people will try only so many times to bring these falsehoods to their attention before it turns into sarcastm and satire.

Bull

 

[shmogie]

Given that I am not an atheist, my responses must not fall under the umbrella of your post. Actually, @Hockeycowboy is claiming to provide evidence. But all he has provided is a list of assertions and no evidence. However, I did address them when he posted the exact same thing on another thread. Others have addressed them as well.

Who are you talking to, by the way?

I don't know about the atheists here, but I got tired of the creationist patronizing, smug, arrogant superiority a long time ago. I just expect it now as part of their routine.

So, why not say his assertions aren´t evidence and write another sentence saying why you believe this.

Simple, civil, polite

 

[Salvador]

Evolution and directed panspermia by an extraterrestrial intelligent designer are not necessarily mutually exclusive of one another.

Evolution is simply significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.

ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595.

There is indeed a mark of extraterrestrial intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

“There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

"The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN 037). This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero's equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037*3=111 and 1+1+1=3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037*6 =222 and 2+2+2=6, 037*9=333 and 3+3+3 =9, 037*4=444 and 4+4+4=12, 037*15=555 and 5+5+5=15, 037*18=666 and 6+6+6=18, 037*21=777 and 7+7+7 =21. 037*24 =888 and 8+8+8=24, 037*27=999 and 9+9+9=27.)"

"There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax)."

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov.Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

This informational and artificial characteristic of the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code demonstrates intelligent extraterrestrial design.

This intelligent signal transmitted via genetic code that has been documented and confirmed by scientists researching the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code is prima facie evidence for an intelligent extraterrestrial designer.

The authors who discovered this mark of intelligence embedded in our genetic code show that "the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information."

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov.Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

Exactly who/what left its/their mark in our genetic coding might not ever get determined by anybody presently bound to Earth. The search for our cosmic relatives and cosmic common ancestor likely then needs to be done with advanced space exploration. I'd like to urge you then to please advise our Senate, Congress and President to expand our tax-payer funded resources for advance space exploration.