Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[gnostic]

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.”

More evidence will be posted.

Seriously, Hockeycowboy. You have no idea about Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe’s book - Darwin’s Black Box (1996).

Darwin’s Black Box was meant to explain Irreducible Complexity to general readers.

You talk of evidences, but Behe admitted in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District bench trial (2005), that he has no evidence whatsoever, during cross-examined:

[Mr Rothschild] Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

[Michael Behe] A. No, I argued for it in my book.

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?

A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

Source: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1​

That’s what Behe admitted to: “No new data or original research”, which means he has no evidence to present in his book and for his Irreducible Complexity.

All, Behe has done is presented some explanations with no data, and therefore no evidence.

How can YOU, hockeycowboy, present evidence for Irreducible Complexity, when Behe offers none?

Data, in scientific research, particularly in hypothesis or scientific theory, are any details about the evidence discovered or from test results of the experiments performed. You would record the quantities or measurements, record the observation; these are data, that Rothschild was talking, and Behe admitted he has no new data in his book.

These are what you would use as data, that would verify/valid the hypothesis or refute/debunk the hypothesis. But Behe’s book offered none, except his explanation.

An explanation with evidence and accompanying data, is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion or conjecture

Both Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and his book Darwin’s Black Box are unfalsifiable and untested, and very apparently, (IC) never been peer reviewed.

If Behe has no evidence for IC, so I highly doubt that you would have such evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Simple, civil, polite

I did say his assertions aren't evidence. His assertions are old news that have been blasted in the scientific literature and popular media.

Why does everyone else have to cow tow and bend to creationist arrogance. Why can't they be civil?

 

[shmogie]

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.

Interesting. As a creationist, I have been pointing out, in much less detail, the uniqueness and impossibility of the information encoded in DNA to have come about by natural processes.

The obvious explanation is that the information was imparted by God. Believe in little green men from outer space as the source if you choose.

We share many similarities with chimps. We share a large proportion of DNA with Chimps. Does that mean the similarities exist because we evolved from apes ?

If I am going to build a funny car for drag racing, I could begin with the frame of a Ford, because it is the strongest. The fiberglass body I choose may be a replica of a 55 Chevy, because I love the style.

My engine might be a Mopar 426 Hemi, with an after market full race cam, and Hooker headers. I might choose a Paxton supercharger ( old school). I might have a Borg Warner transmission, with the rest of the running gear from Ford.

Is the Car a Ford, Chevy, or dodge ?

No, it is Shmogies funny car.

Shared genes and whatever else does not necessarily mean we evolved from lesser primates. It very well could mean we share components of a design.

Shared parts don´t make my car a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge, it is unique as I designed it.

Shared whatevers don´t make us evolved monkeys, it makes us uniquely designed humans.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This thread has already degraded into a pissing contest. Can we agree to just make assertions, provide supporting commentary, but just let people have their own opinions?

I am not sure how I can agree to let people have their opinions, when I have no control over that.

I have seen the assertions, but I have not seen any supporting commentary or evidence regarding those assertions. They have simply been declared as if they are a universal truth, but are really just repetition of points long established to be religious belief with no scientific validity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interesting. As a creationist, I have been pointing out, in much less detail, the uniqueness and impossibility of the information encoded in DNA to have come about by natural processes.

The obvious explanation is that the information was imparted by God. Believe in little green men from outer space as the source if you choose.

We share many similarities with chimps. We share a large proportion of DNA with Chimps. Does that mean the similarities exist because we evolved from apes ?

If I am going to build a funny car for drag racing, I could begin with the frame of a Ford, because it is the strongest. The fiberglass body I choose may be a replica of a 55 Chevy, because I love the style.

My engine might be a Mopar 426 Hemi, with an after market full race cam, and Hooker headers. I might choose a Paxton supercharger ( old school). I might have a Borg Warner transmission, with the rest of the running gear from Ford.

Is the Car a Ford, Chevy, or dodge ?

No, it is Shmogies funny car.

Shared genes and whatever else does not necessarily mean we evolved from lesser primates. It very well could mean we share components of a design.

Shared parts don´t make my car a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge, it is unique as I designed it.

Shared whatevers don´t make us evolved monkeys, it makes us uniquely designed humans.

Interesting. In an established system, you select from the variation of parts that you have to work with to reproduce your car. If this car is successful it may become fixed in automotive circles and others would produce it, giving your body plan greater fitness.

I am pretty sure they call that evolution.

All those manufacturers are making cars that are derived from the same basic origin, whose plans are constrained by the laws of physics, thus many of the similarities. Since cars do not reproduce and many of the choices lay in human caprice, there is artificial selection that also has constraints and lends to further similarity.

That cars have a known designer, it does not follow that life, that at times may look designed, has a designer. To consider it so, either the existence of the designer would need to be established or design would need to be established and for life, neither of those has happened.

I would have thought that after all this time, it would be clear that the watchmaker argument is not valid.

 

[gnostic]

We share many similarities with chimps. We share a large proportion of DNA with Chimps. Does that mean the similarities exist because we evolved from apes ?

What you don’t seem to understand is that we are apes.

Apes, or more precisely, great apes include different numbers of families and respective genera under a family.

We are also mammals. You don’t seem to have problems with that, do you?

We are also tetrapods - having four limbs - just like other mammals, as well as reptiles, birds, and yes, even dinosaurs. And all of these groups have vertebrae as well.

The great apes or Hominidae shared some common physical traits, just as mammals shared common traits, as do all tetrapods, and so on.

 

[Jose Fly]

Typical atheist response. sarcasm, and belittling.

First of all, why are you framing this as an atheistic issue?

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.

I did address his points, and all @Hockeycowboy did was respond with a very short sarcastic remark and "lol".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What you don’t seem to understand is that we are apes.

Apes, or more precisely, great apes include different numbers of families and respective genera under a family.

We are also mammals. You don’t seem to have problems with that, do you?

We are also tetrapods - having four limbs - just like other mammals, as well as reptiles, birds, and yes, even dinosaurs. And all of these groups have vertebrae as well.

The great apes or Hominidae shared some common physical traits, just as mammals shared common traits, as do all tetrapods, and so on.

It is almost as if selection in nature took the basic parts that were available to work with and the result was a nested hierarchy of organisms that have a common origin comprised of, often and varying, homologous structures.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, it's sort of easy to figure out, but I realize that you're not inclined toward a spiritual / Biblical understanding.... you and I and everyone here will possibly die. That wasn't part of Jehovah's original design, either.

So the validity of your argument is contingent upon one having a "Biblical understanding"? Then why post it here, if it's only going to make sense to your fellow believers? Shouldn't it be in the inter-faith discussion forum?

Be that as it may, design is evident everywhere...including in nature, in the Laws that control it, and in the interaction between them.

As you noted, just because you say it's so, doesn't mean it is so.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes. That is his entire argument based on all his expertise that he is really, really, really confident is a greater expertise than anyone actually trained in and working in science.

And don't forget that his arguments only make sense to those who share his "Biblical understanding".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First of all, why are you framing this as an atheistic issue?


I did address his points, and all @Hockeycowboy did was respond with a very short sarcastic remark and "lol".

Like you, I thought we were discussing science. When did that become atheism? Given that it was started by people that were theists, and is used and practiced by people of every stripe, I am wondering why atheists are getting all the credit.

It is amusing that one of the driving points of all of this has been the claim that, at least some, theists have used only science and evidence to reject the theory of evolution. Yet the only evidence I have seen are of ideological denial.

The take home message that I have gotten from all of this is that the claim is false and ideology and doctrine are the main reasons used to reject science. Scientific arguments and evidence have nothing to do with it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And don't forget that his arguments only make sense to those who share his "Biblical understanding".

Indeed. And given that his version of understanding is not established as the "truth" anymore than my version or the thousands of other versions, his argument attains new levels of the same weakness. Lack of evidence and poor reasoning.

 

[Jose Fly]

Like you, I thought we were discussing science. When did that become atheism? Given that it was started by people that were theists, and is used and practiced by people of every stripe, I am wondering why atheists are getting all the credit.

It's almost like the fundamentalists are going out of their way to cede the sciences to atheists.

It is amusing that one of the driving points of all of this has been the claim that, at least some, theists have used only science and evidence to reject the theory of evolution. Yet the only evidence I have seen are of ideological denial.

Gotta have that "Biblical understanding"!

The take home message that I have gotten from all of this is that the claim is false and ideology and doctrine are the main reasons used to reject science. Scientific arguments and evidence have nothing to do with it.

Yup. As the Witnesses own literature states, if evolution is true then life has no meaning or purpose. It's really no deeper than that. All the claims about evidence and science are just bluster and window dressing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's almost like the fundamentalists are going out of their way to cede the sciences to atheists.


Gotta have that "Biblical understanding"!


Yup. As the Witnesses own literature states, if evolution is true then life has no meaning or purpose. It's really no deeper than that. All the claims about evidence and science are just bluster and window dressing.

Yet that bluster and window dressing has become the model that they must emulate in order to assuage their own fears.

Isn't it ironic that the Intelligent Design movement that was purposefully dressed in science togs to give creationism a false sense of legitimacy and, ultimately, deny science, is actually promoting science as the premiere methodology to explore and learn about the world with. If science isn't getting it right, why turn to it for support of beliefs?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yet that bluster and window dressing has become the model that they must emulate in order to assuage their own fears.

Isn't it ironic that the Intelligent Design movement that was purposefully dressed in science togs to give creationism a false sense of legitimacy and, ultimately, deny science, is actually promoting science as the premiere methodology to explore and learn about the world with. If science isn't getting it right, why turn to it for support of beliefs?

Good point. It brings to light the inherent contradiction in their arguments. On one hand they argue that science is merely the "works of fallible men" and is generally corrupted, but then what do they cite to show that their beliefs are valid? Science!

Gee, it's almost like they just make up ad hoc arguments on the fly, without a single thought as to whether they're internally consistent. (feeling rather sarcastic today)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good point. It brings to light the inherent contradiction in their arguments. On one hand they argue that science is merely the "works of fallible men" and is generally corrupted, but then what do they cite to show that their beliefs are valid? Science!

Gee, it's almost like they just make up ad hoc arguments on the fly, without a single thought as to whether they're internally consistent. (feeling rather sarcastic today)

A couple of hundred years ago, some theologians set out to find and examine the evidence to verify the stories of Genesis. They ended up determining that the evidence did not support a literal Genesis and their efforts lead to founding new branches of science.

Now a new group has put their camp right in the middle of science. I wonder how long it will be, before the evidence overtakes their emotional desire? They have already lost in the courts. Who knows, they may end up planting the seeds to a new way to use science or even a new branch.

 

[tas8831]

More evidence will be posted.

Yeah, sure..

Anyway, I set up this thread:

adjustments of science and the issue of creationism/JW

specifically for you and I to discuss your JW science essays and your CNS article on 'the Third Way' meeting that you felt was important. Does this mean that you concede?

 

[tas8831]

You might find this video interesting in terms of reductionism from molecular biology not panning out:

Sheldrake and Lipton? A regular meeting of the minds. Drug-addled, fringe minds, to be sure.

Weird - where is their video discussing their wacky notions not panning out? I have especially liked seeing Sheldrake trying to rescue his moronic 'pet ESP' claims...

 

[tas8831]

More?

You mean you have not suddenly become impressed? He reached the magical 7x re-posting the same slogans. I thought it was a rule in creationdom that if you assert something 7 times it automatically becomes true.... what with their trust in numerology and all...

 

[tas8831]

‘Your lack of reference, also noted.

You think a stylized video is a reference?

Well, at least it wasn't an essay by 2 creationists on a site considered unreliable due to spreading propaganda and multiple failed fact checks. Bias and all that...