The flaws in Intelligent design

[Audie]

Just as theres such a thing as physical blindness, theres also such a thing as intellectual blindness.

Good. Now look at yourself.

 

[Jollybear]

What "code of information"?



https://phys.org/news/2018-04-genetic-mutations-common-thought.html

That article itself even calls the DNA a code of information.

Yea, it talks of mutations that happen, some neutral, some harmful, but, how did DNA and its code arive in the first place?

 

[Audie]

A lack of faith in God IS an active faith in an unintelligent forces having created the universe.

This is a fact whether you admit it or not.

You really should learn what equivocation is and try to
avoid it. It confuses you, and the rest of us roll our eyes at it.

 

[Jollybear]

DNA is your evidence? Seriously? DNA shows that an intelligent designer is not necessary since it regulates itself and becomes more complex with new arrangements and increased variation. Exactly what is predicted in evolution. If DNA is you only evidence then there is no more argument for intelligent design.

Is DNA a code of instructions or not?

From everything we know of concerning where instructiins come, it comes from intelligence. You have no KNOWN examples where information comes from none intelligence.

Where did the information come from?

 

[Polymath257]

Is DNA a code of instructions or not?

From everything we know of concerning where instructiins come, it comes from intelligence. You have no KNOWN examples where information comes from none intelligence.

Where did the information come from?

Information is a property of every causal reaction. If A causes B, then the existence of B is information that A happened.

Information is easy to produce and is produced all the time without any intelligent intervention. The only question is whether the type of information seen in DNA can be obtained without intelligent control.

Now, once there is a single replicator, the action of mutation and selection will naturally increase the complexity and thereby the amount of information. So the real question is how the first replicator came about and how much information that requires.

And we have at least some idea about that. We know of self-replicating RNA strands. Some of these are short enough that their natural formation isn't too unlikely.

So, yes, it is possible that self-replicating RNA came about through natural processes. After that, there would be a natural increase in information due to mutation and selection. This would have been transferred to DNA at some point, allowing for more rapid increase of information.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Show you? You just showed me the instructions. Its not my fault i nor you can read or speak DNA language.

Can you read and speak ancient greek? Just because you cant dont mean its not a language.

Boy that is some logic. You keep referring to it as a code, yet you clearly have no idea what that means.

We can decipher it. How do you think that scientists are able to use it? It is not like they get their information telepathically from the ghost of Bigfoot.

The encoding in DNA is not a language. You have a lot of wild ideas from out in left field that you should think through before you commit them to print.

 

[Audie]

Information is a property of every causal reaction. If A causes B, then the existence of B is information that A happened.

Information is easy to produce and is produced all the time without any intelligent intervention. The only question is whether the type of information seen in DNA can be obtained without intelligent control.

Now, once there is a single replicator, the action of mutation and selection will naturally increase the complexity and thereby the amount of information. So the real question is how the first replicator came about and how much information that requires.

And we have at least some idea about that. We know of self-replicating RNA strands. Some of these are short enough that their natural formation isn't too unlikely.

So, yes, it is possible that self-replicating RNA came about through natural processes. After that, there would be a natural increase in information due to mutation and selection. This would have been transferred to DNA at some point, allowing for more rapid increase of information.

"Code" and "information" are fav. words for creationists to equivocate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not a gotcha. I'm trying to get you think about it.

I am a scientist. I have thought about it. I continue to think about it.

if you can ponder that God created the universe, then you could naturally accept the notion that God can create whatever form of life he wants for whatever specialized existence.

That is not the question. I can ponder that. I can conceive it. But I cannot demonstrate it. There is no evidence that distinctly points to the presence or action of God that can be objectively viewed by all. There is no inference that exists either. All the inference that I have reviewed is really just a claim of inference and often ends up being an argument from incredulity, ignorance or both.

So a creature might fit neatly into a category of creatures or it might not.

I am not sure what you mean here. Classification is a human construct based on evidence. The evidence for Archaeopteryx is the presence of ancestral characters that are distinctly theropod along with the presence of derived characters that are distinctly avian. You cannot argue the existence of those characters in a single species away.

If you new much about taxonomy, you would understand better, but I cannot teach it to you in a few messages on a forum. All I can say is organisms are included in a taxon based on evidence. The inclusion in any taxa does not prohibit the fact that an organism can have transitional features. It is a transition on a lineage after all. The best analogy is taking photos of a single person on a regular basis from birth to old age. At what point in the photos is the person toddler? When are they an adolescent? At what point do the photos show them as old? They are each photos of the person and the person in transition. You can break it up into age ranges, but where you place each photo is an hypothesis that you would have to argue based on the evidence. No matter how you grouped them, the photos would still show transition.

Are you postulating that God purposefully created false leads to confuse us? I have seen that done before, but it goes against my belief in God as well as most believers view of God.

 

[Jollybear]

Boy that is some logic. You keep referring to it as a code, yet you clearly have no idea what that means.

Its not my fault the human genome projects own website calls DNA a code of instructions, is it? I gause code and instructions MEAN NO code and no instructions, right?

We can decipher it. How do you think that scientists are able to use it? It is not like they get their information telepathically from the ghost of Bigfoot.

Oh my gosh. I didnt say they get it telepathically. If they can decipher it, well good. But, we can decipher human language too, ancient or modern.

The encoding in DNA is not a language. You have a lot of wild ideas from out in left field that you should think through before you commit them to print.

All you did was assert. Tell me how its not a language?

Francis callins who was the leader of the human genome project, he calls it a language. He actually calls it "the language of God".

 

[dianaiad]

I have prayed to God, God didn't answer.
I ask God to reveal itself, God remains hidden. Therefore I'm an Atheist.

Why does God hide from those that seek it? If God reveal itself, I would no longer be an Atheist.

I don't know.

I do have to ask what level of 'reveal' you are asking for. I have asked atheists many times if having God appear personally to them would be sufficient, and the answer is almost always 'no. it would not,' for some reason or other, generally having to do with hallucinations.

When I repeated...no, not a hallucination, but God Himself, appearing to you....the answer was still no. the reasoning ended up being that SINCE there is no God THEN He cannot appear to prove Himself, THEREFORE any appearance by God would have to be explained away in some other way.

Very circular.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know.

I do have to ask what level of 'reveal' you are asking for. I have asked atheists many times if having God appear personally to them would be sufficient, and the answer is almost always 'no. it would not,' for some reason or other, generally having to do with hallucinations.

When I repeated...no, not a hallucination, but God Himself, appearing to you....the answer was still no. the reasoning ended up being that SINCE there is no God THEN He cannot appear to prove Himself, THEREFORE any appearance by God would have to be explained away in some other way.

Very circular.

I am not sure what it would take to convince me that a God exists. What theists don't seem to understand is that if their personal version of God existed he would know what it would take to convince me.

When you finish with a strawman argument it puts doubts on your earlier claims

 

[dianaiad]

That is an unjustified assumption. And if there was a creator we should be able to judge him by his work. At best we have a rather incompetent designer since evolution followed a path that indicates it worked on "good enough". An unjustified assumption results in irrational beliefs.

So...your objection to the whole idea of a Designer is that you think you could do a better job? Or at least, that you disapprove of the way the universe works? I'm sorry, but that's a bit...arrogant...don't you think?

If someone believes in something that belief should be based upon reliable evidence.

Since when do you get to decide what evidence someone ELSE uses to base belief upon?

Change the word "Creator" to "Pixies" in your above sentence and you should be able to understand.

Creator, pixies, bright pink unicorns with gold horns and wings...whatever. The universe is the same whatever, and is available for scientific study, whatever.

No, I don't. Why did you assume that? I lack a belief in a creator, that is not the same as assuming that One does not exist.

If you did not assume that one does not exist, you wouldn't be so insistent that those who do believe one exists have no business being scientists.

No, I am demanding that if someone uses terms in an argument that they need to be defined. You keep trying to use the word"design" but cannot define it. No one uses the term "event horizon" when discussing plate tectonics. That is a failed analogy.

That's correct. Nobody does, because 'event horizon' belongs to an entirely different field than does 'plate tectonics.' So does 'God created the universe," and the study of the processes of the universe.

"Universe" may equal 'design" in the eyes of a believer in ID...but that doesn't change the way one investigates the processes of that universe. Calling it a 'design' doesn't change it.

Now if I were to claim that some anomaly wias 'this way' because "God intended it to be that way," I could see your objection. However, THESE are not the folks I'm talking about. you seem to be telling us that a scientist MUST NOT believe in a deity if s/he is going to study any part of the universe. That's what I am objecting to.

An astrophysicist who writes a paper on the properties of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy may believe in a creator deity, but he's not going to mention that in his/her paper. You, however, seem to be telling us that his mere belief is enough to disqualify him/her from studying or publishing the results.

THAT is what I am objecting to here.

I could as easily, and for pretty much the same total lack of logic, insist that any scientist who does NOT believe in a creator deity has no business publishing or studying the universe, even though those studies do not take a possible Creator into account, and his/her faith (or lack of it) have nothing to do with those studies.

Same/same....

 

[dianaiad]

I am not sure what it would take to convince me that a God exists. What theists don't seem to understand is that if their personal version of God existed he would know what it would take to convince me.[/qipte]

Yes. I got that a lot, as well. (shrug) What that means, basically, is that you have made your mind up and nothing would convince you.

When you finish with a strawman argument it puts doubts on your earlier claims

You have a very odd definition of 'strawman.' I was, after all, replying to someone who brought up the idea of what it would take to convince him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So...your objection to the whole idea of a Designer is that you think you could do a better job? Or at least, that you disapprove of the way the universe works? I'm sorry, but that's a bit...arrogant...don't you think?

No, the objection to a designer is that there is no reliable evidence for one. That is all. Once again substitute Pixies for designer.

Since when do you get to decide what evidence someone ELSE uses to base belief upon?

When they cannot provide any after being asked countless time that strongly implies that they do not have any reliable evidence

Creator, pixies, bright pink unicorns with gold horns and wings...whatever. The universe is the same whatever, and is available for scientific study, whatever.

Yes, it is. And there is no evidence of any of those.

If you did not assume that one does not exist, you wouldn't be so insistent that those who do believe one exists have no business being scientists.

That is very poor reasoning on your part. I am merely asking people to use the same rational thought processes that they use for other parts of their lives.

That's correct. Nobody does, because 'event horizon' belongs to an entirely different field than does 'plate tectonics.' So does 'God created the universe," and the study of the processes of the universe.

That does not work. You are now using an equivocation fallacy. You claim creator and design. Attempts to sneak God in the back door.

"Universe" may equal 'design" in the eyes of a believer in ID...but that doesn't change the way one investigates the processes of that universe. Calling it a 'design' doesn't change it.

Then drop the abused term.

Now if I were to claim that some anomaly wias 'this way' because "God intended it to be that way," I could see your objection. However, THESE are not the folks I'm talking about. you seem to be telling us that a scientist MUST NOT believe in a deity if s/he is going to study any part of the universe. That's what I am objecting to.

Again, not what I claim, unless you agree that there is no evidence for a god. The rational approach is to withhold belief in anything until one has sufficient evidence.

An astrophysicist who writes a paper on the properties of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy may believe in a creator deity, but he's not going to mention that in his/her paper. You, however, seem to be telling us that his mere belief is enough to disqualify him/her from studying or publishing the results.

THAT is what I am objecting to here.

That is because he would realize that belief is not supported by evidence.

I could as easily, and for pretty much the same total lack of logic, insist that any scientist who does NOT believe in a creator deity has no business publishing or studying the universe, even though those studies do not take a possible Creator into account, and his/her faith (or lack of it) have nothing to do with those studies.

Same/same....

No, you would be inconsistent in your logic if you made that claim. And when used strawman arguments it indicates he knows that he is losing. Once again,rational thought involves not believing something without sufficient reliable evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

can you fix your quotes so I can respond properly. Please note your first claim is once again a strawman.

 

[Neuropteron]

[QUOTE="Wild Fox, post: 5982947, member: 62944"
The two flaws that I see in the argument

1. .... Just because something is complex does not mean it has to be made by an intelligent designer.....
.[/QUOTE]

If that was true why do some astronomer spend their time looking for patterns of sound or lights to confirm their belief that extraterrestial life exists ?
Could not any attempt to contact us simply be construed as a random pattern, no matter how complex ?

Who of us on traveling through a barren desert upon finding a shack asks himself: I wonder if this shack just appeared out of pure chance or did someone build it ?

Believing that complex structures just appear without a designer -simply put - flies in the face of true science, since there is not a single shred of evidence to support it.

This view might be considered simplistic, but sometime the truth is just not that complicated.

(tHebrew 3:4) Of course every house is consructed ty someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that was true why do some astronomer spend their time looking for patterns of sound or lights to confirm their belief that extraterrestial life exists ?
Could not any attempt to contact us simply be construed as a random pattern, no matter how complex ?

Who of us on traveling through a barren desert upon finding a shack asks himself: I wonder if this shack just appeared out of pure chance or did someone build it ?

Believing that complex structures just appear without a designer -simply put - flies in the face of true science, since there is not a single shred of evidence to support it.

This view might be considered simplistic, but sometime the truth is just not that complicated.

(tHebrew 3:4) Of course every house is consructed ty someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

Bad comparison. We recognize design in houses because we know how to make houses. A d as to new structures in life all of the evidence supports evolution. Why believe in a designer?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Okay. I'll post three papers that describe the same thing from different perspectives.

The first is the original paper from 1950 describing the observed evolution of a new species of Tragopogon, a plant found in the palouse region of E. Washington and N. Idaho.

Natural Hybridization and Amphiploidy in the Genus Tragopogon on JSTOR

The next two papers look at the genetic details behind the speciation.

Recent and recurrent polyploidy in Tragopogon (Asteraceae): cytogenetic, genomic and genetic comparisons

Extensive chromosomal variation in a recently formed natural allopolyploid species, Tragopogon miscellus (Asteraceae)

The key takeaway is that this is a repeatedly documented and well studied example of the evolution of a new species that, due to chromosomal differences, is completely reproductively isolated from its parent species, and is able to breed and persist on its own.

I have read the material in the links you provided. I see that it deals with the natural hybridization of plants in the Tragopogon genus with a particular interest in the varying ploidy in generations of offspring, etc. I have no argument at all against where this research goes, including any cases where a new taxon may be established through the process of natural hybridization.

I agree that once a natural hybrid becomes genetically stable (usually after multiple generations) and reproduces in uniform populations, it meets the standard by definition for species status. So yes, it is a new species. Ya got me there.

I have not been arguing against things like this, and in fact, had not considered it as a form of evolution in my anti-evolution enthusiasm. I guess we could say it is. I'll concede on that.

Thanks for the info

 

[Forever_Catholic]

There is no evidence that distinctly points to the presence or action of God that can be objectively viewed by all.

I wouldn't have thought there was anything unusual about this statement in this forum until I saw at the bottom of your post that you believe in God. I was not aware of that until now. If you believe in God, why do you need evidence? if He said He created everything, why don't you believe that?

I am not sure what you mean here.

We were talking about birds, reptiles and fish. What else would I have meant by "category of creatures" other than something general like that. Probably doesn't call for an evaluation of my knowledge about taxonomy.

Are you postulating that God purposefully created false leads to confuse us?

Not at all. My opinion is that God designed archaeopteryx with characteristics suited for survival in its given environment during its time on earth. The sheepshead fish has teeth that look remarkably similar to human teeth. Very odd looking, but It has nothing to do with non-sheepshead fish ancestry or a link to humans. It's all about cracking open the clams, oysters, crabs, and such that make up its diet.

The evidence for Archaeopteryx is the presence of ancestral characters that are distinctly theropod along with the presence of derived characters that are distinctly avian. You cannot argue the existence of those characters in a single species away.

"Ancestral characters," as if the ancestry in knowable. "A single species away" -- it still comes down to speculation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wouldn't have thought there was anything unusual about this statement in this forum until I saw at the bottom of your post that you believe in God. I was not aware of that until now. If you believe in God, why do you need evidence? if He said He created everything, why don't you believe that?

Correction,the Bible says that. One does not have to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian, or even a Catholic.

We were talking about birds, reptiles and fish. What else would I have meant by "category of creatures" other than something general like that. Probably doesn't call for an evaluation of my knowledge about taxonomy.


Not at all. My opinion is that God designed archaeopteryx with characteristics suited for survival in its given environment during its time on earth. The sheepshead fish has teeth that look remarkably similar to human teeth. Very odd looking, but It has nothing to do with non-sheepshead fish ancestry or a link to humans. It's all about cracking open the clams, oysters, crabs, and such that make up its diet.

Nothing to see there except wild hand waving.

"Ancestral characters," as if the ancestry in knowable. "A single species away" -- it still comes down to speculation.

And here you make a claim that you have to support . If you want to claim speculation the burden of proof is upon you.