Intelligent Design

[bob b]

No, I really don't know if there is a God or not. For me, the jury is still out.

Do you disagree that there are random mutations?
Do you disagree that natural selection takes place?

We already know that organisms change as a result of their environment. Look at bacterial resistence for an example. If bacteria can change how they react to a given antibiotic in just a few years, what could they do in a few billion?

What is DNA? Is it alive? Isn't is just a chain of chemicals? And we know that under the right conditions chemicals can do some amazing things. Look at buckyballs for an example.

Is evolution the way we got here? I believe so but I don't know for sure. It is the best answer we have to date. But saying "I don't know but I'll keep looking" is along way from "I just can't see that happening, it must have been God, the end."

Those who believe in creation or ID have such small minds. That is not to say that they are stupid. On the contrary, many are very intelligent. They have small minds because they refuse to accept that which doesn't fit into their world view. I think Quantum Mechanics is some of the weirdest stuff I've ever heard of, but that doesn't mean that I'm ready to reject it.

Don't reject evolution because you can't imagine how it could ever have happened. Maybe it's your imagination that's the problem, not evolution.

Don't single me out. Can anybody in the world imagine how it could have happened? I haven't heard of any scientific theories to explain it, have you?

After 50 or more years of knowing about DNA, does anyone have any kind of scientific theory about how a "coding system" like DNA could arise without the aid of intelligence?

BTW, you must have missed the discussions about antibiotic resistence in bacteria or you wouldn't have tried to use that as an example of the kind of change that would support "microbes to man" evolution.

And "random mutations" is a dead horse. People are now beginning to switch to "non-random" mutations.

 

[noguru]

Don't single me out. Can anybody in the world imagine how it could have happened? I haven't heard of any scientific theories to explain it, have you?

After 50 or more years of knowing about DNA, does anyone have any kind of scientific theory about how a "coding system" like DNA could arise without the aid of intelligence?

There is still a lot of mystery surrounding this area of the material sciences. But there is also quite a bit known about how it could not have happened. And this is one of the ways science works - through deduction.

Origin of life 101

One hypothesis

Here is another site that has some information.

Abiogenesis

This is a very active area of research. Are you saying that we should abandon inquiry into this area?

BTW, you must have missed the discussions about antibiotic resistence in bacteria or you wouldn't have tried to use that as an example of the kind of change that would support "microbes to man" evolution.

Bob, could you please tell us how your discussion might have stopped this poster from using this example?

And "random mutations" is a dead horse. People are now beginning to switch to "non-random" mutations.

Of course Bob is referring to the new book by Kirschner and Gerhardt called "The Plausibility of Life". The authors strongly suspect that the DNA space that is used for mutation is often co-opted for new uses, when its previous use is eliminated. They believe this is a type of non-random mutation. Bob is either misrepesenting the research or misinterpreting its implications. It seems he often grasps onto these straws like a desperate drowning man. I think Bob is being disingenous by trying to make you believe that these ressearchers and the ideas they propose actually support his model of origins. With a more comprehensive look at these sources it becomes obvious that Bob is either mistaken or deceitful. Here is a link to a site about Kirscher.

Non-random mutation

Bob brought this to my attention in another thread, believing that it supported his model of origins. After I carefully analysed what was being proposed by these authors, it seemed to support what I had previously suspected about how DNA works in regard to the genotype.

 

[Frank Ernest]

ID is argument from ignorance

:darwinsm: By that standard, so is atheism.

 

[aharvey]

Here's the latest "mystery".



Sounds like a safe assumption. Considering how long ago this was presumed to happen there is not much chance anyone could ever be able show it to be wrong.

And according to the title, Lateral gene transfer of a dermonecrotic toxin between spiders and bacteria this case is just about ready to be added to the "mountain of evidence" supporting evolutionary theory.

From the information you've provided, I'm disappointed that they would give the paper that particular title, since in the press release one of the authors makes the statement (that you bolded) that this result raises that possibility. I'd have to read the paper itself to see if they've taken it any farther than that, but if not, then their title overstates their case.

In any other field of science, this wouldn't matter, since the title is meant only to attract the attention of busy colleagues long enough to get them to read the abstract, which then will hopefully encourage them to read the rest of the paper. See, in science, the quality of one's work is not judged by titles and press releases.

But, these days, whenever evolution is involved, one must be aware that there is an entire army of folks scanning titles and press releases for a completely different purpose, and who have no intention of actually reading the paper itself. Know what I mean?

 

[bob b]

There is still a lot of mystery surrounding this area of the material sciences. But there is also quite a bit known about how it could not have happened.

:rotfl: Emphasis added

This is a very active area of research. Are you saying that we should abandon inquiry into this area?

Be my guest. Use your own money though. The people's money would be better spent finding new energy sources.

Bob, could you please tell us how your discussion might have stopped this poster from using this example?

I don't flatter myself that anything I would say would affect those addicted to "random mutations plus natural selection". But if one were to read the latest about what is being discovered in these areas, it might cause one to hesitate to use the example to support macroevolution. I fully support research into how current lifeforms function, because it will probably benefit medicine as well as helping to combat the "random mutations plus natural selection" myth.

Of course Bob is referring to the new book by Kirschner and Gerhardt called "The Plausibility of Life". The authors strongly suspect that the DNA space that is used for mutation is often co-opted for new uses, when its previous use is eliminated. They believe this is a type of non-random mutation. Bob is either misrepesenting the research or misinterpreting its implications.

We shall see.

It seems he often grasps onto these straws like a desperate drowning man. I think Bob is being disingenous by trying to make you believe that these ressearchers and the ideas they propose actually support his model of origins. With a more comprehensive look at these sources it becomes obvious that Bob is either mistaken or deceitful.

Probably wicked too, a la Dawkins.

Bob brought this to my attention in another thread, believing that it supported his model of origins. After I carefully analysed what was being proposed by these authors, it seemed to support what I had previously suspected about how DNA works in regard to the genotype.

You have it somewhat garbled. I don't look at these things as providing any direct support for a "multiple origins" concept ("model" is an exaggeration), but they do conflict with the concept of "random mutations".

If mutations were truly "random", as many famous evolutionists have traditionally argued, then the discovery of DNA, and with it the huge number of potential changes in the "combinatorial search realm" would imply that antibiotic resistence and other related bacterial response phenomena would not be as repeatable or as rapidly acting as they turn out to be.

 

[Unbeliever]

Here's the latest "mystery".

Evolution Mystery: Spider Venom And Bacteria Share Same Toxin
It's a case of evolutionary detective work. Biology researchers at Lewis & Clark College and the University of Arizona have found evidence for an ancient transfer of a toxin between ancestors of two very dissimilar organisms--spiders and a bacterium. But the mystery remains as how the toxin passed between the two organisms. Their research is published this month in the journal Bioinformatics, 22(3): 264-268, in an article titled "Lateral gene transfer of a dermonecrotic toxin between spiders and bacteria."

"We are piecing together an historical puzzle with evidence from living descendants of an ancient ancestor," said Greta Binford, assistant professor of biology at Lewis & Clark. Her coresearcher on the project is Matthew Cordes, assistant professor of biochemistry and molecular biophysics at the University of Arizona. The toxin is uniquely found in the venom cocktail of brown or violin spiders, including the brown recluse, and in some Corynebacteria. The toxin from the spider's venom can kill flesh at the bite site; the bacterium causes various illnesses in farm animals.

"Our research was inspired by the fact that we have a group of spiders with a unique toxin, and that toxin also happens to exist outside the animal kingdom in this particular bacterium," she added. "A pattern like this raises the possibility of lateral gene transfer as a explanation.

Sounds like a safe assumption. Considering how long ago this was presumed to happen there is not much chance anyone could ever be able show it to be wrong.

And according to the title, Lateral gene transfer of a dermonecrotic toxin between spiders and bacteria this case is just about ready to be added to the "mountain of evidence" supporting evolutionary theory.

It could also be an example of convergent evolution. Birds and bats did not develop at the same time and their mutual ancestor goes back pretty far. Yet they both fly. This is an example where evolution "created" a feature two seperate times because it works and is benefitial to the organism.

 

[Unbeliever]

Don't single me out. Can anybody in the world imagine how it could have happened? I haven't heard of any scientific theories to explain it, have you?

After 50 or more years of knowing about DNA, does anyone have any kind of scientific theory about how a "coding system" like DNA could arise without the aid of intelligence?

BTW, you must have missed the discussions about antibiotic resistence in bacteria or you wouldn't have tried to use that as an example of the kind of change that would support "microbes to man" evolution.

And "random mutations" is a dead horse. People are now beginning to switch to "non-random" mutations.

Just because something is currently beyond our ability to understand, that doesn't mean that God did it. That is the exact same thinking that caused the Greeks to create the Persephone myth to explain the changing seasons.

Sometimes understanding takes centuries, even millenia. And you are saying, "Time's up!" after only 50 years.

I did miss the discussion about antibiotic resistence in bacteria, but I still stand by the claim that if bacteria can change so much in such a short period of time, then billions of years offers a great deal more opportunity for change.

Why is "random mutations" a dead horse? We see ample evidence that random mutations do occur. They are often detrimental to the organism, but they do happen. And if only one random mutation out of a million is beneficial, then that is enough to bring about a permenent modification of the species.

 

[Unbeliever]

ID is argument from ignorance

:darwinsm: By that standard, so is atheism.

I agree. That is why I am an agnostic. Since you now recognize that any belief or disbelief in God is a logical fallacy, will you be changing your profile to say, "Agnostic?"

Or can you only see the logical fallacies of others?

 

[aharvey]

Don't single me out. Can anybody in the world imagine how it could have happened? I haven't heard of any scientific theories to explain it, have you?

After 50 or more years of knowing about DNA, does anyone have any kind of scientific theory about how a "coding system" like DNA could arise without the aid of intelligence?

Appeal to incredulity, bob? Any better ideas about how said intelligence could have aided a "coding system" like DNA to arise? Remember, you're using our lack of understanding of "how" to cast doubt on the whole enterprise.

BTW, you must have missed the discussions about antibiotic resistence in bacteria or you wouldn't have tried to use that as an example of the kind of change that would support "microbes to man" evolution.

Well, that doesn't exactly follow, bob. In that discussion you clearly established that you personally don't see the connection, so I guess in that sense it is true that UnBeliever wouldn't have used this example because you've already stated that you don't buy it. On the other hand, you've also made it clear that there is no evidence that would convince you otherwise, so if we were to follow your logic here, the logical thing for UnBeliever to do is just ignore you altogether!

And "random mutations" is a dead horse. People are now beginning to switch to "non-random" mutations.

Bold claims do not make a statement true

 

[bob b]

Appeal to incredulity, bob? Any better ideas about how said intelligence could have aided a "coding system" like DNA to arise? Remember, you're using our lack of understanding of "how" to cast doubt on the whole enterprise.

When someone makes an incredible claim, it is common to ask why do you believe that? This should be especially true in a field like science. Since 50 years or more have passed since DNA was discovered, the lack of any theories as to how this could have happened "naturally" should be significant. Most of us are incredulous about UFOs, aren't we?

Well, that doesn't exactly follow, bob. In that discussion you clearly established that you personally don't see the connection [antibiotic resistence], so I guess in that sense it is true that UnBeliever wouldn't have used this example because you've already stated that you don't buy it. On the other hand, you've also made it clear that there is no evidence that would convince you otherwise, so if we were to follow your logic here, the logical thing for UnBeliever to do is just ignore you altogether!

If I were the only one doing the questioning you might have a point. But I believe that many, possibly including yourself, are questioning the explanation that "random mutations plus natural selection" is responsible for antibiotic resistence. There clearly seems to be more to it than that. The fact that it happens repetitively and rapidly rules out random mutations. It sounds more like what happens in the immune system where antibodies are generated by a mechanism. The search for a mechanism underlying the phenomenon should continue, because saying that random mutations "dun it" is as scientifically unproductive as saying "God dun it".

Bold claims do not make a statement true

Evolutionists take note.

 

[Unbeliever]

I don't flatter myself that anything I would say would affect those addicted to "random mutations plus natural selection". But if one were to read the latest about what is being discovered in these areas, it might cause one to hesitate to use the example to support macroevolution. I fully support research into how current lifeforms function, because it will probably benefit medicine as well as helping to combat the "random mutations plus natural selection" myth.

Bacterial resistence is proof of natural selection. When you use an antibiotic to kill bacteria, it kills the ones most susceptable first. If all the bacteria are not killed or some survive that happen to be immune to the antibiotic, then those will be the only ones that create subsequent generations. That is nature selecting the progentitors of the next generation. And those new generations will be just a little different from the pervious ones. In the case of some bacteria, the change is enough to cause sickness before the change and death after it.

And if you don't accept that random mutations do occur, then you need more biology courses. Random mutations are a documented fact.

Or are you suggesting that God is purposefully modifying the genetic code of organisms so that they are better able to kill humans?

 

[Jukia]

When someone makes an incredible claim, it is common to ask why do you believe that?
.

Oh, perhaps a claim such as
1."The universe only looks real old, God really created it 6000 years ago in 6 days"
and,
2."See there was this guy Noah..."
or,
3."Well, yeah maybe everything does seem to have evolved but it really did not happen that way because God says (see comment #1)"

 

[bob b]

Oh, perhaps a claim such as
1."The universe only looks real old, God really created it 6000 years ago in 6 days"
and,
2."See there was this guy Noah..."
or,
3."Well, yeah maybe everything does seem to have evolved but it really did not happen that way because God says (see comment #1)"

God doesn't force people to live with Him.

So feel free to interpret the evidence in nature any way you wish.

BTW, aren't you engaging in the "Argument From Incredulity"? :rotfl:

 

[Jukia]

BTW, aren't you engaging in the "Argument From Incredulity"? :rotfl:

I dont think so, I think I was responding to your statement of how we should approach incredible claims.

 

[Unbeliever]

God doesn't force people to live with Him.

So feel free to interpret the evidence in nature any way you wish.

BTW, aren't you engaging in the "Argument From Incredulity"? :rotfl:

Actually, this is "Argument from Contradictory Evidence", and it's a good argument.

 

[bob b]

Actually, this is "Argument from Contradictory Evidence", and it's a good argument.

So is the "Argument from Incredulity" when it is used against a claim made with no evidence, like UFOs and the DNA code arising "naturally".

BTW, it is not the evidence that is contradictory, only the interpretation made of the evidence by evolutionists.

But in the case of the DNA code arising "naturally" there is no evidence whatsoever.

 

[skeptech]

But in the case of the DNA code arising "naturally" there is no evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is there, you just refuse to accept it. But really, you're not interested in evidence, you're looking for proof.

Summary of Evidence for Creationism:
- Variations on thermo-2nd-law themes: "It's so complicated that it could never have arisen naturally!" (Or, "I'm not imaginative or smart enough to think of what else it could be.")
- It says so in a very old story in the Bible. (And of course old stories are more likely to be true than new "discoveries".)
- My daddy/pastor/friend says so, and he's smart.
- "I don't need to prove it, you should have faith!"

This is a battle that Creationists will lose. Creationists/ID'ers will never have more than "evidence", but Evolutionists (or whatever non-Creationists are called) will eventually find the proof.

 

[noguru]

So is the "Argument from Incredulity" when it is used against a claim made with no evidence, like UFOs and the DNA code arising "naturally".

The evidence surrounding UFO's is anectdotal at best.

There is however lots of empirical evidence that DNA code did arise naturally. I think you are missing the middle again. The fact that the evidence is inconclusive as to the exact historical sequence that these things occured, does not negate all the evidence we have for the natural occurences necessary. And since we have absolutely no empirical evidence that there are "supernatural" forces at work here, your alternative is less likely.

BTW, it is not the evidence that is contradictory, only the interpretation made of the evidence by evolutionists.

Well if you have alreay decided that the existence of contradictory evidence to your YEC model of origins is impossible, then by virtue of your own decree you will not accept that there is any contradictory evidence. You are putting the cart before the horse in regard to the material sciences.

But in the case of the DNA code arising "naturally" there is no evidence whatsoever.

Again Bob, you are incorrect. There is lots of evidence that all the natural processes necessary do occurr. You reject this evidence because it contradicts your a priori assumption that your YEC model must be accurate.

 

[fool]

:darwinsm: By that standard, so is atheism.

Alot of Athiest do make arguments from ignorance.
You can spot the formula when you encounter "I can't imagine a rightous God letting people die like that". If you spot any doing this, fell free to call them on it.

 

[Unbeliever]

So is the "Argument from Incredulity" when it is used against a claim made with no evidence, like UFOs and the DNA code arising "naturally".

BTW, it is not the evidence that is contradictory, only the interpretation made of the evidence by evolutionists.

But in the case of the DNA code arising "naturally" there is no evidence whatsoever.

Science is about what can happen under the laws of nature. Under that definition, something CANNOT happen by magic. If DNA exists, then it must have developed somehow. We may not yet know the mechanism, but science rules out the act of an "intelligent designer."

And I agree that interpretations can and do differ. But ignoring the evidence is not an alternative interpretation.

And the evidence for DNA arising naturally is it's very existence.