A simple case for intelligent design

[Dan From Smithville]

My prior statement, "Natural selection should avoid parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus 100% of the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen simultaneously," also applies to the cup, the lens, the other parts you are just-so theorizing, regardless of the lack of forensic evidence for your just-so claims.

I'm traveling overseas, when I get back, happy to discuss more. Suggest you seriously ponder the odds statement I made to Dan from S.

There is is again. Everything about evolutionary biology is pre-judged and dismissed as "just-so-stories". And then you repeat several times in other posts that you are here to learn. How is that to be reconciled. I can tell you. It is not. It is going to be accepted at face value as another creationist doing what creationists do.

The mutations do not happen simultaneously. Why do you keep saying that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Kindly read my posts carefully before replying.

When challenged re: 30 proteins being less than unique, I suggested as a conservative allowance (to make the odds INCREASE for evolution) that 1,000 hypothetical proteins, any 30 of which will work. The odds are still quite high, even though I've gone ahead via natural selection and etc. to increase them by billions.

The odds are also astronomical of simultaneity regarding the evolution of the six factors you cited (note my remarks added to the below):

1. Trauma to tissue including blood vessel (to some of a population)
2. Damaged blood vessel and tissues release various compounds due to damage (note that these compounds are similar, but not identical in all vertebrates) (compound release factors evolve)
3. Damage to vessel endothelium creates 'rough' surface; blood components now exposed to collagen and other extravascular proteins ('foreign' materials, in effect); larger blood vessels experience muscular spasm (spasm response evolves or has already evolved)
4. Platelets bind to 'rough' damaged endothelium, release clotting factors (platelets "release clotting factors" evolve)
5. Clotting factors (not the same in all vertebrates) initiate cascade of reactions that results in cleavage of fibrinogen, which then reforms as a fibrin network, 'catching' RBCs (fibrinogen in organic life evolves)
6. clotting factors, material released from damaged tissues, and some clotting cascade intermediates act as chemo-attractants for some WBCs (WBCs naturally selected to bind, cascade intermediates evolve)

The just-so story is vastly, exponentially enlarging, given the fact that the mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part (or up to 6 parts in the above, not including cellular motor parts to drive them except platelets as you wrote) quietly accumulate in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, thousands to millions of years later, all are in place, while the species that needed clotting survives when it bleeds from natural causes or prey attack.

The new part starts working, (clotting) natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races.

Since this is a religiousforum, I feel it's okay to mention, respectfully, you have a spiritual block in place that makes you believe evolution is magic, all-powerful.

Since you find this so incredible and beyond your understanding, it just did not happen. Right? Right. It can all be dismissed without review as a "just-so-story" on the basis of your incredulity. Right? Right.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And if we removed faith from your post, we'd see why it's hard to talk to you. Of course, you haven't claimed you want to learn anything, and instead of reading my post you labeled in GIGO.

I cited the ability of the magic known as natural selection et al to INCREASE the odds of beneficial mutation by not less than -1^16!

I am going overseas for two weeks, I hope you will calm down enough to read my posts before replying, when I return. If not, tell me where you teach, and I'll see if I can afford the expenses to debate you at a forum at your institution.

"Magic" known as natural selection. Wow, that does compel me to engage your more deeply on a subject you so obviously value learning about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No link? Try again. The odds are that your source was a creationist one and at best they got a valid source wrong.

He did actually find a citation for a real paper. Whether he read it or not, I cannot say, but it does not appear he did. Even if he read every word, I am confident, based on his output here, his understanding of it would be meaningless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No link? Try again. The odds are that your source was a creationist one and at best they got a valid source wrong.

To be fair and transparent, I have not read the entire paper either, but I did look through it and read sections that seemed relevant to the discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Heard that there is going to be a Picard spin-off series...

It took me a while, but I warmed up to Picard.

Antic #62-A of the internet creationist bag-o-trix. I suspect that antic #11-B will be invoked - Move on to a new topic.

Then back to the previous refuted topic after enough time has passed.

I don't consider myself an expert, but I can readily tell when someone knows less than I do on the subject!

If you have taught it, I think you qualify by the standards of this forum. I am no expert in the field, though I have had my share of classes in it and practiced simple Mendelian selection in the lab.

One would hope...

Maybe he has to slide into third (obscure Steve Martin movie reference).

 

[Subduction Zone]

He did actually find a citation for a real paper. Whether he read it or not, I cannot say, but it does not appear he did. Even if he read every word, I am confident, based on his output here, his understanding of it would be meaningless.

I don't know if he posted that earlier but he posted it again after my demand. The paper appears to answer his questions for him which makes them rather pointless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have the bad habit when reading fiction to mispronounce some names in my head. I do this to the point that it becomes how the name is pronounced to me. I always feel a bit foolish when I hear how the name is actually pronounced and that I had it wrong the entire time.

Do you think that people do the same thing with knowledge? That they get it wrong, but get it wrong so often, it becomes "the knowledge" to them and they become intractable when others that know the real pronunciation try to correct them?

I will murder French pronunciation a bit at times. I will pronounce a word as if it were written in English. Though at the same time I will go through the correct pronunciation. Using both seems to help me to remember the term (mirepoix for example).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I will murder French pronunciation a bit at times. I will pronounce a word as if it were written in English. Though at the same time I will go through the correct pronunciation. Using both seems to help me to remember the term (mirepoix for example).

Mine is a habit I have had since I was a child. I read very advanced books as a young child and when I encountered a name I was not familiar with, I just pronounced it like I thought it should be pronounced. After a time, that became to me, the way the name was pronounced and even to this day, I have to remember the actual pronunciation once I found out what it was.

My parents had a family friend that mispronounced my mothers name, but she never had the heart to correct him. I think his issue stemmed from his failing hearing.

In Missouri, there are a number of French names of towns whose pronunciation has been butchered. We have Versailles that is pronounced as Ver sales instead of Ver sigh. Bellefontaine is pronounced Bellefountain. Courtois is pronounced cur toyz. And so on.

I hope you got the point of my example in the context of what creationists think they know about science.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

I must apply xenoview's razor to your claims of a designer. You have failed to show objective evidence.

Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence

 

[Astrophile]

For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

You don't have to go to another planet to find something that looks like a pyramid, only to the border between Switzerland and Italy. Do you think that this pyramid was intelligently designed?

 

[Astrophile]

I have "problems" with both the idea that I amino acids became life, and the idea complex life came from simpler life by a process of random genetic change and natural selection.

How do you define 'complex' and 'simple', and how does this influence your acceptance of evolution? For example, I agree that sharks and beetles are more complex than jellyfish and sponges. But are humans so much more complex than the other apes (both living and extinct) that we can't be descended from common ancestors? Are modern birds so much more complex than Mesozoic dinosaurs that they can't have evolved from these dinosaurs? If so, in what ways are humans and birds respectively more complex than other apes and Mesozoic dinosaurs?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not having a cecal appendix than having one is a "slight variation"? I'm being Socratic here, for your benefit.

Having a proto-cecal appendix that does more-or-less the same thing and then having a cecal appendix is a slight variation.

Also, you are not being Socratic, since you have already formed a conclusion on evolutionary theory: evolutionary theory is "just-so stories". If you were being truly Socratic, you wouldn't form a conclusion initially and would ask questions from a state of ignorance (either honest or assumed) before forming a conclusion based on the responses.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The subset of dishonest creationists must be small, because we answer to a higher source than fellow forum posters.

False. Creationists invent or cherry-pick a higher source then set about trying to confirm to themselves that this higher source did things in a way designed to make it easier for themselves to comprehend. There are plenty of theists who have no difficulty reconciling their theism with evolutionary theory, because they are honest and strong-minded enough to realize it doesn't matter what method God specifically used, or to pigeonhole God in such a way as to assume that God could or would have brought about life in only one possible way.

We respect people with opposing views as we adore God and try to follow His manner of life.

False. Creationists deliberately spread misinformation about evolutionary theory, debate in bad faith, and have regularly been caught breaching the law in order to sneak their religious ideology into science curriculums.

I'm well aware that evolution improves gradually on existing formations, refining them, as you said, which if we believe as 100% true, gives us in this case:

1) Many, many species were surviving without a cecal appendix
2) 32 separate times, an appendix evolved
3) Despite the "necessity" for 32 iterations, some think it's now vestigial as an organ

WHY?

If you understand that evolution improves on a specific function, that said specific function is refined to the point where specific organs develop to carry out that function (or variations on that function), and that sometimes these functions become superceded by superior functions (say, a digestive system that adapts from eating mostly foliage to being able to consume meat), previously evolved organs can have less function. If you understand evolution, you wouldn't have to ask this question. The very fact that you're asking it betrays your statement that you understand evolutionary theory.

PS. I've clearly answered the question for myself (evolutionary theory is just-so stories, in large part) and here's your chance to change my mind.

You've already made up your mind, despite clearly making little to no effort to actually understand the theory. For your mind to have any hope of changing, you first have to be open to understanding what evolutionary theory actually says.

PPS. Saying, "you don't understand basic biology" and "you don't understand evolution" when I successfully completed biology, statistics, anatomy, etc. for multiple degrees is akin to saying, "I don't really have facts for you, just rhetoric."

DO BETTER.

But you clearly don't. If I asked you how a plane can fly when it's clearly very heavy, would you assume I understood anything about aviation? No, you wouldn't. And the questions you ask indicate to us that you don't understand evolutionary theory, yet you are willing to dismiss it as "just so stories". You've reached a conclusion already, despite being ignorant of the subject. This indicates that you are debating in bad faith and have no real intention of actually learning, just trying to confirm your own existing biases.

Or, if you like, tell me (or yourself) WHY and HOW evolution gradually improves existing forms without using the canard, "so slowly, that this may be seen neither today nor in the fossil record, except with fully-formed, complete species".

Once again, your statements betray your knowledge (and indicate to me that you have been ignoring practically everything I've already been explaining to you in these past few posts).

Evolution improves on existing forms through the process of mutation and natural selection, and this CAN be seen today and IS directly observed happening in existing species. There is no such thing as a "fully-formed, complete" species, because there is no such thing as a "part-formed, incomplete" species. All populations of organisms are in a constant state of transition.

WHY is there no such thing as a half-arm,

Because why would there be? How is a half-arm an improvement on a given function?

if some mutations are harmful, some beneficial, how does evolution achieve godlike power to overcome?

Natural selection. Beneficial mutations result in more offspring, which results in the mutation proliferating. Harmful mutations result in less offspring, therefore less chance of proliferation. This is like asking how it's possible for a sieve to sort large from small clumps of flour.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

These are genuine questions, not rhetorical:

Do I need to deeply investigate statistical thermodynamics to understand its root applied to evolution: give a large population enough time, and all possibilities are acted upon? (Of course, they are!)

That's not a principle of evolution. It doesn't need to "act on all possibilities", it only produces whatever improvements happen to mutate. Just because flight would be beneficial to a particular population in a particular environment doesn't mean that flight will necessarily evolve.

Do I need to " " to wonder at the odds of something unlikely (new organ, new function) happening 32 separate times?

No, because it's meaningless to do so. Evolution is based on biology, not probability. It's trivial to determine that dropping a ball and having it touch only a specific square inch of the earth's surface is 1 in 12,478,143,744,000. But this doesn't mean that if I dropped the ball we have witnessed a miraculous event - because the fall of the ball isn't determined entirely by random chance, instead the fall of the ball is determined by the forces, such as gravity, working upon the ball, the angle it is dropped at, and where I happen to be standing at the time. In such a scenario, calculating probability by nothing but pure random chance is meaningless, because the calculation fails to take into account the actual things that caused the ball to drop.

Does it not beg the question, "what mechanism causes such power, for beneficial mutations, continually?"

No, it doesn't, because the process of how beneficial mutations proliferate has already been explained and understood: natural selection.

 

[Workman]

When oneself doesn’t believe in no gods, then he believes in his own self being goddess in science,
(Science) is man made!
You are given a free will to choose three gods for own beliefs! Your belief in God, the devil himself is another god, or neither! Leaving yourself to Living as a godly.
One thing that one must understand if you don’t have a belief, then what you become of is a Genius, finding all sorts of questions and answers then solving em creating more better knowledge from their many questions and answers..But! that’s the problem, one will not stop! Do you know why geniuses are good at what they do? Because they are unaware of being LOST! Becoming A man of. Questions!
A Lost person asks a lot of good questions and looks to find good answers even strives for the better in questioning to a point where one will not accept one answer, for knowledge being perfected with in their questions never finding peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When oneself doesn’t believe in no gods, then he believes in his own self being goddess in science,

False. If someone doesn't believe in Gods, it stands to reason that such a person doesn't see themselves as a God. This is like saying a person who doesn't believe in werewolves sees themselves as a werewolf.

(Science) is man made!

As is God (according to some).

You are given a free will to choose three gods for own beliefs! Your belief in God, the devil himself is another god, or neither! Leaving yourself to Living as a godly.

So you include "no God" as a God? What about polytheism? Deism? Are these covered by the former option?

One thing that one must understand if you don’t have a belief, then what you become of is a Genius, finding all sorts of questions and answers then solving em creating more better knowledge from their many questions and answers..But! that’s the problem, one will not stop! Do you know why geniuses are good at what they do? Because they are unaware of being LOST! Becoming A man of. Questions!
A Lost person asks a lot of good questions and looks to find good answers even strives for the better in questioning to a point where one will not accept one answer, for knowledge being perfected with in their questions never finding peace.

Do you have an opinion of the theory of evolution?

 

[tas8831]

Is it to your benefit to treat me with a fraction of the respect with which I treat you? It is not. You are blocking yourself from engaging, learning.

I'm not claiming to be a great science expert--indeed, I've said multiple times on this forum that I'm really strong in some areas (history, psychology, etc.), but not in STEM fields

And yet you REPEATEDLY make absurd assertions in fields other than those, that you've already been corrected on, etc.

--rather, I'm seeking intelligent discourse with the other side. Can I get that from you or should I move on? Think about that, perhaps, while I travel this week.

I don't care if you engage with me or not. This noble participant facade does grow tiresome, I have to say - if you were really all about 'learning' and 'discourse', you would not so consistently engage in the antics that others have pointed out to you in this very thread (here, for example).


Wait - is this 'you are not nice to me, why should I keep going?' routine a way to avoid addressing this?
A simple case for intelligent design

 

[tas8831]

(Science) is man made!

As are all gods.

 

[tas8831]

Bump for BB upon his return.

Amazing stuff - I was unaware that bacteria are now considered fluids and that their movements require neurological and multiple systems also moving/catalyzing - even at a level devoid of life! Amazing insights!

But I note that did not explain why none of the papers (at least one of them from which you must have gleaned your appendix information) even contained the word "enzyme" even as they described the function of the appendix.

I would also like to learn more about this movement and catalysis - what is moving and what needs to be catalyzed for fluid bacteria to re-colonize the gut after a bout of diarrhea. I am especially intrigued about this prior-to-life level that you speak of - is that the spirit realm? Can't wait to see the evidence!


Having taught college genetics for about 6 years, yes, yes I am. Not sure what that has to do with enzymes or bacteria being fluid or the Spirit realm.