A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

ok so you meant that there are more papers supporting evolution than papers supporting gravity ¿that’s what you meant?

That is about the only useful way that a comparison can be made.

That is naive and ignorant, many alternatives have been proposed and are being discussed in the scientific literature, for example is has been suggested that the diversity of life is due to a process of natural generic engineering (Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia) this is an alternative to “random mutations”

This is just one of many alternative mechanism that have been proposed

ok so you meant that there are more papers supporting evolution than papers supporting gravity ¿that’s what you meant?



That is naive and ignorant, many alternatives have been proposed and are being discussed in the scientific literature, for example is has been suggested that the diversity of life is due to a process of natural generic engineering (Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia) this is an alternative to “random mutations”

This is just one of many alternative mechanism that have been proposed

And that work has no traction at all. Read the criticisms of his work at the bottom. One problem is that he based his arguments at least partially on a strawman.

 

[Polymath257]

Well because according to my experiences and memories, the world was already there before last Thursday, and I see any good reason for not trusting my memories and experiences.

But maybe those memories were also created last Thursday. You see *everything* was created last Thursday complete with memories of experiences that you never had.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well because according to my experiences and memories, the world was already there before last Thursday, and I see any good reason for not trusting my memories and experiences.

That is not a refutation since you were created with the memories that you have last Thursday. And be careful with your use of "any good reason", that will come back to bite you.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well then quote the actual papers that show how the nucleotides organize themselves in the “correct pattern” to produce self replicating proteins

So you haven't read the papers? You haven't read the previous work?

I've given you some resources that would allow you understand the subject better. You can either take advantage of that or you can let that opportunity slip by.

See, I work in biology, and in my world when someone gives you a paper that you asked for, you don't respond with "quote part of the paper for me". Instead, the expectation is that, since you requested the paper, after it's provided you will actually read it.

Perhaps I misunderstood you question, ¿can you explain your original question?

It's kind of irrelevant now, with the following....

Yes I personally believe that God is the designer,

Then all of this is pointless. God, by definition, can create in any way imaginable, including via completely natural means. God could have supernaturally created the first life on earth, but made it seem as if it took place naturally.

IOW, if God is the "designer", it's impossible to have criteria for "designed things". No matter what characteristics those things exhibit, God, being God, could have simply made it that way.

 

[leroy]

And around we go.

You failed to define information in a useful way again.

We know how "new information" arises. @Polymath257 already told you one of the key mechanisms. Have you not heard of gene duplication?

As I defined it, gene duplication by itself does not count as new information,



I do grant that new information can arise by mutations and natural selection, what I don’t grant is that the overall trend is an increase in the amount of information.



It is sad and pathetic when “evolutionists” try to solve their problems by playing word games.

 

[Jose Fly]

what I don’t grant is that the overall trend is an increase in the amount of information.

Why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I defined it, gene duplication by itself does not count as new information



I do grant that new information can arise by mutations and natural selection, what I don’t grant is that the overall trend is an increase in the amount of information.



It is sad and pathetic when “evolutionists” try to solve their problems by playing word games.

Let's no break up posts excessively, and pleas pay attention. Gene duplication is only the first step. And the reason why you can't see that an increase in "information" is what occurs in evolution is because you are only looking at part of evolution. Creationists never look at natural selection and variation at the same time. Together they create what you call "new information". Variation introduces negative, neutral, and positive mutations. Natural selection quickly removes the negative ones and the neutral ones can hang around for quite some time. In fact they are often a source eventually of "new information". Creationists tend to look at them one at a time and that is not proper nor honest.

And since you are the only one that has played games your rant did not work. Where did I play word games?

 

[leroy]

That is not a refutation since you were created with the memories that you have last Thursday. And be careful with your use of "any good reason", that will come back to bite you.

Well all I am saying is that it is rational to trust my experiences and memories, unless someone provides evidence against it.

I have memories of events that occur before last Thursday and I see no reason to assume that these memories are false………the burden proof is on the one who what to state the world was created last Thursday.


Do you disagree with something?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not?

He is playing the old creationist two step. Variation adds information randomly since it is random they claim that it can't be information.

Natural selection removes harmful mutations, but since it is eliminates mutations that is a "loss of information". Nothing new here, merely creationism with a cheap lab coat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well all I am saying is that it is rational to trust my experiences and memories, unless someone provides evidence against it.

I have memories of events that occur before last Thursday and I see no reason to assume that these memories are false………the burden proof is on the one who what to state the world was created last Thursday.


Do you disagree with something?

Of course you do. Once again that is part of Last Thrusdayism. It would not work if your memories were not part of the creation.

At least you understand the burden of proof for Last Thrusdayism. Now can you apply it to your beliefs? Circular logic is not allowed since that brings us back to your memories being implanted at the creation.

 

[leroy]

Why not?

Because in most of the cases we see that mutations destroy information, and adaptation occurs as a consequence of destroying information.

If some bacteria lose and enzyme that allows them to break complex substances in to simpler substances, then these bacteria will fail to break down antibiotics in to harmful substances that would kill them, therefore these bacteria (that lack the enzyme) would be immune to antibiotics. This is an example of adaptation due to a loss of information. These has been observed multiple times………….but nobody has ever seen an example of a bacterium surviving because it produced a brand new enzyme that would help it fight the antibiotic.


I am not saying that new enzymes can be created y Darwinian mechanisms; all I am saying is that losing an enzyme is “easier” than gaining one.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because in most of the cases we see that mutations destroy information, and adaptation occurs as a consequence of destroying information.

That's quite the comprehensive claim. Do you have comprehensive analysis to back it up?

If some bacteria lose and enzyme that allows them to break complex substances in to simpler substances, then these bacteria will fail to break down antibiotics in to harmful substances that would kill them, therefore these bacteria (that lack the enzyme) would be immune to antibiotics. This is an example of adaptation due to a loss of information.

I thought you said earlier that "genetic information" was measured by functional nucleotide sequences. Now you're putting in terms of enzyme specificity (which btw is how it sometimes works...IOW, it's not about "losing" an enzyme, but rather an enzyme losing specificity in its binding sites). Which is it?

I am not saying that new enzymes can be created y Darwinian mechanisms; all I am saying is that losing an enzyme is “easier” than gaining one.

So even if we did see the evolution of a new enzyme, you wouldn't object, you're just saying that the overall trend is toward loss of enzymes rather than the evolution of new ones. That, plus your belief that God is the "designer" leads to an obvious question....do you believe God personally and deliberately created every enzyme? If not, which ones did God create and which ones evolved? And how did you tell the difference?

 

[Jose Fly]

the burden proof is on the one who what to state the world was created last Thursday.

And by the same token, the burden of proof is on the one claiming that God is or has been "designing" things. So your attempts at having the rest of us show how natural mechanisms can produce various things misses the mark on two fronts. First, it shifts the burden of proof, second it assumes that God can't "design" things via natural mechanisms.

Remember, this thread is supposed to be you making a positive case for ID creationism. So far, you haven't really done that, and instead seem to be arguing from the stance of "if nature can't do it, then design". FYI, that's just "design of the gaps" and does not constitute a positive argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because in most of the cases we see that mutations destroy information, and adaptation occurs as a consequence of destroying information.

If some bacteria lose and enzyme that allows them to break complex substances in to simpler substances, then these bacteria will fail to break down antibiotics in to harmful substances that would kill them, therefore these bacteria (that lack the enzyme) would be immune to antibiotics. This is an example of adaptation due to a loss of information. These has been observed multiple times………….but nobody has ever seen an example of a bacterium surviving because it produced a brand new enzyme that would help it fight the antibiotic.


I am not saying that new enzymes can be created y Darwinian mechanisms; all I am saying is that losing an enzyme is “easier” than gaining one.

Yes, destroying is easier, but that is not a concern. Gene duplication is a mutation where entire genes are copied. That enables a enzyme to be continued to be made while variations are "experimented" on. All it takes for a mutation to become part of the genome is a small improvement. Gene duplication allows that. It also leaves a lot of failures behind. That is why so much of our genome is "junk DNA". Experiments that did not work but were not harmful.

 

[ecco]

If you show that the relation between nucleotides and self replicating proteins is analogous to the relation between hydrogen-oxigen atoms and water molecules, then ID would be disproven (at least the ID when it relates to abiogenesis).......see ID is falsifiable

Actually it wouldn't show that ID was right or wrong, proved or unproved, falsifiable or not falsifiable. I was just pointing out how chemistry works in nature.

There is a natural law that “forces” oxygen to combine with hydrogen atoms in a ratio of 1 to 2, the laws of nature prevents other pattern. If you show that nucleotides necessarily organize themselves in to self replicating proteins, my argument would be falsified

Why would you accept that some things are governed by chemistry (atoms) and argue that other things (proteins & nucleotides) are not?

 

[ecco]

But yes I do think we can falsify (with a high degree of confidence) the idea that we were created last Thursday, by appealing to “Reductio ad absurdum” this philosophical principle states that if an idea leads to an absurd conclusion, you most reject it

Now you must explain, with evidence, why God created everything Last Thursday is more absurd than God created everything 6000 years ago (or whatever your particular view of God created everything... is.

Well because according to my experiences and memories, the world was already there before last Thursday, and I see any good reason for not trusting my memories and experiences.

Once again you are commenting on things you obviously do not understand. If you didn't understand Last Thursdayism, then you should have taken the time to understand it before commenting on it.

Last Thursdayism - RationalWiki (emphasis mine)

Last Thursdayism is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. It's also a counter to the creationism theory. Under Last Thursdayism, books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and literally everything(including your memories of the time before last Thursday) were all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state such that they appear much older.
​

Now that I've done your basic homework for you, I'll ask again...explain, with evidence, why God created everything Last Thursday is more absurd than God created everything 6000 years ago (or whatever your particular view of God created everything... is.

​

 

[Polymath257]

Because in most of the cases we see that mutations destroy information, and adaptation occurs as a consequence of destroying information.

If some bacteria lose and enzyme that allows them to break complex substances in to simpler substances, then these bacteria will fail to break down antibiotics in to harmful substances that would kill them, therefore these bacteria (that lack the enzyme) would be immune to antibiotics. This is an example of adaptation due to a loss of information. These has been observed multiple times………….but nobody has ever seen an example of a bacterium surviving because it produced a brand new enzyme that would help it fight the antibiotic.

I am not saying that new enzymes can be created y Darwinian mechanisms; all I am saying is that losing an enzyme is “easier” than gaining one.

Mutations cause variability. That can be regarded as a loss of information. But natural selection reduces variability, which increases information again. In particulgene duplication *and subsequent* divergence adds information.

Actually, we have seen bacteria evolve that can consume nylon, which is a new ability brought about through a mutation. Would you consider that an increase of information?

 

[leroy]

Once again you are commenting on things you obviously do not understand. If you didn't understand Last Thursdayism, then you should have taken the time to understand it before commenting on it.

Last Thursdayism - RationalWiki (emphasis mine)

Last Thursdayism is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. It's also a counter to the creationism theory. Under Last Thursdayism, books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and literally everything(including your memories of the time before last Thursday) were all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state such that they appear much older.
​

Now that I've done your basic homework for you, I'll ask again...explain, with evidence, why God created everything Last Thursday is more absurd than God created everything 6000 years ago (or whatever your particular view of God created everything... is.

​

I already provided an answer. I Will asume that my memories and experiences of a past life are accurate , unless proven to be wrong. That is the most reasonable position.


Can you give a better answer than I.

How do you know that you are not a Boltzmann brain created 1 second ago with a memory of a past life?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already provided an answer. I Will asume that my memories and experiences of a past life are accurate , unless proven to be wrong. That is the most reasonable position.


Can you give a better answer than I.

How do you know that you are not a Boltzmann brain created 1 second ago with a memory of a past life?

the point of the argument seems to have gone over your head.

 

[Bear Wild]

Because in most of the cases we see that mutations destroy information, and adaptation occurs as a consequence of destroying information.

If some bacteria lose and enzyme that allows them to break complex substances in to simpler substances, then these bacteria will fail to break down antibiotics in to harmful substances that would kill them, therefore these bacteria (that lack the enzyme) would be immune to antibiotics. This is an example of adaptation due to a loss of information. These has been observed multiple times………….but nobody has ever seen an example of a bacterium surviving because it produced a brand new enzyme that would help it fight the antibiotic.


I am not saying that new enzymes can be created y Darwinian mechanisms; all I am saying is that losing an enzyme is “easier” than gaining one.

You misunderstand what happens with mutations. Most mutations in the genetic code have little effect on the proteins the code for. When they do alter the protein it does not mean the enzyme or protein is lost only altered in how it functions. This could make it work better or become less functional. If the mutation helps in survival of the organism it will continue. This has nothing to do with gaining new proteins/enzymes. To create new proteins new insertions of genetic material has to be added, which there are many ways for that to happen. then the new genetic sequence would also be slowly modified and clearly takes longer before a new peptide sequence could form a new protein that has a function. You need long periods of time which we have had in Earths history to create the complexity we have today.