Is DNA a sign of Intelligent design?

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not dishonesty because the video is not edited in any way.

It is.

It's just a short clip taken. Dawkins has never dismissed Intelligent Design Theory

False

and even admitted that evidence for it can be found in biology.

No

I see it and every proponent for ID can see it too. You can watch the full video online and it will show the very same clip and is only a few extra minutes longer. That's if you care to hear Ben Stein talk a little more...

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
I'm also aware of the unedited clip as well as the false pretenses upon which prof Dawkins and the other were invited for it.
They were conned. It's creationist dishonest propaganda pur sang

 

[Comradio251]

It is.



False



No


Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
I'm also aware of the unedited clip as well as the false pretenses upon which prof Dawkins and the other were invited for it.
They were conned. It's creationist dishonest propaganda pur sang

I'm sorry, but your opinions of the video do not discredit what Dawkins said personally. But the video indeed does a very good job at exposing Dawkin's hypocrisy on the matter of God. You need the same faith to believe aliens planted the seed of life on earth at the beginning as a religious person who believes God did it instead. I don't need to buy a t-shirt like a sports fan would do in order to advocate for a position either. The full video shows that very same unedited clip. I rest my case.

Full video:

 

[wellwisher]

Isn't that an argument against intelligent design? There are some things that require consciousness and intelligence or though they are physically possible, they don't occur without it.

There is no evidence to support that. Your argument is circular in the sense that it assumes what it attempts to demonstrate. It assumes that the way the universe evolved requires intelligent design, then claims that what followed demonstrates the validity of that assumption.

Also, the four forces appeared AFTER T=0. Referring to a time earlier or before that is problematic.

Luck is your word. Science says that human innovation is consistent with naturalistic evolution based in the evidence we have to date.

No such thing. The concept is self-contradictory (incoherent). Whatever can affect any part of nature is also nature. Calling it something else is meaningless. Supernatural is the word people use to describe that which they want to call real but which is just imagination. Real objects exist in space and time and interact with other real objects. That's what things that exist have in common with one another, and things which are only imagined cannot do.

You congratulate yourself and others for seeing further while denigrating those who won't go there with you, but what can you offer us to support that idea? You'd need to show some advantage to that way of thinking to justify extoling it.

I say the reverse is true. By "clinging to material science," which I understand to mean having an empiricist's epistemology and being a critical thinker when evaluating evidence and claims about it, one avoids accumulating false and unfalsifiable ideas that muddy understanding without offering anything useful for making the effort. Aren't you just praising having an imagination and believing what you imagine by faith despite an absence of any apparent benefit in doing that?

I was trained in science and math and worked as a development chemical engineer. My job in science was to work outside the box, where science was not certain, instead of doing off the shelf science. I am keenly aware of science limitations and I enjoy working at that edge. In the box science, is like the theory that "evolution begins with the first RNA or DNA replicators". This starting point create a conceptual problem. It is a dogma premise, and not a statement of fact. The logical question is where did the first replicators come from? The current science answer, is similar to magic; it just appears based on chance. This is the same thing what many in science accuse Creationists. It is assumed without proof and is beyond proof.

Getting to the replicators, is beyond science proof, based on the current theories. Why is this "poof" creation; first replicators, allowed, since "poof" without proof, is not real science? It is a very soft and soggy foundation, based on faith and justified by dice and cards. It is a magic trick and not a conclusion based on proof, but based on poof. The Creationists do their own version of "poof" in six days and after that everything is here to see as the proof. Seeing is believing correct? Evolution does the same thing.

My job is not to criticize science, but criticize soft and soggy science and to help make it better. That is what development is about. Atheist do not see how the pot is calling the kettle black. The Big Bang theory also falls into that category, since it starts with a magic poof; primordial atom. Conceptually, if someone could start earlier, than either "of these two poofs of science", that should be the new state of the art in science, correct? Or are these two religious dogma infallible?

For example, I have tried to show how DNA will not work without water. If we dehydrated the DNA, as is often shown in textbooks, or if we place DNA in any other solvent, it does not work. How can something that just "poofs"into existence be totally dysfunctional without a water environment and then science not even look at the impact of water on its formation, even though it is tuned only to water.? That Poof was not a very intelligent design and easy to pick apart. I can also show how the base pairs of DNA have twice as many hydrogen binding sites for water, than for their complementary base. That can be ignored? Poof, does not even include the water, except as a stage hand. It makes more sense that water was the natural environment for DNA selection at the nano-scale. This explain their unique connection with water first due its simplicity and proven availability, be much sooner than the DNA.

One way to explain the paradox of the Life Sciences, being able to go far in these areas of science, even with a weak theoretical foundation; black box poof, can be explained with the analogy of cooking. A good chef, such as Grandma, can make a gourmet meal, even if they do not understand the details of food chemistry. The cooking skill is developed and comes from empirical and trial and error experience to create textures and taste, until Grandma's award winning recipe appears; Apple Pie. If you have a blue ribbon, you can explain the details of food chemistry any way you want; chill the lard under pressure, and right or wrong will not compromise the taste of your food. The apple pie conclusion exists apart from the theory. Even if they use a theoretical "poof", gourmet cook is still a gourmet cook and the poof appears to stand. Chef coats and lab coats are both used for cooking prestige.

I am more like someone who knows about food science at the chemical level. Although I can appreciate a good meal, I am not as easily fooled to believe cooking up theory; chilling the lard under pressure, is implied by cooking gourmet food in expensive casino restaurants.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm sorry, but your opinions of the video do not discredit what Dawkins said personally. But the video indeed does a very good job at exposing Dawkin's hypocrisy on the matter of God.

We've all seen this bogus, edited clip before. Dawkins has spoken out about it many times. This isn't the big "gotcha" you seem to think it is.
It's just another creationist canard.

You need the same faith to believe aliens planted the seed of life on earth at the beginning as a religious person who believes God did it instead.

Please explain how you think these two claims take the same amount of faith.

And then you can point out where Dawkins actually made any such claim.

I don't need to buy a t-shirt like a sports fan would do in order to advocate for a position either. The full video shows that very same unedited clip. I rest my case.

Full video:

Expelled is a trash movie whose producers had to dupe half the people they filmed for interviews.

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

...about intelligent design and evolution

www.scientificamerican.com

You need to refer to academic sites and science journals, when discussing science. Not bogus movies made by dishonest creationists.

 

[F1fan]

I'm sorry, but your opinions of the video do not discredit what Dawkins said personally. But the video indeed does a very good job at exposing Dawkin's hypocrisy on the matter of God. You need the same faith to believe aliens planted the seed of life on earth at the beginning as a religious person who believes God did it instead.

No you don't. Aliens are at least plausible and likely since they are defined as natural beings. There are no Gods known to exist, nor any way known for how they can exist. It takes vastly more faith (belief despite a lack of evidence) in Gods than aliens. Feel free to explain how it's plausible that any of the many Gods in human history exist outside of human imagination.

Let's note that the building blocks of life are natural, and plausible as coming about naturally with all the elements that exist on earth. There are no Gods observed, and no mechanisms explained that how Gods can exist, nor how they can do anything.

I don't need to buy a t-shirt like a sports fan would do in order to advocate for a position either.

Not when you drank a gallon of Kool-Aid.

The full video shows that very same unedited clip. I rest my case.

Yet we know what Dawkins understands about science, and his views on bogus creationist claims, including ID. What will a clip show that is a sole basis for what we know about Dawkins?

 

[wellwisher]

My biggest argument for intelligent design is to extrapolate science and then reverse engineer the alpha; cause, from the omega; final goal of science and evolution.

If we look at evolution and then the appearance of humans, the human brain and consciousness is what is adding another layer to natural creation. We add manmade and artificial things that can even alter the natural balance. If we extrapolate that, using science fiction, such as advanced alien civilizations, this still comes down to consciousness, pushing the natural envelope, with technology that extends the range of the body and biology.

If you look at modern computer interfaces, things like voice commands, were originally designed for people with handicaps; blind. Now voice control is more common to all, and everyone gets to do what only the handicapped used to do.

The conclusion I reach is technology appears to be working humans away their natural body, with technology becoming its replacement; transgender drugs and surgery. When the steam shovel appeared the need for strong back muscles was less. In the limit of this replacement process what will be left will be just consciousness and maybe a brain, connected to an informational matrix and robot, still creating and inventing, trying to get beyond even that box. The end game or omega will be the final logical step; pure consciousness with no wires, who can create a new alpha; new matrix leading to other consciousness.

Creation and God being the alpha and the omega; pure consciousness, without biology; spirit, creating an alpha, where biology appears and evolves to create human consciousness, which then works it way toward the omega, for a new alpha. This is not cyclic like a wave, but more like a helical path upward, that returns, but in a state that is higher, to begin another advancing cycle.

What are the limitations of pure consciousness; omega, and what types of alphas are possible and impossible? We may have different answers today than in another million years of getting closer to the omega.

 

[Altfish]

Is DNA a sign of Intelligent design?

No.

Sorry for the exhaustive reply

It is hard to add anything to this response.

 

[F1fan]

My biggest argument for intelligent design is to extrapolate science and then reverse engineer the alpha; cause, from the omega; final goal of science and evolution.

None of these have any correlation to fact.

Creation and God being the alpha and the omega;

Creation assumes a God, and no Gods are known to exist, nor can believers explain how Gods function in reality, so irrelevant.

pure consciousness, without biology; spirit,

None of these correlate to real things, so irrelevant.

creating an alpha, where biology appears and evolves to create human consciousness,

This is an assumption that isn't based on fact, so irrelevant.

which then works it way toward the omega, for a new alpha. This is not cyclic like a wave, but more like a helical path upward, that returns, but in a state that is higher, to begin another advancing cycle.

False conclusion because there are unwarranted assumptions that aren't based in fact.

What are the limitations of pure consciousness; omega, and what types of alphas are possible and impossible?

If we are going to use reason we need to throw out unwaranted assumvtions, like religious ideas. The limitation you suffer is WAY too many assumptions that are not fact-based.

We may have different answers today than in another million years of getting closer to the omega.

Let's note that you don't have answers, you have WAY too many assumptions that come from obsolete traditions of belief.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am more like someone who knows about food science at the chemical level. Although I can appreciate a good meal, I am not as easily fooled to believe cooking up theory; chilling the lard under pressure, is implied by cooking gourmet food in expensive casino restaurants.

Thanks for the heads up. Good to know.

I haven't been to a casino restaurant since visiting Spago at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas in March, 2000.