Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Your point is that because robots are complex and require design, a more complex system MUST require design?

Do you understand how reproduction works?

My point was, if it takes tremendous about of technology and science to create a human robot, yet it doesn't come close to the human body, why shouldn't there be intelligent design in the creating of the human body?

The human robot is complex? Correct? Is the human body not more complex?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My point was, if it takes tremendous about of technology and science to create a human robot, yet it doesn't come close to the human body, why shouldn't there be intelligent design in the creating of the human body?

Because they're two completely different things. For starters, we know human bodies are a result of reproduction.

The human robot is complex? Correct? Is the human body not more complex?

Do you not see the flaw in your logic? Just because one thing is complex and the result of design doesn't mean that another complex thing is a result of design.

Design is something you have to actually demonstrate.

 

[Polymath257]

My point was, if it takes tremendous about of technology and science to create a human robot, yet it doesn't come close to the human body, why shouldn't there be intelligent design in the creating of the human body?

The human robot is complex? Correct? Is the human body not more complex?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Is complexity always a sign of an intelligent agent?

 

[ecco]

why shouldn't there be intelligent design in the creating of the human body?

Is complexity always a sign of an intelligent agent?

If the complex spinal column of an upright homo sapiens was designed by an intelligent agent, I would have to say the "intelligent" agent flunked design 101.

If the complex cardiovascular system of an upright homo sapiens was designed by an intelligent agent, I would have to say the "intelligent" agent flunked design 101.

Need I give 100 more examples?

 

[tas8831]

My point was, if it takes tremendous about of technology and science to create a human robot, yet it doesn't come close to the human body, why shouldn't there be intelligent design in the creating of the human body?

The human robot is complex? Correct? Is the human body not more complex?

Good-Ole-Rebel

So.... You are saying that your deity is only slightly more competent than modern day humans.

Interesting.

 

[Jose Fly]

Already stated it in post #(313).

Good-Ole-Rebel

Then by the same reasoning, the "design of humans" must have involved metallurgy, plastics synthesis and molding, chip engineering and manufacture....plus the "designer" must have been a bipedal, upright primate with opposable thumbs, stereoscopic vision, and a brain....plus the "design" process was all via natural means (IOW, no supernatural actions were required).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Fascinating - please expand on this.

Without plagiarizing, please.

You forgot to supply any evidence for that fantastic and extraordinary claim.
Surely you will not rely entirely on a fallacious false dichotomy based on a strawman of sorts?

So no support, then...

They have been told this. They have been shown this. They have been publicly humiliated on these issues (e.g., Behe idiotic claim that no research had been done one the evolution of the immune system at the Dover Trial).

But they have a belief system to prop up, and a cash cow to keep milking, so they just keep going.

Lol! All these assertions without references are just words without meaning.

Here’s a reference:
EvoDevo Shapes the Extended Synthesis

Notice the “explanatory deficits of the standard evolutionary paradigm “.

(Thanks, in part, to irreducible complexity.)

 

[Jose Fly]

Lol! All these assertions without references are just words without meaning.

Here’s a reference:
EvoDevo Shapes the Extended Synthesis

Notice the “explanatory deficits of the standard evolutionary paradigm “.

(Thanks, in part, to irreducible complexity.)

??????? I searched the paper for "irreducible" and got no hits. Then I searched for "complex" and here are the places where the word is used....

"The evidence produced by EvoDevo mostly bears on the complexity of the genotype–phenotype rapport and the gene regulatory changes underlying its evolutionary transformation. It also elucidates the cell and tissue properties involved in the generation of complex structures, the physics and physiology governing these processes, as well as the quantitative assessment and modeling of generative procedures in evolutionary contexts. These results have tremendously improved our understanding of how development originated in the context of multicellularity, how its repertoires evolved, and how organismal change is mechanistically realized."

"EvoDevo gave rise to new concepts such as facilitated variation, developmental modularity, morphoregulation, epigenetic innovation, developmental systems drift—to name but a few. These provided improved understanding of the evolvability of developmental systems and their contribution to evolutionary robustness and non-gradual phenomena of phenotypic change. The result of these endeavors was a broadened interpretation of the role of development in the evolution of organismal complexity."

"While it is not yet possible to specify what an extended theory that encompasses substantially more factors than the classical version will look like precisely, it is safe to say that it will not concentrate on a single level of causation but, instead, will be pluralistic and multi-causal. It will include an account of the evolution of novelty and complexity, and the dominance of the variation-in-populations approach will recede. Such change entails significant shifts in theory structure, accounting—among other factors—for the dynamics of development, multiple levels of selection, different forms of inheritance, and reciprocity between environment and organismal activity (niche construction)."​

Reading that, I have to say I'm completely baffled as to why you, or any other ID creationist, would cite the paper. Care to explain?

 

[tas8831]

Lol! All these assertions without references are just words without meaning.

Like your posts, you mean? Those were QUESTIONS or REQUESTS, you know that, right? Questions asked about YOUR assertions?

let me help yo out (you need it):

YOU:
Are you talking about bacterial cells, where it’s chromosomes suffer from incomplete replication?

ME:
Fascinating - please expand on this.

Without plagiarizing, please.

YOU:
4. Everything was created millions and billions of years ago by God, the Intelligence behind life and the information and systems supporting its diversity.


ME:
You forgot to supply any evidence for that fantastic and extraordinary claim.
Surely you will not rely entirely on a fallacious false dichotomy based on a strawman of sorts?

So no support, then...


YOU:
Well, Behe and others don’t agree. Take it up with them. Tell them they’re ignorant and don’t understand.

ME:
They have been told this. They have been shown this. They have been publicly humiliated on these issues (e.g., Behe idiotic claim that no research had been done one the evolution of the immune system at the Dover Trial).

But they have a belief system to prop up, and a cash cow to keep milking, so they just keep going.

At WORST, I answered an assertion with an assertion - again, I have to ask - Do you not understand that people can, you know, read the things you reply to and such?

Here’s a reference:
EvoDevo Shapes the Extended Synthesis

Notice the “explanatory deficits of the standard evolutionary paradigm “.

UH OH!!! You bolded and underlined a word, so it must be really important:

def·i·cit

noun
the amount by which something, especially a sum of money, is too small.

​

Huh... That isn't so bad - tell us all, please - why did you think THAT was the take home message of this paper? What do you think the relevance of it actually is?

And can you find ANYONE that claims the ToE is the end-all be-all, beyond reproach, totality of all one can ever know about nature?

Because all of the science people I know understand that theories themselves can evolve over time (or be dismissed, overturned, replaced).

Muller overplays his hand, as I demonstrated to your when you brought all this up before (you dutifully ignored all that, too), and he seems to contradict himself in spots in this paper.

(Thanks, in part, to irreducible complexity.)

LOL!
Right... Weird that Behe is not cited...

So I guess one of my several posts that you dutifully ignored was one in which I commented on all this 'third way' stuff.

Funny how that works.

First, Muller and his ilk are eager for name recognition, hence some of his digs.

Second, I am a firm supporter of evodevo, as are most of the people I know, and am not sure why Muller makes a deal about it (well, actually I do), and if YOU and your creationist pals actually understood some of the implications of evodevo, I am just about 100% certain that you would not be so eager to call attention to it.

For one thing, it explains why we should not expect to find 'intermediates' all the time... But you know that, what with your in-depth reading of the relevant literature, right?

You do not apparently realize that his position is ultimately PRO-EVOLUTION, right?

And I must have missed it - where in Muller's paper does he acknowledge Behe's empty suit?

Or are you one of those creationists that thinks if a word is used it is all encompassing, so when he wrote "organismal complexity", you saw "organismal COMPLEXITY" and made some unfounded extrapolation?

Tell me - how much did you read?

Did you get this far:

The evidence produced by EvoDevo mostly bears on the complexity of the genotype–phenotype rapport and the gene regulatory changes underlying its evolutionary transformation. It also elucidates the cell and tissue properties involved in the generation of complex structures, the physics and physiology governing these processes, as well as the quantitative assessment and modeling of generative procedures in evolutionary contexts. These results have tremendously improved our understanding of how development originated in the context of multicellularity, how its repertoires evolved, and how organismal change is mechanistically realized.

EvoDevo has been equally prolific in the conceptual domain, contributing a wealth of new principles to the evolutionary model. Besides elaborations of such classical issues as heterochrony and developmental constraint, EvoDevo gave rise to new concepts such as facilitated variation, developmental modularity, morphoregulation, epigenetic innovation, developmental systems drift—to name but a few.​

Weird - nothing about IC or ID or YEC or anything else.

Did you present that paper for any real reason, or just hope that like you, I would not be able to understand it?
LOL!


And lastly - what, exactly, makes you take Muller's word as gospel on all this? he is no friend of creationism of ID, so for the life of me all IK can see is that you are shooting yourself in the foot in your zeal to attack evolution rather than defend your religious tales.

But at least you didn't plagiarize again. That is something!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

??????? I searched the paper for "irreducible" and got no hits. Then I searched for "complex" and here are the places where the word is used....

"The evidence produced by EvoDevo mostly bears on the complexity of the genotype–phenotype rapport and the gene regulatory changes underlying its evolutionary transformation. It also elucidates the cell and tissue properties involved in the generation of complex structures, the physics and physiology governing these processes, as well as the quantitative assessment and modeling of generative procedures in evolutionary contexts. These results have tremendously improved our understanding of how development originated in the context of multicellularity, how its repertoires evolved, and how organismal change is mechanistically realized."

"EvoDevo gave rise to new concepts such as facilitated variation, developmental modularity, morphoregulation, epigenetic innovation, developmental systems drift—to name but a few. These provided improved understanding of the evolvability of developmental systems and their contribution to evolutionary robustness and non-gradual phenomena of phenotypic change. The result of these endeavors was a broadened interpretation of the role of development in the evolution of organismal complexity."

"While it is not yet possible to specify what an extended theory that encompasses substantially more factors than the classical version will look like precisely, it is safe to say that it will not concentrate on a single level of causation but, instead, will be pluralistic and multi-causal. It will include an account of the evolution of novelty and complexity, and the dominance of the variation-in-populations approach will recede. Such change entails significant shifts in theory structure, accounting—among other factors—for the dynamics of development, multiple levels of selection, different forms of inheritance, and reciprocity between environment and organismal activity (niche construction)."​

Reading that, I have to say I'm completely baffled as to why you, or any other ID creationist, would cite the paper. Care to explain?

“Why would cite the paper”?
You’re kidding me, right?!

Because the current understanding of evolution and its mechanisms, fails dismally in explanation of what we see.

Despite incessant assertions that “evolution has already explained life’s diversity.”. You know how many times I’ve heard and read that? But it’s not true!

Otherwise, there would be no need for a “new synthesis”

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Like your posts, you mean? Those were QUESTIONS or REQUESTS, you know that, right? Questions asked about YOUR assertions?

let me help yo out (you need it):

YOU:
Are you talking about bacterial cells, where it’s chromosomes suffer from incomplete replication?

ME:
Fascinating - please expand on this.

Without plagiarizing, please.

YOU:
4. Everything was created millions and billions of years ago by God, the Intelligence behind life and the information and systems supporting its diversity.


ME:
You forgot to supply any evidence for that fantastic and extraordinary claim.
Surely you will not rely entirely on a fallacious false dichotomy based on a strawman of sorts?

So no support, then...


YOU:
Well, Behe and others don’t agree. Take it up with them. Tell them they’re ignorant and don’t understand.

ME:
They have been told this. They have been shown this. They have been publicly humiliated on these issues (e.g., Behe idiotic claim that no research had been done one the evolution of the immune system at the Dover Trial).

But they have a belief system to prop up, and a cash cow to keep milking, so they just keep going.

At WORST, I answered an assertion with an assertion - again, I have to ask - Do you not understand that people can, you know, read the things you reply to and such?



UH OH!!! You bolded and underlined a word, so it must be really important:

def·i·cit

noun
the amount by which something, especially a sum of money, is too small.

​

Huh... That isn't so bad - tell us all, please - why did you think THAT was the take home message of this paper? What do you think the relevance of it actually is?

And can you find ANYONE that claims the ToE is the end-all be-all, beyond reproach, totality of all one can ever know about nature?

Because all of the science people I know understand that theories themselves can evolve over time (or be dismissed, overturned, replaced).

Muller overplays his hand, as I demonstrated to your when you brought all this up before (you dutifully ignored all that, too), and he seems to contradict himself in spots in this paper.


LOL!
Right... Weird that Behe is not cited...

So I guess one of my several posts that you dutifully ignored was one in which I commented on all this 'third way' stuff.

Funny how that works.

First, Muller and his ilk are eager for name recognition, hence some of his digs.

Second, I am a firm supporter of evodevo, as are most of the people I know, and am not sure why Muller makes a deal about it (well, actually I do), and if YOU and your creationist pals actually understood some of the implications of evodevo, I am just about 100% certain that you would not be so eager to call attention to it.

For one thing, it explains why we should not expect to find 'intermediates' all the time... But you know that, what with your in-depth reading of the relevant literature, right?

You do not apparently realize that his position is ultimately PRO-EVOLUTION, right?

And I must have missed it - where in Muller's paper does he acknowledge Behe's empty suit?

Or are you one of those creationists that thinks if a word is used it is all encompassing, so when he wrote "organismal complexity", you saw "organismal COMPLEXITY" and made some unfounded extrapolation?

Tell me - how much did you read?

Did you get this far:

The evidence produced by EvoDevo mostly bears on the complexity of the genotype–phenotype rapport and the gene regulatory changes underlying its evolutionary transformation. It also elucidates the cell and tissue properties involved in the generation of complex structures, the physics and physiology governing these processes, as well as the quantitative assessment and modeling of generative procedures in evolutionary contexts. These results have tremendously improved our understanding of how development originated in the context of multicellularity, how its repertoires evolved, and how organismal change is mechanistically realized.

EvoDevo has been equally prolific in the conceptual domain, contributing a wealth of new principles to the evolutionary model. Besides elaborations of such classical issues as heterochrony and developmental constraint, EvoDevo gave rise to new concepts such as facilitated variation, developmental modularity, morphoregulation, epigenetic innovation, developmental systems drift—to name but a few.​

Weird - nothing about IC or ID or YEC or anything else.

Did you present that paper for any real reason, or just hope that like you, I would not be able to understand it?
LOL!


And lastly - what, exactly, makes you take Muller's word as gospel on all this? he is no friend of creationism of ID, so for the life of me all IK can see is that you are shooting yourself in the foot in your zeal to attack evolution rather than defend your religious tales.

But at least you didn't plagiarize again. That is something!

I’m so honored.

Mechanisms of bacterial DNA replication restart. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Jose Fly]

You’re kidding me, right?!

No.

Because the current understanding of evolution and its mechanisms, fails dismally in explanation of what we see.

Again we see the fundamentalist black/white thinking on display. Here a researcher explains how evo-devo can add to our understanding of evolutionary processes, and in the fundamentalist's mind that equates to "therefore evolution fails as an explanation".

Utterly bizarre.

Despite incessant assertions that “evolution has already explained life’s diversity.”. You know how many times I’ve heard and read that? But it’s not true!

Otherwise, there would be no need for a “new synthesis”

Can you show where anyone has claimed that evolution has explained all of life's diversity? Or is this yet another thing you make up, assert as fact, and then refuse to substantiate?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Because they're two completely different things. For starters, we know human bodies are a result of reproduction.


Do you not see the flaw in your logic? Just because one thing is complex and the result of design doesn't mean that another complex thing is a result of design.

Design is something you have to actually demonstrate.

Is the human body complex? No, let me restate, is the human body not much much more complex than the human robot?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[tas8831]

I’m so honored.

Mechanisms of bacterial DNA replication restart. - PubMed - NCBI

Cool way of 'admitting' you can't handle the discussion, but why link to another paper that you do not understand?

Is this part of your martyr complex thing?

Oh - here is all the stuff you couldn't handle - don't want it to get lost in the quoting compression (you in italics):


EvoDevo Shapes the Extended Synthesis

Notice the “explanatory deficits of the standard evolutionary paradigm “.


UH OH!!! You bolded and underlined a word, so it must be really important:

def·i·cit

noun
the amount by which something, especially a sum of money, is too small.

Huh... That isn't so bad - tell us all, please - why did you think THAT was the take home message of this paper? What do you think the relevance of it actually is?

And can you find ANYONE that claims the ToE is the end-all be-all, beyond reproach, totality of all one can ever know about nature?

Because all of the science people I know understand that theories themselves can evolve over time (or be dismissed, overturned, replaced).

Muller overplays his hand, as I demonstrated to your when you brought all this up before (you dutifully ignored all that, too), and he seems to contradict himself in spots in this paper.

(Thanks, in part, to irreducible complexity.)

LOL!
Right... Weird that Behe is not cited...

So I guess one of my several posts that you dutifully ignored was one in which I commented on all this 'third way' stuff.

Funny how that works.

First, Muller and his ilk are eager for name recognition, hence some of his digs.

Second, I am a firm supporter of evodevo, as are most of the people I know, and am not sure why Muller makes a deal about it (well, actually I do), and if YOU and your creationist pals actually understood some of the implications of evodevo, I am just about 100% certain that you would not be so eager to call attention to it.

For one thing, it explains why we should not expect to find 'intermediates' all the time... But you know that, what with your in-depth reading of the relevant literature, right?

You do not apparently realize that his position is ultimately PRO-EVOLUTION, right?

And I must have missed it - where in Muller's paper does he acknowledge Behe's empty suit?

Or are you one of those creationists that thinks if a word is used it is all encompassing, so when he wrote "organismal complexity", you saw "organismal COMPLEXITY" and made some unfounded extrapolation?

Tell me - how much did you read?

Did you get this far:

The evidence produced by EvoDevo mostly bears on the complexity of the genotype–phenotype rapport and the gene regulatory changes underlying its evolutionary transformation. It also elucidates the cell and tissue properties involved in the generation of complex structures, the physics and physiology governing these processes, as well as the quantitative assessment and modeling of generative procedures in evolutionary contexts. These results have tremendously improved our understanding of how development originated in the context of multicellularity, how its repertoires evolved, and how organismal change is mechanistically realized.

EvoDevo has been equally prolific in the conceptual domain, contributing a wealth of new principles to the evolutionary model. Besides elaborations of such classical issues as heterochrony and developmental constraint, EvoDevo gave rise to new concepts such as facilitated variation, developmental modularity, morphoregulation, epigenetic innovation, developmental systems drift—to name but a few.​

Weird - nothing about IC or ID or YEC or anything else.

Did you present that paper for any real reason, or just hope that like you, I would not be able to understand it?
LOL!


And lastly - what, exactly, makes you take Muller's word as gospel on all this? he is no friend of creationism of ID, so for the life of me all IK can see is that you are shooting yourself in the foot in your zeal to attack evolution rather than defend your religious tales.

But at least you didn't plagiarize again. That is something!

 

[tas8831]

Is the human body complex? No, let me restate, is the human body much much more complex than the human robot?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Never seen a human robot, though Ben Shapiro comes close.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No.


Again we see the fundamentalist black/white thinking on display. Here a researcher explains how evo-devo can add to our understanding of evolutionary processes, and in the fundamentalist's mind that equates to "therefore evolution fails as an explanation".

Utterly bizarre.


Can you show where anyone has claimed that evolution has explained all of life's diversity? Or is this yet another thing you make up, assert as fact, and then refuse to substantiate?

Is that what you “see”? Read my statement...I said “currently”.

What does “explanatory deficits of the standard evolutionary paradigm” mean to you?

 

[tas8831]

“Why would cite the paper”?
You’re kidding me, right?!

Because the current understanding of evolution and its mechanisms, fails dismally in explanation of what we see.[/quote]
Dismally?
Really?

Oh, I forgot that Muller is the Ultimate Authority on All Things related to Evolution.

Despite incessant assertions that “evolution has already explained life’s diversity.”. You know how many times I’ve heard and read that? But it’s not true!

Not true that you've heard that? I agree.

Otherwise, there would be no need for a “new synthesis”

Funny - other than a few recognition-seekers, who is saying that?

and did you not read your paper? Other than Muller's over the top rhetoric, he actually SUPPORTS evolution!!

No mention of Behe's nonsense. No mention of creationism nonsense.

Who do you think you are fooling?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Cool way of 'admitting' you can't handle the discussion, but why link to another paper that you do not understand?

Is this part of your martyr complex thing?

Oh - here is all the stuff you couldn't handle - don't want it to get lost in the quoting compression (you in italics):


EvoDevo Shapes the Extended Synthesis

Notice the “explanatory deficits of the standard evolutionary paradigm “.


UH OH!!! You bolded and underlined a word, so it must be really important:

def·i·cit

noun
the amount by which something, especially a sum of money, is too small.

Huh... That isn't so bad - tell us all, please - why did you think THAT was the take home message of this paper? What do you think the relevance of it actually is?

And can you find ANYONE that claims the ToE is the end-all be-all, beyond reproach, totality of all one can ever know about nature?

Because all of the science people I know understand that theories themselves can evolve over time (or be dismissed, overturned, replaced).

Muller overplays his hand, as I demonstrated to your when you brought all this up before (you dutifully ignored all that, too), and he seems to contradict himself in spots in this paper.

(Thanks, in part, to irreducible complexity.)

LOL!
Right... Weird that Behe is not cited...

So I guess one of my several posts that you dutifully ignored was one in which I commented on all this 'third way' stuff.

Funny how that works.

First, Muller and his ilk are eager for name recognition, hence some of his digs.

Second, I am a firm supporter of evodevo, as are most of the people I know, and am not sure why Muller makes a deal about it (well, actually I do), and if YOU and your creationist pals actually understood some of the implications of evodevo, I am just about 100% certain that you would not be so eager to call attention to it.

For one thing, it explains why we should not expect to find 'intermediates' all the time... But you know that, what with your in-depth reading of the relevant literature, right?

You do not apparently realize that his position is ultimately PRO-EVOLUTION, right?

And I must have missed it - where in Muller's paper does he acknowledge Behe's empty suit?

Or are you one of those creationists that thinks if a word is used it is all encompassing, so when he wrote "organismal complexity", you saw "organismal COMPLEXITY" and made some unfounded extrapolation?

Tell me - how much did you read?

Did you get this far:

The evidence produced by EvoDevo mostly bears on the complexity of the genotype–phenotype rapport and the gene regulatory changes underlying its evolutionary transformation. It also elucidates the cell and tissue properties involved in the generation of complex structures, the physics and physiology governing these processes, as well as the quantitative assessment and modeling of generative procedures in evolutionary contexts. These results have tremendously improved our understanding of how development originated in the context of multicellularity, how its repertoires evolved, and how organismal change is mechanistically realized.

EvoDevo has been equally prolific in the conceptual domain, contributing a wealth of new principles to the evolutionary model. Besides elaborations of such classical issues as heterochrony and developmental constraint, EvoDevo gave rise to new concepts such as facilitated variation, developmental modularity, morphoregulation, epigenetic innovation, developmental systems drift—to name but a few.​

Weird - nothing about IC or ID or YEC or anything else.

Did you present that paper for any real reason, or just hope that like you, I would not be able to understand it?
LOL!


And lastly - what, exactly, makes you take Muller's word as gospel on all this? he is no friend of creationism of ID, so for the life of me all IK can see is that you are shooting yourself in the foot in your zeal to attack evolution rather than defend your religious tales.

But at least you didn't plagiarize again. That is something!

Hey, man! You made my ignore list! You are not genuinely open to discussion..you just rail, and berate.
Goodbye.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

So.... You are saying that your deity is only slightly more competent than modern day humans.

Interesting.

Where did you get the word 'sightly' from?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[tas8831]

Is that what you “see”? Read my statement...I said “currently”.

What does “explanatory deficits of the standard evolutionary paradigm” mean to you?

What does it mean to you?

And why are you taking Muller's position at face value? Surely it is not due to your grasp of the science.

Remember when you linked to that stupid article by Nelson and Klinghoffer at that right wing fake news site about that meeting they had, and I found a legitimate article in which it was pointed out that these '3rd way' folks had lots of push back and couldn't support their assertions so well?

Oh, right - you dutifully ignored all that.

Never mind.