Biological Design Argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bennierja
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Another buffalo prediction coming true. In past posts I have predicted that as we learn more about the genome we will be better able to classify species. Now here is a paper just published that is showing just that. This is more support for IDvolution.

Proteins and Genes, Singletons and Species

Recent experimental data from proteomics and genomics are interpreted here in ways that challenge the predominant viewpoint in biology according to which the four evolutionary processes, including mutation, recombination, natural selection and genetic drift, are sufficient to explain the origination of species. The predominant viewpoint appears incompatible with the finding that the sequenced genome of each species contains hundreds, or even thousands, of unique genes – the genes that are not shared with any other species. These unique genes and proteins, singletons, define the very character of every species. Moreover, the distribution of protein families from the sequenced genomes indicates that the complexity of genomes grows in a manner different from that of self-organizing networks: the dominance of singletons leads to the conclusion that in living organisms a most unlikely phenomenon can be the most common one. In order to provide proper rationale for these conclusions related to the singletons, the paper first treats the frequency of functional proteins among random sequences, followed by a discussion on the protein structure space, and it ends by questioning the idea that protein domains represent conserved units of evolution.
Click to expand...
In my college courses in evolution and biogeography, we learned that forming gene pools in isolated reproductive environments can lead to diversion. In the Southern Hemisphere, fossil evidence has revealed that camels and llamas are related. The fact that there are no camels in South America and no llamas in Africa is explainable by the theory of continental drift. That is, at one time, Africa and South America were once one land mass allowing pre-camels and pre-llamas to interbreed. But once South America split from Africa, genetic drift occurred resulting in different species on each continent.

The same sort of phenomenon was observed by Darwin in the Galapagos Islands. Significant differences in finches from island to island revealed this pattern.

Cluster analysis has been used to distinguish species. Many phenotypic characteristics are arranged in matrices and analyzed mathematically to arrive at discrete species. Sometimes the similarities are too great to arrive at separate species, in which case, the discrete entities are defined as variations within the species. This is essentially what Darwin did, but without the benefit of cluster analysis.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
rossum

The purpose of a hammer is to pound.
The goal of the hammer may be to pound a nail or somebody’s head. 😃
Click to expand...
Has it ever occurred to the design side of the debate that anything can become a hammer? It does not have to be predesigned to become one. A good example is a 10,000 pound rock vs. 3 pound rock. Neither one was originally designed to be a hammer. But stone age people discovered that they can lift a 3 pound rock and pound with it. But a 10,000 pound rock was to heavy to be used as a hammer.

In using tools, I have often used a wrench as a hammer. It was designed to turn bolts. But I thought up a new use for it. The same goes for a heavy screw driver.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
The purpose belongs to both the toolmaker and the hammer, or else why would the hammer exist?
Click to expand...
The purpose of the toolmaker is to sell the hammer at a profit. What impact does that have on me as the owner of the hammer? Does it restrict my use of the hammer for other purposes? Does it prevent me selling the hammer at a loss? If I dismantle the hammer molecule by molecule is there any “purpose” left over once all the molecules have been removed? Show me this separate purpose? Where is it and what effects does it have?
The purpose of a baby is not to claim child benefits. The purpose of a baby is to glorify God.
Click to expand...
So, the mother who makes the baby does not get to decide its purpose? The maker cannot decide the purpose? Your “purpose” is getting very slippery and hard to grasp.

rossum
 
rossum

So, the mother who makes the baby does not get to decide its purpose? The maker cannot decide the purpose? Your “purpose” is getting very slippery and hard to grasp.

I think I get your drift.

The purpose of the the baby is to be killed by its mother and the abortionist?

I don’t think so. And if the baby could speak outside the womb, he also would have a different view of his purpose… to live and glorify the God who created him.

But the abortionist would just see the baby’s purpose as a paycheck, or as meat in a crockpot.

lifenews.com/2013/05/08/late-term-abortion-doc-caught-comparing-unborn-baby-to-meat-in-a-crock-pot/
 
Charlemagne_II said:
rossum

So, the mother who makes the baby does not get to decide its purpose? The maker cannot decide the purpose? Your “purpose” is getting very slippery and hard to grasp.

I think I get your drift.

The purpose of the the baby is to be killed by its mother and the abortionist?

I don’t think so. And if the baby could speak outside the womb, he also would have a different view of his purpose… to live and glorify the God who created him.

But the abortionist would just see the baby’s purpose as a paycheck.

lifenews.com/2013/05/08/late-term-abortion-doc-caught-comparing-unborn-baby-to-meat-in-a-crock-pot/
Click to expand...
A Buddhist would greet a new baby with sorrow because the baby was going to suffer. The gift of life, as interpreted by westerners, is no gift to a Buddhist. Jesus of Nazareth was born as a human, and as a human, lived a short life surrounded by many suffering people. Were all these suffering people given gifts of life?
 
nmgauss said:
A Buddhist would greet a new baby with sorrow because the baby was going to suffer. The gift of life, as interpreted by westerners, is no gift to a Buddhist. Jesus of Nazareth was born as a human, and as a human, lived a short life surrounded by many suffering people. Were all these suffering people given gifts of life?
Click to expand...
Life is not a gift, it is the result of causes. We did not attain enlightenment in our previous lives so we were born again to live another life and get another chance at enlightenment.

That new born baby is alive as a human at a time when Buddhism is known, so it has an opportunity.

rossum
 
nmgauss said:
In my college courses in evolution and biogeography, we learned that forming gene pools in isolated reproductive environments can lead to diversion. In the Southern Hemisphere, fossil evidence has revealed that camels and llamas are related. The fact that there are no camels in South America and no llamas in Africa is explainable by the theory of continental drift. That is, at one time, Africa and South America were once one land mass allowing pre-camels and pre-llamas to interbreed. But once South America split from Africa, genetic drift occurred resulting in different species on each continent.

The same sort of phenomenon was observed by Darwin in the Galapagos Islands. Significant differences in finches from island to island revealed this pattern.

Cluster analysis has been used to distinguish species. Many phenotypic characteristics are arranged in matrices and analyzed mathematically to arrive at discrete species. Sometimes the similarities are too great to arrive at separate species, in which case, the discrete entities are defined as variations within the species. This is essentially what Darwin did, but without the benefit of cluster analysis.
Click to expand...
I think you are speaking of adaptation.
 
rossum said:
Life is not a gift, it is the result of causes. We did not attain enlightenment in our previous lives so we were born again to live another life and get another chance at enlightenment.

That new born baby is alive as a human at a time when Buddhism is known, so it has an opportunity.

rossum
Click to expand...
Does Buddhism have a supreme god? Do any of the many gods play a role in design or for that matter evo?
 
nmgauss

**In using tools, I have often used a wrench as a hammer. It was designed to turn bolts. But I thought up a new use for it. The same goes for a heavy screw driver. **

Adaptation is not the same as design, though one can intelligently adapt one tool to be used as another.

We do not intelligently design ourselves. We are a product of natural selection and a gift of God.

Were all these suffering people given gifts of life?

Yes. We are not born mainly to suffer or to escape suffering. That is Buddhist, not Christian. We are born to overcome suffering. The fact that most suffering people cling to life is sufficient proof that life is a gift to be treasured even through the suffering.

rossum

The baby-for-benefit can set his own purpose later in life.

He can set his own goals but not his own purpose. His purpose was endowed at birth.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
nmgauss

**In using tools, I have often used a wrench as a hammer. It was designed to turn bolts. But I thought up a new use for it. The same goes for a heavy screw driver. **

Adaptation is not the same as design, though one can intelligently adapt one tool to be used as another.

We do not intelligently design ourselves. We are a product of natural selection and a gift of God.

Were all these suffering people given gifts of life?

Yes. We are not born mainly to suffer or to escape suffering. That is Buddhist, not Christian. We are born to overcome suffering. The fact that most suffering people cling to life is sufficient proof that life is a gift to be treasured even through the suffering.

rossum

The baby-for-benefit can set his own purpose later in life.

He can set his own goals but not his own purpose. His purpose was endowed at birth.
Click to expand...
Maybe adaptation is the result of natural selection. But how does one explain caribou
vs. reindeer? They both exist in the same ecological setting. This can be explained by genetic drift. Mutations of genes causes changes in the adaptability of species to their environments. Can we attribute mutations to the gift of God?

Heaven is supposed to be a place where suffering does not exist. Eternal bliss is the putative experience. Why is it a gift to create a needy human who suffers if his needs are not met?
 
nmgauss
**
Why is it a gift to create a needy human who suffers if his needs are not met? **

Why isn’t it a gift you treasure when you do not choose to throw it away?
 
rossum

A purpose such as “to claim child benefit” would be endowed before conception, not just at birth.

That is the parent’s goal for having a child, to get money. That is not the child’s purpose for being.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
rossum

A purpose such as “to claim child benefit” would be endowed before conception, not just at birth.

That is the parent’s goal for having a child, to get money. That is not the child’s purpose for being.
Click to expand...
It can be argued that the child’s purpose is to give its parents pleasure or fulfill the expectations of the parents. Otherwise, why would the parents want the child? Many teen-age mothers want a baby so that someone loves them. That is the child’s purpose.
 
buffalo said:
So the gods are all equal?
Click to expand...
No, but none is “supreme” in the sense which the Abrahamic religions mean. For instance, no god created the universe and no god is above moral law.

Think of the Buddhist gods as more like the various angels.

rossum
 
nmgauss

**It can be argued that the child’s purpose is to give its parents pleasure or fulfill the expectations of the parents. **

Well, if the parents were to die when the child was born, wouldn’t the child still have a purpose?

Catholics believe that purpose is to glorify God by their works.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
That is the parent’s goal for having a child, to get money. That is not the child’s purpose for being.
Click to expand...
So, the hammer decides its own purpose? You are not being consistent here. At some points you say it is the manufacturer that decides purpose, and now you are saying that it is the manufactured (the baby) that decides purpose.

Are you sure that you shouldn’t be using “purposes” rather than “purpose”?

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top