Intelligent Design

[ricmat]

You know those people at the Discovery Institute who claim that they can measure information content and detect design? Here’s how I know they aren’t true – if they could actually do that, they would be making billions of dollars from new applications from steganography to automated computer virus detection to artificial intelligence understanding of complex data, instead of wasting all their time and effort and ability just to argue that evolution is wrong.

Yeah right. And if the TOE were so great as you make out, then the evolution dudes would be making billions of dollars too. They aren’t.

Most IDers accept micro-evolution, the billions of years old earth, etc. Just like you do. They are also open to the possibility that some of the complex things we see in nature are designed. Why aren’t you open to this possibility? Your computer was designed. Why can’t you be designed?

 

[Hubriss]

Most IDers accept micro-evolution, the billions of years old earth, etc. Just like you do. They are also open to the possibility that some of the complex things we see in nature are designed. Why aren’t you open to this possibility? Your computer was designed. Why can’t you be designed?

There really is no problem with believing you and the world may be designed. But this is a belief, and at the moment, it is a weak tool for religious people to use to convince others that Jesus is the son of God. It is weak because it isn’t scientific and, depending on who you ask, may not be reasonable or logical. The reason it isn’t scientific because it is not testable, it does not make any predictions, and it is not a useful tool for explaining anything, while evolution is all those things. This has been pointed out again and again, yet the Discovery Institute and anyone else has failed to produce anything of the sort.

Now some religious people (not including Kenneth Miller and many others) see this and evolution as a problem. They see it as taking away from the mystery and achievements of their god. If life arose out of purely natural processes, where does that leave god? Whether or not this is a problem is subjective. Lots of people discard religion once they find out that many of the stories were once touted as fact, yet have now been proven to be wrong. Apologists know this, so they try to bring their god back into the picture by attempting to create a theory that can be seen as scientific and also supports the possibility that people can interpret as a role God plays in the whole picture, intelligent design.

So far they have failed to gain any respect for their idea as a theory or even a hypothesis in the scientific community. Yet, we live in a free country with freedom of speech, so they are able to try to bypass the professionals and people educated in science and appeal to the lay public. Hence, they write books. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, Strobel’s The Case for a Creator, Ben Stein’s laughing stock of a movie Expelled, and this latest entry to their cause.

Their efforts are not totally futile though. What they have succeeded in doing is they have created the illusion that there is a real controversy. There may be some kind of controversy, but it’s not because they present a respectable hypothesis, they haven’t produced any kind of hypothesis. Nevertheless, like some of you have noted in this thread, people are gaining the perspective that intelligent design has some credibility because people are arguing over it.

So we try to fight it on the scientific grounds. It’s fine if someone believes we are designed, no one really cares if they have that as a personal belief. But when people try to evangelize it, and mask their failure to produce any real reason or evidence behind their belief that they try to convince others of, you can bet that it will illicit a response. Plus, some people like trying to correct others.

 

[edwest2]

Intelligent Design is plausible. The Theory of Evolution is simply a social engineering experiment.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

So we try to fight it on the scientific grounds.

So please read “Signature in the Cell” and tell me where it’s wrong, on scientific grounds.

And I said previously:

They (IDers) are also open to the possibility that some of the complex things we see in nature are designed. Why aren’t you open to this possibility? Your computer was designed. Why can’t you be designed?

You didn’t answer those questions.

 

[buffalo]

Let’s make our own empirical test for design.

Let us look for 90 degree angles.

Is is true that everything that displays 90 degree angles is designed? What are the exceptions?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Yeah right. And if the TOE were so great as you make out, then the evolution dudes would be making billions of dollars too. They aren’t.

I have a friend from school who now works for a computer anti-virus company making $200K a year. His job is to write programs that detect computer viruses. The nice thing about his job is that his programs either work or they don’t work, and he can tell which right away by just testing them.

Guess where he gets all his best ideas from? Bioinformatics research. Guess which field hasn’t given him a single usable idea? Intelligent design.

So while the evolutionists are doing useful and practical research, the intelligent design people are spending all their time whining about how they are excluded from the scientific community, all the while producing nothing that actually works to detect design in the real world.

 

[ricmat]

I have a friend from school who now works for a computer anti-virus company making $200K a year. His job is to write programs that detect computer viruses. The nice thing about his job is that his programs either work or they don’t work, and he can tell which right away by just testing them.

Guess where he gets all his best ideas from? Bioinformatics research. Guess which field hasn’t given him a single usable idea? Intelligent design.

So while the evolutionists are doing useful and practical research, the intelligent design people are spending all their time whining about how they are excluded from the scientific community, all the while producing nothing that actually works to detect design in the real world.

No, they aren’t spending all their time whining. Read Signature in the Cell and get back to me.

And your friend doesn’t use design in his computer programs? AMAZING! They just came together by random chance. LOL and LOL again.

I’d like to see some of your friend’s ideas for his work that came from the TOE (and nowhere else).

And, let me know when your friend is replaced by a random code generator. Note: I’m not expecting this any time soon.

I’m off for the rest of the day, see you tomorrow…

 

[Just_Lurking]

Read Signature in the Cell and get back to me.

Just tell me where I can find the mathematical formula for the amount of information in a computer file and I will be happy. If you can point me to the formula for the amount of information in a string of DNA, I can adapt it to work on bytes instead of nucleic acids.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’d like to see some of your friend’s ideas for his work that came from the TOE (and nowhere else).

Here is some published work on this:

mitre.org/news/events/exchange08/3046.pdf

defcon.org/images/defcon-14/dc-14-presentations/DC-14-Miller.pdf

 

[rossum]

Let’s make our own empirical test for design.

Let us look for 90 degree angles.

Is is true that everything that displays 90 degree angles is designed?

No.

What are the exceptions?

Cubic crystals, such as salt.

rossum

 

[M0nkey]

For those who think that evolution has no use in our lives you should check out this site. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47

Irrelevant. Evolution can be warped to be whatever you want it to be. Of course there are variations this is part of the observable evidence, it does not prove evolution nor add to our understanding. Evolution basically says this: well, it just happens for no apparent reason.

@rossum: now, do perfect 90 degree angles come about by randomly moving things around? If you carefully study a cell; these are machines, show me how a step-by-step Darwinian evolution could have shaped such marvels. In fact, let’s start with something we can all relate to: blood clotting.

 

[rossum]

@rossum: now, do perfect 90 degree angles come about by randomly moving things around?

They do not, they come about by chemistry, for example the chemistry of Sodium and Chlorine causes then to form themselves into a cubic lattice thus forming a crystal with right angles at the corners of the faces of the crystal. This process is nothing to do with evolution.

If you carefully study a cell; these are machines, show me how a step-by-step Darwinian evolution could have shaped such marvels.

Certainly. See here: Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum.

In fact, let’s start with something we can all relate to: blood clotting.

Again, see here: Evolution of Blood Clotting.

It would be easier if you just tried Google before asking these questions, I found both webpages very easily.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

No.

Cubic crystals, such as salt.

rossum

OK.

Now let us start stacking attributes. Does the 90 degree thing have a purpose? Does it spin? Does it transport? Does it have a handle? Does it have threads? Can it assemble itself? Does it follow a pattern of assembly? What is its purpose?

 

[M0nkey]

They do not, they come about by chemistry, for example the chemistry of Sodium and Chlorine causes then to form themselves into a cubic lattice thus forming a crystal with right angles at the corners of the faces of the crystal. This process is nothing to do with evolution.

Of course it has nothing to do with evolution, such perfect structures do not come about by “natural selection.”

Certainly. See here: Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum.

I was referring to eukaryotic cells, not the humble flagellum.

Again, see here: Evolution of Blood Clotting.

A mutation duplicates an existing gene for a serine protease, a digestive enzyme produced in the pancreas.

Let’s deal with the basic question, could a “mutation” have evolved into a sophisticated system such as blood clotting? Remember, it takes a series of fine tuned cascades for it to work, think of machines working together. Not to mention the fact that any “mutation” in an organism is often catastrophic and the fact that by definition a *duplication *is only that a carbon copy of what was previously there.

If you look at the numbers blood-clotting cascades have roughly 10,000 genes, each is divided into an average of three pieces giving you a total of 30,000. TPA has four different kinds of domains. By “mutation” the odds of getting those four together is 30,000 to the fourth power, approximately one-tenth to the eighteenth power. Therefore, it would take an average of of a thousand billion years before *any *combination could work, which is roughly one hundred times more than our current estimated age of the universe.

 

[buffalo]

Of course it has nothing to do with evolution, such perfect structures do not come about by “natural selection.”

I was referring to eukaryotic cells, not the humble flagellum.

Let’s deal with the basic question, could a “mutation” have evolved into a sophisticated system such as blood clotting? Remember, it takes a series of fine tuned cascades for it to work, think of machines working together. Not to mention the fact that any “mutation” in an organism is often catastrophic and the fact that by definition a *duplication *is only that a carbon copy of what was previously there.

If you look at the numbers blood-clotting cascades have roughly 10,000 genes, each is divided into an average of three pieces giving you a total of 30,000. TPA has four different kinds of domains. By “mutation” the odds of getting those four together is 30,000 to the fourth power, approximately one-tenth to the eighteenth power. Therefore, it would take an average of of a thousand billion years before *any *combination could work, which is roughly one hundred times more than our current estimated age of the universe.

Either he doesn’t understand IC or it is the evo agenda to propagandize it. Let’s see the judge ruled ID isn’t science.

 

[tjm190]

If you look at the numbers blood-clotting cascades have roughly 10,000 genes, each is divided into an average of three pieces giving you a total of 30,000. TPA has four different kinds of domains. By “mutation” the odds of getting those four together is 30,000 to the fourth power, approximately one-tenth to the eighteenth power. Therefore, it would take an average of of a thousand billion years before *any *combination could work, which is roughly one hundred times more than our current estimated age of the universe.

Only if all combinations of ‘pieces’ are equally likely, and you fail to specify the rate at which these mutations were forming.

 

[rossum]

Now let us start stacking attributes. Does the 90 degree thing have a purpose? Does it spin? Does it transport? Does it have a handle? Does it have threads? Can it assemble itself? Does it follow a pattern of assembly? What is its purpose?

No. Relative to what? No. No. No. Yes. Yes. Minimise energy.

How much chemistry do you know? Crystals are driven by chemistry and a bit of thermodynamics - the “Minimise energy” bit.

rossum

 

[M0nkey]

Only if all combinations of ‘pieces’ are equally likely, and you fail to specify the rate at which these mutations were forming.

Well, mutations don’t usually occur during a creature’s lifetime and I mentioned the fact that the vast majority lead to problems down the road.

 

[rossum]

Of course it has nothing to do with evolution, such perfect structures do not come about by “natural selection.”

Then why did you ask your question in post #51 about “randomly moving things around”?

I was referring to eukaryotic cells, not the humble flagellum.

No you were not. Go back and read the part of your post #51 that you addressed to me. Nowhere do you mention eukaryotic cells:

@rossum: now, do perfect 90 degree angles come about by randomly moving things around? If you carefully study a cell; these are machines, show me how a step-by-step Darwinian evolution could have shaped such marvels. In fact, let’s start with something we can all relate to: blood clotting.

I can only respond to what you typed, not to what you didn’t type. You talked about machines and the bacterial flagellum has been referred to as a machine. My response was relevant to the question you asked. I am not a mind reader.

Let’s deal with the basic question, could a “mutation” have evolved into a sophisticated system such as blood clotting?

No. A single mutation could not have done so. A series of mutations could, and did, do so.

Remember, it takes a series of fine tuned cascades for it to work, think of machines working together.

Are you aware that cetecans lack parts of our blood clotting cascade, and yet their blood colts just fine. Are you aware that hagfish and lampreys lack even more of our blood clotting cascade and that their blood also clots just fine. There are many different ways to build a blood clotting system. We just have one possible version.

Not to mention the fact that any “mutation” in an organism is often catastrophic and the fact that by definition a *duplication *is only that a carbon copy of what was previously there.

Firstly a duplicated gene allows production of the relevant protein to be doubled - two production lines instead of one. Secondly the copy can mutate to make a different protein and the original gene is still there making the original protein.

If you look at the numbers blood-clotting cascades have roughly 10,000 genes, each is divided into an average of three pieces giving you a total of 30,000.

Original reference please. How many of these genes are slightly mutated copies of other genes in the cascade?

TPA has four different kinds of domains. By “mutation” the odds of getting those four together is 30,000 to the fourth power, approximately one-tenth to the eighteenth power. Therefore, it would take an average of of a thousand billion years before *any *combination could work, which is roughly one hundred times more than our current estimated age of the universe.

Your calculation is faulty. You have failed to include the element of natural selection in your model, so the numbers you are getting are useless. You probably also need to include the effects of sexual reproduction as well. Currently all you have is GIGO.

rossum

 

[tjm190]

Well, mutations don’t usually occur during a creature’s lifetime and I mentioned the fact that the vast majority lead to problems down the road.

Actually the vast majority do nothing at all. And to speak to probability of a certain event occurring over an interval of time you need- a figure for the likelihood of the event occurring ever ‘chance’ it gets and the rate at which these ‘chances’ occur. You have neither.

For example, I could say “what are the odds of rolling a 6 on a ten second interval”- quite a nonsensical question.