Intelligent Design

[buffalo]

Perhaps “code” is the wrong term. There is no sender, receiver, or key in DNA, there is only the DNA itself. From what I remember of high school biology, a transcriber “reads” the DNA, and builds amino acids based on the sequencing. It’s all purely mechanical, though, like an old computer “reading” punch cards.

I’m at the library at the moment, but I’ll certainly read your article when I get home.

I meant that it works in a similar fashion to a cipher.

Why does the mathematical nature of a cipher imply design?

Well, it’s not a faith, it’s more of a belief. I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong, and am open to possibly changing my mind in the future.

Who made the punch cards?

 

[vz71]

I meant that it works in a similar fashion to a cipher.

This implies an intelligence behind it.

Why does the mathematical nature of a cipher imply design?

You have a point.
It is not the mathmatical nature of the cipher.
It is the cipher itself that implies an intelligence.

 

[buffalo]

I have opened a thread on Back Fence here.

 

[rossum]

Nope - the designer can design and then sustain.

Design is easy. Every time there is an architectural competition there are five or ten different designs proposed for the new building. Only one of those designs gets built.

How does the ID designer actually build his/her/its/their designs? How are molecules of DNA moved around? How are base pairs shifted into the required order? How does the designer act in the material world to actually construct the designs? ID is not complete without a mechanism. Evolution has a mechanism. ID is unlikely to replace evolution unless it can come up with a mechanism.

We know that evolution can alter DNA - everyone accepts microevolution. What equivalent mechanism does ID have that changes DNA?

Then only empirical science in the science class.

Evolution is empirical science, despite what ID propagandists are trying to tell you. Evolution meets the definition while currently ID does not.

As far as the judgement goes - we will see if the judgement passes the test of time. Again, I reject the government limiting the truths a student can be taught in favor of a paradigm.

I am not against teaching ID. I am against teaching ID in science class. There are other lessons where ID can be taught. Currently ID is not science and does not deserve a place in science classes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Real simple - a 3D guy certainly can do things that a flatlander cannot test, see or experience.

Then you are not doing science. If there is no test then how can you test for design? If you cannot see then how can you see design? If you cannot experience then how can you experience design?

You are only confirming that ID is not science here. By all means teach ID in philosophy class, but this form of ID is not science.

rossum

 

[rossum]

What do they turn into?

Their descendants are a new species that cannot breed with the original species. Keep two populations separated for a time and then bring them back together. Sometimes they can interbreed, other times they cannot. Sometimes you get limited interbreeding, like mules or ligers. When they cannot interbreed then that is speciation - there are now two different non-interbreeding species where there was one before.

Evolution is a population phenomenon. Populations evolve. Speciation is observed in populations.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Are you privy to the intent of the author?
How is this mind-reading feat accomplished.

If a web site says that 1 + 1 = 3 then that website is lying. Or perhaps you follow a subjective morality where moral offences are not objective?

rossum

 

[vz71]

If a web site says that 1 + 1 = 3 then that website is lying. Or perhaps you follow a subjective morality where moral offences are not objective?

rossum

Your word choice indicates that you are able to distinguish between error, mistake, and willful deceit.
Given that you do not even have my source to work with, there is no other way for you to be able to make a determination.

Please explain how this mind-reading process is accomplished.

Your credibility is on the line here.

 

[rossum]

"Not to mince words - the modern synthesis is gone" - "The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair."

You really need to read the article you refer to. The “Modern Synthesis” was once modern, from about 1925 to 1950. It is now supplemented by more recent discoveries, as the article points out.

Science “stands on the shoulders of giants”, and the Modern Synthesis (better called the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis) is one of the giants. As your article points out, current evolutionary theory also incorporates neutral drift, HGT and the results we are getting from DNA sequencing. The Modern Synthesis was the state of evolutionary theory 60 years ago. We have discovered more since then and it has been incorporated into our present evolutionary theory.

You are tilting at windmills. Evolutionary theory has moved on since 1950.

rossum

 

[AntiTheist]

Your word choice indicates that you are able to distinguish between error, mistake, and willful deceit.
Given that you do not even have my source to work with, there is no other way for you to be able to make a determination.

Sometimes, when people talk, they make the unspoken assumption that creationists who spend considerable time studying a subject could not possibly be so grossly misinformed about it; thus, they describe these creationists as “lying.”

Of course, as you point out, this assumption might be unwarranted: it could be that the creationists actually do believe the silly tripe they spew.

But so what? The point being expressed is that the information that they are dispensing is – whether by malice or by ignorance – incorrect. That’s the point that’s important. To turn the conversation back onto an assumption about the character of these creationists is to miss the point and/or try to distract from the point.

 

[rossum]

Your word choice indicates that you are able to distinguish between error, mistake, and willful deceit.

Creationst wewbsites lie. Creationist speakers lie. In particular they lie about evolution. They create a strawman of evolution that is easy to criticise. They need to do this because they do not have the evidence to successfully criticise the actual theory of evolution.

To take the points in your earlier post:

Indeed, there is no process that can explain other species appearing that can be observed or repeated in a lab.

False. Such processes have been observed. For example, two mutations that separate Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi change the time of breeding. A third mutation changed the colour. These are two different species with different colouration and different breeding seasons. There are only three mutations separating them.

Speciation has been observed in the laboratory. Speciation has been observed in the wild. Any website that does not realise this in the 21st centure is either lying or is deliberately closing its eyes to scientific results, and claiming an expertise in an area where it has no expertise. That claim is also a lie. Either way the website is lying.

Evolution itself cannot be tested or falsified.

Another lie. A Cambrian Rabbit will falsify evolution. An actual scientific result from ID would falsify evolution. Any website that repeats that canard is either lying, or ignorant of all the ID and creationist claims to have falsified evolution. Again that leads to a false claim of expertise. Either way your source was lying to you.

Evolution is falsifiable. Just ask buffalo, he posts a new falsification of evolution every week.

rossum

 

[vz71]

Creationst wewbsites lie. Creationist speakers lie.

Since you have left this open, I must point out that you are wrong.

I know many websites that tell the truth. Many that deceive.
And quite a few with typing errors in thm.

Likewise there is issue here with your broad brush concerning creationist speakers.

You are in error here.
And I now question your credibility.

 

[vz71]

Such processes have been observed. For example, two mutations that separate Chrysopa carnea and Chrysopa downesi change the time of breeding. A third mutation changed the colour. These are two different species with different colouration and different breeding seasons. There are only three mutations separating them.

Who observed this change?
When?
Is this really a species change?
Has it been reproduced in a lab?
When?
Are there papers on this?
Please reference them.

 

[ricmat]

Can you make a 1000 foot high pile of sand in 3 billion years by dropping a grain on it every 100 years? And oh by the way, the wind is blowing.

If you toss a coin once per second, on average, how long will it take you to get 1000 heads in a row? And the second question - can you do it in under 1000 seconds?

Yes, with a population and with natural selection. Unless your model includes a population and natural selection then it is not a model of evolution.

rossum

It takes really strong religious beliefs to think that you can toss a coin once per second, and toss 1000 heads in a row in under 1000 seconds.

 

[rossum]

Who observed this change?
When?
Is this really a species change?
Has it been reproduced in a lab?
When?
Are there papers on this?
Please reference them.

Source: adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977Sci…197.1298T (Yes, the dots really are in the URL)

rossum

 

[vz71]

Who observed this change?
When?
Is this really a species change?
Has it been reproduced in a lab?
When?
Are there papers on this?
Please reference them.

Source: adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977Sci…197.1298T (Yes, the dots really are in the URL)

rossum

So based upon the link, I have my answers…

Who observed this change? No one.
When? Unknown.
Is it really a species change? Maybe.
Has it been reproduced in a lab? No.
Are there papers on this? Yes, they tell us what we do not know.

Do you have anything stronger to offer?

 

[rossum]

It takes really strong religious beliefs to think that you can toss a coin once per second, and toss 1000 heads in a row in under 1000 seconds.

The crucial words are “with a population and natural selection”.

Start with a population of 5000 coins. Toss them. All the tails die and all the heads survive due to natural selection. We now have 2500 surviving coins. The surviving coins, all heads, breed and have two offspring coins each. The offspring inherit the single head from their parent. Remember that in evolution we inherit our DNA from our parents; these coins inherit the successful head throw from their parent.

Now we have 5000 coins in a new generation, each with one inherited head throw. Throw all the coins. About 2500 die and 2500 survive. The survivors now have two head throws, one inherited and one of their own. The two-head survivors breed and each have a pair of two-head offspring. We now have a population of 5000 two-head coins.

Repeat for a further 998 generations and you will have a population of 5000 coins, each with 1000 heads, 999 inherited and 1 of their own. I can run this model on my computer in a very short time indeed.

Any proposed model of evolution that does not include the correct elements of natural selection in a population with inheritance is not a useful model of evolution. Creationists often put forward a pure random model, which is not a correct model evolution.

My coin model is very crude, but it is enough to show that the overly simplistic pure random model cannot correctly describe the process of random mutation and natural selection in a population with inheritance.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So based upon the link, I have my answers…

Who observed this change? No one.
When? Unknown.
Is it really a species change? Maybe.
Has it been reproduced in a lab? No.
Are there papers on this? Yes, they tell us what we do not know.

Do you have anything stronger to offer?

What part of “Authors: Tauber, Catherine A.; Tauber, Maurice J.” do you have a problem with?

Those are the names of the authors of the paper I referenced and hence the names of the people doing the observation. That is what scientists do; they observe things and then publish their results.

What part of “Publication Date: 09/1977” do you have a problem with?

That is the date this paper was published. The work itself will have been done in the time leading up to publication. Details will be in the paper, which you are going to have to read. This is science, if you want to know things then you have to read scientific papers.

There is only so much hand-holding I can do here. I can’t read the reference for you. I have given you the reference, it is your job to read it.

rossum

 

[vz71]

What part of “Authors: Tauber, Catherine A.; Tauber, Maurice J.” do you have a problem with?

The part where they tell us they are writing a paper based upon something already in nature.

They DO NOT first hand witness any changes at all.
They are simply writing a proposal of how they believe a change occurred in the past.

There is only so much hand-holding I can do here. I can’t read the reference for you. I have given you the reference, it is your job to read it.

Perhaps the difficulty is in attempting to hand-hold me into a false conclusion.
I read the link very carefully, the answers provided are there to be seen.
Perhaps you are reading more there then actually is…after all, the entirety of the link is what one would expect on a card in the card catalog of a public library.

Maybe you should attempt to link the actual papers or maybe come up with some other evidences.

 

[WTSherman]

Nonsense. God may have other worlds at his disposal but who can deny His glory in creating the universe?