Intelligent Design

[Charlemagne_II]

From “A Short Scheme of True Religion” by Isaac Newton

Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.

 

[ricmat]

Where are your experiments showing the designer at work?

When your malaria bacteria suddenly develop resistance in the presence of an anti-biotic, what are the chances that a random mutation (gamma ray, alpha particle, transcription error, whatever) just happened to come along at the right time? Not last Wednesday when it wasn’t needed, but right now, when it is needed?

Just a thought.

 

[rossum]

Well, I see ample evidence of ID.

Unfortunately if ID wants to be science it has to progress beyond “It sure looks designed to me”.

Would you accept “It sure looks evolved to me” as evidence for evolution? Or would you ask for something more?

What of all the species that have simply appeared?

Almost every known species, living and extinct has a probable ancestor. The ones that don’t tend to be small and squishy, the kind that don’t fossilise well. It is reasonable to suppose that their ancestors were also small, squishy and did not fossilise well.

What of those pesky irreducibly complex engines?

Professor Behe is a good scientist. He read Darwin, and noted that Darwin had proposed a way to falsify evolution:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

• Origins, Chapter Six
  Behe devised irreducible complexity as a way to show that there were such organs. Other scientists looked at Behe’s idea and decided to test it. Unfortunately the idea of IC failed, IC systems can evolve. They cannot evolve by a direct path, but they can evolve by indirect paths. Thornhill and Ussery (2000) give an overview of possible paths. Lenski has shown the evolution of IC systems both in a computer environment, Lenski (2003), and in E. coli, Lenski (2008).

Correctly, Behe realised that his initial hypothesis was incorrect – it had failed the experimental test. So he modified his hypothesis. Instead of “IC systems cannot evolve” he changed it to “IC systems are unlikely to evolve”. He then modelled just how unlikely they were to evolve. This resulted in Behe’s paper Behe and Snoke (2004). This showed, from Behe’s own calculations, that a simple IC system could evolve in a population of a billion bacteria in about 20,000 years.

This is an example of science working as it should. The originator of a theory also proposes a way to falsify it. Someone comes up with a falsifying hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested and is found to be incorrect. The hypothesis is modified and retested.

We now know that IC systems cannot evolve by the direct route. We also know that they can evolve by indirect routes. Calculations indicate that though indirect routes may be slower than direct routes they are not so slow as to pose a problem for normal populations and known timescales. The timescales might be a problem in small isolated populations.

Our knowledge of the world has advanced. Behe’s concept was an interesting one and sparked a lot of useful work on the mammalian blood clotting cascade, mammalian immune systems and bacterial flagella (there is more than one type). We now understand better how those systems evolved, and indeed they all utilised indirect routes as Behe’s revised hypothesis proposed.

One of the things that ID lacks is a way to falsify it. Darwin was able to describe something which could not evolve in enough detail that Behe was able to get a near miss at the target. Where is the equivalent description from ID of something that could not have been designed?

rossum

 

[rossum]

When your malaria bacteria suddenly develop resistance in the presence of an anti-biotic, what are the chances that a random mutation (gamma ray, alpha particle, transcription error, whatever) just happened to come along at the right time? Not last Wednesday when it wasn’t needed, but right now, when it is needed?

Just a thought.

See the Luria–Delbrück experiment.

It quite possible it did come along last Wednesday. Remember that mutations are random, and they happen whether they are needed or not. Once the environment changes and they become needed then natural selection will spread them through the population.

Not every organism in a population is identical. Due to that pre-existing variation some are more resistant than average. Others are less resistant than average. The more resistant genes will spread due to natural selection. The less resistant genes will disappear due to natural selection.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here we go again. Sheesh!

Evolutionists have failed to prove by the theory of evolution how life first appeared on the planet. There was nothing to evolve from. Therefore life came spontaneously into existence … by accident or by design? If by accident … prove it. If by design, if it looks like it was put together not only to survive but to reproduce itself also, then it sure as hell looks like it was designed.

Since no one was there to witness it, we cannot prove it decisively either way. One must therefore go by appearances … by probability. There is no probability that the first organism designed itself to both survive and reproduce itself by pure accident.

If so, prove it. You great at demanding proof for ID. Now produce your proof for life by accident.

 

[mark_avery]

You should read is religion a scam,not so intelligent.

Sometimes we are though,but it is only his image not his mind, most of the time(husk,what`s it good for…).

 

[shoe]

Thank you for that. I have learned something new today. It does indeed appear that the sterile males were caused by an infection and not by speciation.

In that case I will propose a different example: Drosophilia melanogaster, from Kilias, et al. (1980).

Secular scientists have been bombarding fruit flies with radiation for many years in order to find “evidence” that would lead them to a better understanding of evolution; but so far the only thing that these scientists have been able to show for their efforts is only a great variety of different kinds of mutational deformities. After all these years the fruit fly still remains a fruit fly. Not once has a fruit fly evolved into a bird (or half-fly and half-bird) or mutated into a lizard or something else. Scientists’ continuing failure to turn fruit flies into something that fruit flies were never intended to be made into would indicate that they were designed that way. It seems to me that all the “evidence” discovered in the laboratory actually agree with the Intelligent Design concept that organisms reproduce after their own particular kind and not after some other kind.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*It seems to me that all the “evidence” discovered in the laboratory actually agree with the Intelligent Design concept that organisms reproduce after their own particular kind and not after some other kind. *

Good point. Men are not going to sprout wings nor fins, yet they have designed methods of flying and traveling underwater by sheer force of intellect, imagination, and will. In other words, by force of intelligent design. Then why are we not as well the product of intelligent design?

 

[rossum]

Secular scientists have been bombarding fruit flies with radiation for many years in order to find “evidence” that would lead them to a better understanding of evolution; but so far the only thing that these scientists have been able to show for their efforts is only a great variety of different kinds of mutational deformities. After all these years the fruit fly still remains a fruit fly. Not once has a fruit fly evolved into a bird (or half-fly and half-bird) or mutated into a lizard or something else. Scientists’ continuing failure to turn fruit flies into something that fruit flies were never intended to be made into would indicate that they were designed that way. It seems to me that all the “evidence” discovered in the laboratory actually agree with the Intelligent Design concept that organisms reproduce after their own particular kind and not after some other kind.

Three points.

1 You are being lied to by creationist websites.

2 Evolution is temporarily banned here, so I will stop providing evidence. Go and search for scientific papers on speciation among the Drosophilae.

3 You have no evidence in favour of ID to show here. All you have is ID of the gaps, which only goes to show that ID is not science. “If astronomy cannot explain where the universe came from then astrology must be right”.

rossum

 

[vz71]

2 Evolution is temporarily banned here, so I will stop providing evidence. Go and search for scientific papers on speciation among the Drosophilae.
rossum

There is a thread on the back fence area of the forum by this same name that continues this discussion.

 

[vz71]

Unfortunately if ID wants to be science it has to progress beyond “It sure looks designed to me”.

Would you accept “It sure looks evolved to me” as evidence for evolution? Or would you ask for something more?

No, I would not accept a ‘to me’ argument for scientific purposes.
But for the entirety of the thread, you appear to be the only one proposing the ‘to me’ argument.
ID specifies design. Not subjective appearence, but concrete design.

Almost every known species, living and extinct has a probable ancestor. The ones that don’t** tend** to be small and squishy, the kind that don’t fossilise well. It is reasonable to suppose that their ancestors were also small, squishy and did not fossilise well.
rossum

I bolded the key words there. Were it fact, the bolded should properly be difinitives and not subjectives.
‘Almost’ would not be there at all.
‘Probable’ would not be there.
‘It is reasonable to’ would change to ‘Their ancestors were…’
Your own language shows the uncertainty in the theory.

 

[vz71]

Three points.

1 You are being lied to by creationist websites.

2 Evolution is temporarily banned here, so I will stop providing evidence. Go and search for scientific papers on speciation among the Drosophilae.

3 You have no evidence in favour of ID to show here. All you have is ID of the gaps, which only goes to show that ID is not science. “If astronomy cannot explain where the universe came from then astrology must be right”.

rossum

Given what was discovered here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7731899&postcount=118
Aren’t you being a little disengenuous?

It was shown your fly example was nothing more then a lab borne pathogen.
Yet within the same thread you continue to rely upon it as evidence of speciation.

 

[rossum]

No, I would not accept a ‘to me’ argument for scientific purposes.
But for the entirety of the thread, you appear to be the only one proposing the ‘to me’ argument.
ID specifies design. Not subjective appearence, but concrete design.

No, ID does not. ID claims to be able to specify design, but in fact it does not. So far it has proposed two methods, Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and Dembski’s Complex Specified Information. Both of these have failed. IC systems can evolve, so are not indicative exclusively of design. CSI is insufficiently well defined so it cannot actually be calculated for any real cases. In particular the definition of what is, and what is not, a specification is currently too subjective to enable useful calculations to be made. A recent thread on Uncommon Descent (an ID blog) by MathGrrl showed that even ID proponents were unable to calculate CSI in four simple cases.

I bolded the key words there. Were it fact, the bolded should properly be difinitives and not subjectives.

Welcome to science. Science does not do proof, science does the most probable answer. Every scientific result comes with error bars on it. Those words I used are typical of scientific results, especially in biology. There are animals with no known ancestors; there are whole phyla with no known ancestors. Would you rather I lied to you?

Your own language shows the uncertainty in the theory.

If you want certainty then look to mathematics. If you want science then you will have to live with the uncertainty. There is uncertainty about our current theory of gravity. Does that mean that you reject gravity?

rossum

 

[rossum]

It was shown your fly example was nothing more then a lab borne pathogen.
Yet within the same thread you continue to rely upon it as evidence of speciation.

One of my examples was incorrect. When you kindly shower that it was incorrect I provided a different example. The incorrect example was in Drosophila paulistorum, the second example was in D. melanogaster. Two different references in two different species.

I could also quote Rhagoletis pomonella, Eurosta solidaginis or Tribolium castaneum. Evolution has the evidence ID does not.

Where are your observed instances of the ID designer designing a new species?

ID is not science because ID has no scientific data to back it up. It is basically political with just enough scienciness mixed in to make it look plausible to non-scientists.

Where is your scientific evidence for ID. Post the references here please.

rossum

 

[vz71]

No, ID does not. ID claims to be able to specify design, but in fact it does not. So far it has proposed two methods, Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and Dembski’s Complex Specified Information. Both of these have failed. IC systems can evolve, so are not indicative exclusively of design.

Really?
HOW? By what process?
Has then been reproduced in a lab?
By whom? When?
The claim that they can must be backed with proof.
Else it is only a theory, and the definite ‘IC systems can evolve’ should properly be ‘We think that they can evolve.’

Welcome to science. Science does not do proof, science does the most probable answer. Every scientific result comes with error bars on it. Those words I used are typical of scientific results, especially in biology. There are animals with no known ancestors; there are whole phyla with no known ancestors. Would you rather I lied to you?

I rejoice that we can find the common ground of recognizing evolution to be mere theory. Now about that specific ‘CAN’ evolve earlier in the post…

If you want certainty then look to mathematics. If you want science then you will have to live with the uncertainty. There is uncertainty about our current theory of gravity. Does that mean that you reject gravity?
rossum

There is not uncertainty in gravity working.
There is uncertainty in how.
There is no denying there are species appearing and disappearing.
It is uncertain how.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum
**
Where is your scientific evidence for ID. Post the references here please.**

Where is your scientific evidence for abiogenesis by accident? Post references here, please.

 

[rossum]

rossum
**
Where is your scientific evidence for ID. Post the references here please.**

Where is your scientific evidence for abiogenesis by accident? Post references here, please.

Certainly. See: Powner et al (2009) “Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions”.

Your turn. Where is your scientific evidence for ID? Post the references here please.

rossum

 

[Sair]

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” Sir Isaac Newton

Uh-huh. Newton also thought that alchemy worked, so his pronouncements certainly don’t get a free pass…

 

[rossum]

Really?
HOW? By what process?
Has then been reproduced in a lab?
By whom? When?

There is very little point in my continuing to provide you with references of you don’t read them. Professor Behe has shown that IC systems can evolve in small populations of bacteria in about 20,000 years. I have already posted the reference twice.

Here is is again: Behe and Snoke (2004) “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues”.

I also gave references to work by Lenski on showing that evolutionary processes can give rise to IC systems. Part of Lenski’s work resulted in a complete mutation by mutation path from a non-IC system to an IC system. See Line of Descent.

The claim that they can must be backed with proof.

And the person who asks for the proof is expected to read it please. I have posted the Behe paper twice before and the Lenski references once before.

I rejoice that we can find the common ground of recognizing evolution to be mere theory.

In science “theory” is as good as it gets. Remember that gravity is “mere theory”. ID does not even have a theory yet, all it has is a very vague hypothesis.

You continue to fail to provide any references or evidence for ID. You cannot show that ID is science by poking holes in evolution, you actually have to provide positive evidence for ID. It is not possible to prove astrology by poking holes in astronomy.

Where is your positive evidence for ID? Show us the designer at work please.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Uh-huh. Newton also thought that alchemy worked, so his pronouncements certainly don’t get a free pass…

Newton was also a heretic, he didn’t accept the trinity.

rossum