Intelligent Design

[Peter_Plato]

There is no dissonance to be resolved. It only exists in your own mind that continues to ignore information already given.

1. While genetic variation is random, cumulative natural selection working on it as a substrate is anything but random. This makes evolution as a whole a non-random process. Yes, things could have gone this or that way, but not necessarily by much. *)

While I don’t dispute your point that natural selection could be a determiner of the way things have gone, that is a far cry from showing (rather than assuming) it has been. The problem with this argument is that finding selection to be effective with regard to some variation does not demonstrate its sufficiency in terms of bringing about all variations.

The hesitation - to use a mild term - that proponents of “evolution alone” perspectives exhibit in allowing other perspectives to be voiced, appears to be a form of territoriality. “We have explained and, therefore, we own the right to tell others where to get off.”

There is no reason to think that natural selection could MERELY be one of a suite of mechanisms that God uses and has used to “form” life on Earth. Simply because we have uncovered one of those tools is no reason to think others are unnecessary or superfluous, in particular, where the genesis of life is concerned.

That is why I have no problem with allowing ID proponents to, as Bradski says, “root around in arcane areas” on their dime. There is also no reason to slight them for doing so, provided they are held to the same standards as everyone else. Same standards, however, does not mean dismiss their claims BEFORE reading them - that is not, by any definition I can find, what “same” means with regard to standards.

No one bats an eye when corporations are allowed, for example, by the FDA, to “do science” when they submit their research, which is obviously biased by motive and pecuniary interest. Never is the obvious bias ever a pretext for dismissing the research beforehand, yet religious affiliation or commitment seems to automatically preclude other groups from “doing science.” Why would such an obvious double standard exist? It shouldn’t - provided equal and stringent standards are applied to all presentations of findings.

And who says that God could not have infused a soul into a creature that looked different than us humans? In fact, don’t we humans all look a lot different, black and white, brown and yellow? Those different looks of course have nothing to do with human essence, but continue to pose a problem for people unable to look past superficial differences, which makes racism such a persistent while at the same time utterly stupid problem.

The problem, here, is in assuming “souls” are abstract, formless entities that “in theory” make us human but have nothing to do with who we are as individuals. I would argue that a soul is precisely what individuates each of us, but nonetheless makes us eternally valuable because we are of infinite worth to God who creates each of us. To get at human worth by denying or devaluing individual uniqueness is precisely the malady that infects political correctness, liberal progressivism and totalitarian states, alike.

The fact that we are all the same under the skin merely because some formless, undefined blob inhabits our interiority does not get at why we are uniquely valuable as individuals. The reason Jesus said, “Love your enemies” is precisely to get us beyond this misconceived idea that we can only love that which is the “same” as we are.

Totalitarian states succeed by making everyone think, act and look alike - and, thereby, “get along.” The saints of the Church are - in every case - unique, distinct and classy one-of-a-kind originals, not amorphous blobs belonging to humanity.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Well, it’s a good thing no one here has posited that the destruction of Hiroshima was philosophy.

(And what does that even mean? “The destruction of Hiroshima was not philosophy” is a nonsensical statement. Who would even make a claim like that?)

In other words, you now are in agreement with me, that the power that was once only attributed to God, as he destroyed Sodom, is now by science possessed by humanity.

Thank you for your support.

 

[DrTaffy]

There is no other organism on the Earth, that can contemplate the creating of the code that creates the organism in the first place, other than the human being.

But that does not mean that human DNA is more complex than any other. It doesn’t even prove that our brains are more complex than any other - it is, a priori, entirely possible that actions other than abstract thought would require a more complex brain structure than ours.

If one computer programmer, designed a 1 billion line operating system, and another designed a 50 million line operating system, that did the same things just as efficiently, which would be more efficient?

As you assert that both do the same job “just as efficiently” as eachother, then by your definition, neither.

Leaving out that presumably erroneous assertion, obviously the smaller less complex one. But which would be most complex?

When onions do math, get back to me, but not before.

On the other hand, mincing a mathematician and mixing him with sugar doesn’t produce a juice that is amazingly good at curing sore throats.

Neither is proof of the relative complexity of their DNA.

Sheesh

I sense hostility.

 

[PRmerger]

In other words, you now are in agreement with me, that the power that was once only attributed to God, as he destroyed Sodom, is now by science possessed by humanity.

Thank you for your support.

Ummm…if that’s what you are saying, then ok.

“Science has the power to destroy cities” is your point? Okey-dokey then. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.

However, that is a bemusing comment to make–and as otiose as saying, “I propose that apples are a fruit and I’m glad that you are in agreement with me!”

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

But that does not mean that human DNA is more complex than any other. It doesn’t even prove that our brains are more complex than any other - it is, a priori, entirely possible that actions other than abstract thought would require a more complex brain structure than ours.

As you assert that both do the same job “just as efficiently” as eachother, then by your definition, neither.

Leaving out that presumably erroneous assertion, obviously the smaller less complex one. But which would be most complex?

On the other hand, mincing a mathematician and mixing him with sugar doesn’t produce a juice that is amazingly good at curing sore throats.

Neither is proof of the relative complexity of their DNA.

I sense hostility.

Yes it does mean that the human genome is more complicated than that of an onion, as the product of the genome is more important than the size of the genome. Thus we need to figure out how the human genome works, and does so much more with seemingly less, information, than is needed for an onion. Your argument, is exactly this, “a smaller person, with a smaller brain, is less intelligent, than a larger person with a correspondingly larger brain” Size has nothing to do with efficiency, and the human brain, is the most efficient and intelligent thing in the known universe. The argument that an onion is more complicated, and thus is better is irrational, in terms of qualitative output.

Though there do seem to be people here, that could be described as onion heads.

 

[womanatwell]

I consider ID to be a pseudoscience.

The issue I have with ID is that it seems to represent a god of the gaps.

I have a few blog posts about the GAPS concern. I’ll repeat a few paragraphs here in one of them, “Courage for the GAPS,” and give the link. Though I talk about Christians in general here, it mainly concerns those who believe in direct supernatural Creation of life:

People worry that believers foil scientific inquiry. But Christians recognize an atom as an atom and understand electromagnetic radiation as well as unbelievers. In fact, it was a brilliant Christian, James Clerk Maxwell, who wrote the equations to explain electromagnetism in the first place. There is nothing to keep Christians from researching diseases and genetics except the appropriate ethical considerations.

[T]he complexity of biological life goes against the physical laws such as thermodynamics. Though some would claim the order in living cells comes from the sun’s energy, it does not come directly from that any more than cars are directly made by electric current through wires. A lot has to happen in between.

Some are afraid that if we say “God directly made the cell” someone will come along and prove that a natural force suffices. There may be those who are afraid they will be mocked as ignorant, but I think many are concerned about letting God down if we are wrong. I don’t think He will be displeased if we indeed believe He intervened supernaturally within His Creation to create life. He knows we hold to faith as well as reason, and this conclusion works for both.

womanatwell.blogspot.com/2013/12/courage-for-gaps.html

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

I have a few blog posts about the GAPS concern. I’ll repeat a few paragraphs here in one of them, “Courage for the GAPS,” and give the link. Though I talk about Christians in general here, it mainly concerns those who believe in direct supernatural Creation of life:

People worry that believers foil scientific inquiry. But Christians recognize an atom as an atom and understand electromagnetic radiation as well as unbelievers. In fact, it was a brilliant Christian, James Clerk Maxwell, who wrote the equations to explain electromagnetism in the first place. There is nothing to keep Christians from researching diseases and genetics except the appropriate ethical considerations.

[T]he complexity of biological life goes against the physical laws such as thermodynamics. Though some would claim the order in living cells comes from the sun’s energy, it does not come directly from that any more than cars are directly made by electric current through wires. A lot has to happen in between.

Some are afraid that if we say “God directly made the cell” someone will come along and prove that a natural force suffices. There may be those who are afraid they will be mocked as ignorant, but I think many are concerned about letting God down if we are wrong. I don’t think He will be displeased if we indeed believe He intervened supernaturally within His Creation to create life. He knows we hold to faith as well as reason, and this conclusion works for both.

womanatwell.blogspot.com/2013/12/courage-for-gaps.html

While I agree with you in principle, try this. Forget about what was, and consider what will be. If humanity moves a living cell to Mars, and gets it established, and it grows, multiplies and evolves, then are we not doing the work, once only attributed to God?

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no reason to think that natural selection could MERELY be one of a suite of mechanisms…

Late edit: …no reason NOT to think…

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Late edit: …no reason NOT to think…

Yes there are several hundred thousand reasons not to think this, and they are the lines of code, that have to be in a specific order EXACTLY, in order for a simple celled organism, to exist. That, were not just “formed in a warm pond one day Daddy”

If you have scientific evidence that this is wrong, please present this now.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes it does mean that the human genome is more complicated than that of an onion, as the product of the genome is more important than the size of the genome. Thus we need to figure out how the human genome works, and does so much more with seemingly less, information, than is needed for an onion. Your argument, is exactly this, “a smaller person, with a smaller brain, is less intelligent, than a larger person with a correspondingly larger brain” Size has nothing to do with efficiency, and the human brain, is the most efficient and intelligent thing in the known universe. The argument that an onion is more complicated, and thus is better is irrational, in terms of qualitative output.

Though there do seem to be people here, that could be described as onion heads.

As the old saying goes,

“If the onion fits…
…I will happily wear it.”

Translation: A jester unemployed is nobody’s fool.

You need to read The Abolition of Man by CS Lewis and then ponder seriously the old verse:

“A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.”

Or…

To know yet to think that one does not know is best;
Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.
-Lao Tsu

 

[DrTaffy]

Totalitarian states succeed by making everyone think, act and look alike - and, thereby, “get along.”

For example, the Inquisition and the Index Librorum Prohibitorum?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you have scientific evidence that this is wrong, please present this now.

What’s the hurry?

 

[Peter_Plato]

For example, the Inquisition and the Index Librorum Prohibitorum?

We learn from our mistakes. But thanks for reminding… :tiphat:

 

[DrTaffy]

Yes it does mean that the human genome is more complicated than that of an onion, as the product of the genome is more important than the size of the genome.

uch:
No it does not, not by any normal definition of the complexity of a genome.

Whether that complexity is used to permit abstract thought or to create antibacterial chemicals is irrelevant, even if you find the one more impressive than the other.

Though there do seem to be people here, that could be described as onion heads.

OK, I am disengaging as your tone is, if anything, getting more heated.:nope:

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

uch:
No it does not, not by any normal definition of the complexity of a genome.

Whether that complexity is used to permit abstract thought or to create antibacterial chemicals is irrelevant, even if you find the one more impressive than the other.

OK, I am disengaging as your tone is, if anything, getting more heated.:nope:

But you are free to say that an onion is more complicated than a human, the idea can only be the product of a low IQ individual, that does not understand that onions do not have the power of thought.

It is speculated however, that plants, that can not move themselves, in response to threats from the environment, do need a defense mechanism that is sufficiently different, than animal species that do exactly this, thus this might account for parts of plant DNA that are not present in animal DNA.

Disengaging, when it gets complicated, is actually the definition of onion head.

 

[rossum]

Well then, can you give an example of an organism, that has more complex DNA than does a human?

Yes, I just did. You do not state how you are measuring complexity. I measure using both Shannonn and Kolmogorov measures. By both of those measures, there are other organisms with DNA more complex that humans. Our DNA is 3.2 Gbp. Paris japonica is 150 Gbp, over 40 time the size, and hence complexity, of our genome.

The current record holder is an amoeboid, Polychaos dubium, with 670 Gbp, which is more that 200 times more complex that human DNA.

And also show that this organism, can do DNA sequencing, or design the electron microscopes that are used to view DNA?

Show that humans can photosynthesise, like Paris japonica. Show that humans can extrude pseudopods like Polychaos dubium. What objective measure are you using the select characteristics? If you want to make a scientific point, then you are going to have to back it up with science. What objective, calculable measure are you using for “complexity”?

One example would suffice for me, that exist somewhere outside of your imagination that is…

I have now given three examples. Since I have no way to calculate your own personal measure of complexity, I am using other known objective measures. By those known objective measures there are other organisms with more complex DNA than humans.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

But you are free to say that an onion is more complicated than a human, the idea can only be the product of a low IQ individual, that does not understand that onions do not have the power of thought.

It is speculated however, that plants, that can not move themselves, in response to threats from the environment, do need a defense mechanism that is sufficiently different, than animal species that do exactly this, thus this might account for parts of plant DNA that are not present in animal DNA.

Disengaging, when it gets complicated, is actually the definition of onion head.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17308

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Yes, I just did. You do not state how you are measuring complexity. I measure using both Shannonn and Kolmogorov measures. By both of those measures, there are other organisms with DNA more complex that humans. Our DNA is 3.2 Gbp. Paris japonica is 150 Gbp, over 40 time the size, and hence complexity, of our genome.

The current record holder is an amoeboid, Polychaos dubium, with 670 Gbp, which is more that 200 times more complex that human DNA.

Show that humans can photosynthesise, like Paris japonica. Show that humans can extrude pseudopods like Polychaos dubium. What objective measure are you using the select characteristics? If you want to make a scientific point, then you are going to have to back it up with science. What objective, calculable measure are you using for “complexity”?

I have now given three examples. Since I have no way to calculate your own personal measure of complexity, I am using other known objective measures. By those known objective measures there are other organisms with more complex DNA than humans.

rossum

I hate to be this simplistic, but it is called for. When onions raise humans, to be composted into fertilizer, to feed onions, then onions will be more complicated than humans.

Not before.

Julias French onion soup…

1

Place heavy bottom stock pot or dutch over over medium-low heat.

2

Add 1 Tbs cooking oil, 2Tbs butter to pot.

3

Add sliced onions and stir until they are evenly coated with the oil.

4

Cover and cook for about 20 minutes until they are very tender and translucent.

5

To brown or caramelize the onions turn heat under pot to medium or medium high heat.

6

Add 1/2 tsp sugar and 1 tsp salt and continue to cook uncovered, stirring frequently until the onions have browned and reduced significantly.

7

Once caramelized, reduce heat to medium-low and add 3 Tbs flour to the onions.

8

Brown the flour for about 2-3 minutes trying not to scorch it. (If the flour does not form a thick paste, you can add a bit more butter here).

9

Stir in about 1 cup of warm stock, scraping the bottom of the pan to get up all of the cooked-on bits.

10

Add the rest of the stock, wine, sage, and bay leaf to the soup.

11

Simmer for 30 minutes.

12

To make the “croutes” (toasted bread), heat oven to 325 degrees F.

13

Drizzle each side of the bread slices with a bit of olive oil and place on baking sheet.

14

Cook the croutes for 15 minutes in oven on each side (30 minutes total).

15

Check the soup for seasoning and add salt and pepper if needed.

16

Remove the bay leaf (if you can find it).

17

Transfer to a casserole dish.

18

At this point you can add the 2-3 Tbs cognac and grate the 1/2 raw onion into the soup.

19

Add a few ounces of the swiss cheese directly into the soup and stir.

20

Place the toasted bread in a single layer on top of the soup.

21

Sprinkle the rest of the cheese in a thick layer on top of the bread making sure to cover the edges of the toast to prevent burning.

22

Drizzle with a little oil or melted butter.

23

Place in a 350 degree oven for about 30 minutes.

24

Turn on broiler and brown cheese well.

25

Let cool for a few minutes.

26

Bon Apetit!

So do onions make people soup?

If so, your entire life is an illusion.

 

[rossum]

We have no clue as to how one DNA builds a nipple and another builds an eyelash. No idea whatsoever.

We do have a very good idea. There are organisational genes, such as Hox genes, which organise the overall body plan. Those genes operate switches on other genes in a cascade which ends up with the correct parts being built in the correct places. At the end of your digits, the ‘build a fingernail’ switch is set on, while it is set off elsewhere. In your head, the ‘build an eye’ switch is set on, while it is set off elsewhere. We even know the exact gene for eyes, Pax-6 in mammals, or its equivalent, ‘eyeless’ in fruit flies.

For a very good overview of how the DNA control cascades are organised, read “Your Inner Fish” by Neil Shubin.

rossum

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

We do have a very good idea. There are organisational genes, such as Hox genes, which organise the overall body plan. Those genes operate switches on other genes in a cascade which ends up with the correct parts being built in the correct places. At the end of your digits, the ‘build a fingernail’ switch is set on, while it is set off elsewhere. In your head, the ‘build an eye’ switch is set on, while it is set off elsewhere. We even know the exact gene for eyes, Pax-6 in mammals, or its equivalent, ‘eyeless’ in fruit flies.

For a very good overview of how the DNA control cascades are organised, read “Your Inner Fish” by Neil Shubin.

rossum

Gary is correct, we have no idea, because identifying a particular gene, means nothing in regards to understanding how DNA rearranges the elements of Earth into life, which is what it does.

All that we do at current, is attempt this understanding, it is true that our current understanding, is the most ever, but DNA is the most complex thing ever designed, that is known.

No one knows how the Pyramids were built, except that DNA did the building.