Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are over 150 peer reviewed papers supporting ID.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
rossum:
The Lederberg Experiment provides evidence to support the hypothesis that mutations are random, not directed.
Click to expand...
Please clarify what evidence you think supports specifically randomness.
Click to expand...
Apparently you don’t know what the Lederberg Experiment is. Why don’t you find out here.
 
Rather than wasting your time and mine, let’s forgo imagining what posters do or do not know or understand. Tell me, specifically how it supports randomness.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Buffalo. As an artist with a knowledge of design and animal bone structure, arms are arms. The basic coding for building an arm or arm-like appendage would be the same, but other details would be different.
The reverse-engineering example was excellent, and it fits the facts and observations far better. The increase in identifying the codes in DNA and how they operate, mRNAs, functional “junk” DNA and molecular switches reduces chance or any similar concept, into the ‘totally unlikely’ category. Reading scientific journals, I came across an article that had a function illustration that basically said: Switch one does this and affects that, switch 2 has unknown function but appears to be connected to this, and so on.

Continuing research is showing a highly complex system that is data driven and which must work at a level of high precision, and that has a correcting system to fix anything that stops working.
 
buffalo said:
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Click to expand...
What you described is not following the scientific method. Specifically, the 3rd and 4th steps that you mentioned. In your example of irreducible complexity, the conclusion does not follow from the experiments. The experiments are flawed because they depend on accurately reverse-engineering biological structures. Reverse-engineering is a common term when referring to technology where a common set of rules and design principles are shared between the original designer of the technological product and the engineer who takes it apart. The term “reverse-engineering” is not applicable to biological structures because there is no such common understanding of design principles. Indeed, the whole concept of “reverse-engineering” pre-supposes that the product has been designed. Since this is the very thing you are claiming to have proven in ID, it is not appropriate to assume it in the process of trying to verify it. In the case of biological structures, we can only guess as to how the components function when we take them apart. We can modify a gene and see that some structure is affected. But we cannot say for sure if that gene is the sole cause of that structure. By damaging some of the parts of a structure and observing that the overall function of the structure is absent, that does not prove the structure could not have evolved gradually. Instead of science is comes down to a “feeling” or a faith that the structure could not have evolved. Absolutely zero evidence is presented to support that claim, so ID is not science.
 
Aloysium said:
Rather than wasting your time and mine, let’s forgo imagining what posters do or do not know or understand. Tell me, specifically how it supports randomness.
Click to expand...
I gave you a link. Read it. Do you need me to copy and paste the whole article here? It is a very clear explanation.
 
Yes, I think I heard that claim by you. Scientists believe it and so should I on evolution. Laymen cannot understand it all so just believe it. It is religious dogma.
 
buffalo said:
Experience teaches that information-rich systems … invariably result from intelligent causes, not naturalistic ones. …
Click to expand...
False. Have you any idea how much information is contained in a pebble? Every atom in the pebble has a velocity and an angular momentum. Since naturalistic causes can cause a pebble, then Meyer’s statement is wrong.
buffalo said:
Agents can arrange matter with distant goals in mind. In their use of language, they routinely ‘find’ highly isolated and improbable functional sequences amid vast spaces of combinatorial possibilities.
Click to expand...
Yes, agents can do that. However random search with natural selection can do the same. This statement does not allow us to decide between ID and evolution.
buffalo said:
Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of ‘high information content,’ experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role.
Click to expand...
False. See my example of the pebble. You might usefully calculate how many bits of information there are in just the velocity and angular momentum of the atoms of a pebble.
buffalo said:
Intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information,
Click to expand...
Not in the absence of independent evidence of the designer it does not. Especially given that large quantities of information can be produced by non-design processes.
buffalo said:
An intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in different systems, without there necessarily being any material or physical connection between those systems.
Click to expand...
True, but such is never observed in biology. Where systems are reused, there is a connection through descent. Show me a pegasus, a mammal with reused bird wings, and you will have a better case. This point argues against ID.
buffalo said:
Fossil Record Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors.
Click to expand...
Consider the appearance of humans in America. That was sudden; one day there were no humans and the next day there were. Unless you are looking in the right place, any species will appear suddenly. I would also dispute “sudden” for the Cambrian Explosion, it lasted between five and fifteen million years. That is not “sudden”.
buffalo said:
DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality Increased knowledge of genetics has created a strong trend towards functionality for “junk-DNA.”
Click to expand...
What properties of your proposed designer make it impossible or difficult for him/her/it/they to design useless DNA? Why is this a specific prediction of ID? How does ID explain the size of the onion’s genome, about five times the size of the human genome?

rossum
 
Reverse engineering in biology is moving forward and leaving other ideas in the realm of conjecture.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Electrochemical reverse engineering: A systems-level tool to probe the redox-based molecular communication of biology - PubMed

The intestine is the site of digestion and forms a critical interface between the host and the outside world. This interface is composed of host epithelium and a complex microbiota which is "connected" through an extensive web of chemical and biological interactions that determine the balance...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
That just tells us that there are at least 150 Christian scientists.
 
buffalo said:
Yes, I think I heard that claim by you. Scientists believe it and so should I on evolution. Laymen cannot understand it all so just believe it. It is religious dogma.
Click to expand...
No, evolution is supported by the scientific method through evidence you refuse to look it.
 
ID can definitely be a scientific theory. However, unless ti can explain the relationships between species now and over time, it serves only the purpose of letting literal-Bible Christians survive one more generation.

There is also the problem of operationalizing “intelligence.” Let’s say you are looking for divine intelligence in fossils. What does that mean, exactly? You will have to attempt to define God’s intelligence in such a way that you can go and look for it. Good luck with that.

How is one to know for sure that say the eye (or whatever) is actually irreducibly complex? I don’t think that there is any scientific method do this-- it will be conjecture: “We can’t image how the eye could have evolved in tiny increments. . . therefore it is irreducibly complex.” This is the textbook definition of begging the question.
 
buffalo said:
“Intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information, since we have considerable experience of intelligent agents generating informational configurations of matter.”
Click to expand...
Take a look at what else provides a “sufficient causal explanation.” The “Matrix explanation” is that all of our observations, indeed all of our life experiences, are simulations created by currents in our brains induced by machines that can only be defeated by Neo. This explanation is “sufficient” in that it is a possible reality that is internally consistent.

Another possible explanation is that all of mankind was created 10 minutes ago by a prankster god who implanted memories of as past for each of us.

Both of these explanations are causally sufficient in that they are possible. So is intelligent design possible. But the same reasoning that leads us to reject the Matrix explanation and the Prankster god explanation should also lead us to reject ID. It might be true, but there is no evidence for it.
 
The article does not support what Rossum claims. There is no point repeating it. If you agree with him, please provide me with the specific reasoning behind the belief that random mutations are responsible for penicillin resistance, as demonstrated by that experiment.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
You might usefully calculate how many bits of information there are in just the velocity and angular momentum of the atoms of a pebble.
Click to expand...
Considering the activity as well as the actual structure of those atoms to be information, which dictates the reality of the pebble in existence, we can understand a living organism as containing not only that level of information, but additionally another that is superimposed and related to the structure and activity of very complex molecules, including proteins, RNA, and DNA, that is the reality of the cell or collection of cells as a whole.

This strata of information is that of living organisms and the environment in which they participate. You could not explain natural selection otherwise.

The information that is the experience we are having at this momemt, while requiring that of the building blocks that are matter, is of a completely different order. These are words and they exist. This does not happen randomly ontologically, nor did it develop temporally by chance.

That we can think and understand, as difficult as it may actually be to communicate, speaks to an order beyond that of simple chemical reactions, as necessary as they are to the process.
 
Last edited:
You failed to answer my post asking if those two experiments are al you have before I rebutt.

We are talking about FSCI (functional specified complex information) We have been over this before. Perhaps you forgot.

The odds are overwhelming against it.

FSCI

FSCI

Convergent evolution

It is sudden in the evo timeline.
 
This does appear to be the case. Functional specified complex information does make more sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top