Right, and then I asked about the natural systems that you claim they are modeled after. So once again, please provide examples of these natural systems that demonstrate ID.
Ok, I answered your first question, now you’re asking another one. It might have been clearly and more courteous to thank me for replying and then proceed to make another request for information.
There are several natural systems and processes that are analogous to the “artifacts” which are the product of intelligent agents – from them, the inference that there was an intelligent agent acting in nature is the most reasonable answer.
DNA code = language of the cell
The irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum, eye, blood clotting
Complexity of earliest known multi-cellular organisms
The complexity of cell structures
The ontological leap (as referenced by Pope John Paul II)
The variety and purpose found in plant, insect and animal populations
The mathematical precision of the the universe
How the universe itself is bound by sophisticated laws and can be understood by mathematics and reason
You might want to refer to the peer-reviewed paper by biologist Douglas Axe where he shows that the specified complexity of protien folds is evidence of Intelligent Design:
Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, 1-21 (2004); Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).
From a commentary on that peer-reviewed paper:
Doug Axe’s research likewise studies genes that it turns out show great evidence of design. Axe studied the sensitivities of protein function to mutations. In these “mutational sensitivity” tests, Dr. Axe mutated certain amino acids in various proteins, or studied the differences between similar proteins, to see how mutations or changes affected their ability to function properly.10 He found that protein function was highly sensitive to mutation, and that proteins are not very tolerant to changes in their amino acid sequences. In other words, when you mutate, tweak, or change these proteins slightly, they stopped working. In one of his papers, he thus concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences,” and that functional protein folds "may be as low as 1 in 10^77."11 The extreme unlikelihood of finding functional proteins has important implications for intelligent design.
Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design: Only forward thinking intelligent agents could find the extremely unlikely amino acid sequences that yield functional proteins. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design, writing: “In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.”
,but I’m listening. Can you please explain this in more detail?
