The design inference

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

Unraveling the DNA Myth - http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/DNA-Myth-CommonerFeb02.htm

​

This phrase caught my eye: "DNA did not create life; life created DNA".

​

Time is not on your side joz. The more we are finding out the more obvious it becomes that life is the direct result of an act of intelligence- ie ID.

​

quote:

---

JP,This isn't really very controversial, the phrase "DNA did not create life; life created DNA" would not be argued by any evolutionist. DNA by itself is a highly complex molecule requiring a battery of enzymes to work efficiently. No evolutionist believes the original self replicating molecule was as complex as DNA, indeed, RNA is able to self catalyse for instance, & is thought to be an intermediary molecule. What came before is much more tentative.That DNA isn't solely responsible for inheritance I find puzzling, the enzymes & other molecules required for alternative splicing etc. are a product of DNA, so that inheritance is still DIRECTLY linked to DNA. There are other parts to the machine, to be sure, but ALL are one way or another a product of DNA.This article in no way presents any evidence of a designer. It merely shows that more than one protein can arise from one gene, which, as the article itself points out, has been known since the 1970s. Complexity = Design is an assumption. You can't even claim that there is no mechanism for adding new information, & therefore more complexity, since your cite gives you an example :"Alternative splicing thus has a devastating impact on Crick's theory: it breaks open the hypothesized isolation of the molecular system that transfers genetic information from a single gene to a single protein. By rearranging the single gene's nucleotide sequence into a multiplicity of new messenger RNA sequences, each of them different from the unspliced original, alternative splicing can be said to generate new genetic information."Nucleotide sequence addition, deletion, substitution (any point mutations that cause the "splice" point to move), anything that can cause an increase in proteins coded for. A smaller amount of information is MORE if it means a new protein has been synthesised.And ID just moves the question back a step. Who designed the designer? Unless you are assuming the designer isn't complex?That Cricks Dogma is shown to be at least partly false is simply the march of good science, more power to their collective elbows!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

Behe claimed "Goddidit?" Please refer me to the page in his book where he says anything of the sort. He said life was the result of intelligent design- it's not his fault that he believes in God. Your criticism here seems quite shallow. A designer does not have to be God, and you know this.
And Behe "goes home early?" Behe's a quitter, I'm sure his mother would be upset. You may not like it very much, but Behe provided evidence for a theory that is *gasp* NOT Darwinian.

---

Cobra,If you’re subscribing to both ID & IC, then the ID is a supernatural being, ie a God.An ID doesn’t HAVE to be God, it could be alien life, but then that alien life is IC, they couldn’t arise naturally, so who made them if it wasn’t God? So, ULTIMATELY, if IC is true, then all life in the universe can be traced back to a supernatural-always-existed being.Behe provided no evidence for anything. All he did was try to show that evolution couldn’t happen because of IC. IC by itself is an assumption that, because of any evidence to the contrary, certain mechanisms/processes cannot evolve. Despite Behes claims that evolution of IC structures couldn’t happen, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY DIDN’T. This reduces Behes claims to another God of the gaps proposition.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Cobra,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

Uhh... it's not God of the gaps. Intelligent design doesn't require God. If you wish, you can continue to assume that God HAS to be the designer, but I would appreciate it if you could show the basis for this claim.

---

IC = Irreducible complexity, a la Behe
ID = Intelligent designerMy basis for the claim that an ID has to be the designer is explained in my previous post, namely, "An ID doesn’t HAVE to be God, it could be alien life, but then that alien life is IC, they couldn’t arise naturally, so who made them if it wasn’t God? So, ULTIMATELY, if IC is true, then all life in the universe can be traced back to a supernatural-always-existed being."I've shown the basis of my claim, now, can you show me how an IC ID can't be the result of God/Supernatural being?It's YOU who are championing Behe & therefore his concept of IC, & at the same time are championing the idea of an ID, not me.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"Cobra,

​

IC = Irreducible complexity, a la Behe
ID = Intelligent designer"

​

Ahhh.. ok. Thanks alot Mark and Pamboli. I feel like a real idiot. I know what Irreducible Complexity means, it's just that I couldn't make the connection of what IC stood for. Thanks for clearing that up.

​

"My basis for the claim that an ID has to be the designer is explained in my previous post, namely, "An ID doesn’t HAVE to be God, it could be alien life, but then that alien life is IC, they couldn’t arise naturally, so who made them if it wasn’t God? So, ULTIMATELY, if IC is true, then all life in the universe can be traced back to a supernatural-always-existed being.""

​

I can understand where you are coming from now, but might I pose a different situation? If aliens did NOT feauture irreducible complexity, they could of potentially (at least in Behe's mind) evolved by natural processes. IC probably is true, but that doesn't mean that all potential living things MUST have IC.

​

"I've shown the basis of my claim, now, can you show me how an IC ID can't be the result of God/Supernatural being?"

​

I have pointed out that I believe the basis for your claim is a bit incorrect, because you assume all other life forms must have IC.

---

Cobra,Don’t sweat the IC, ID thang, I’ve asked for similar "obvious" clarifications myself, when I got the answer.. , as Homer said, D’oh !!!!Back to the question in hand..If IC ISN’T true of ALL life, then it COULD have evolved. This is the admission asked of by agnostic/atheist evolutionists. Ergo, no need for God.Life on earth MAY be the result of alien design, but who designed them? If it's feasible that aliens evolved, why not us?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Well, I'm sure the answer from Behe would be that WE have IC. (I also, being a creationist, have other reasons for doubting evolution on this planet, but that sort of discussion should not take place here.)

​

"If IC ISN’T true of ALL life, then it COULD have evolved. This is the admission asked of by agnostic/atheist evolutionists. Ergo, no need for God."

​

Belief in God is faith-based. I have my reasons for believing in God, and I'm sure you have your reasons for not believing in God. You are just as entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

---

Cobra,That's not the point. ID is often touted by the same people who tout IC. These same people also (commonly) say, as you have done, that ID doesn't mean God. But it ULTIMATELY DOES!!! If you weren't an adherent of IC, then you COULD say aliens were ultimately the IDers of life on earth, because you could accept their abiogenesis/evolution. If you accept IC, then aliens aren't ultimately responsible for life, because they are as IC as us, they exhibit as much specified complexity as us (if not more), & therefore can't be a result of natural processes. If you CAN accept aliens as not being IC, why not life on earth?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I don't understand why the recognition of IC on earth means that life on another planet ABSOLUTELY HAS to display IC as well.

---

Cobra,IC HASN'T been recognised on earth, it has been postulated.If you can postulate a "non-IC" equivalent of Krebbs cycle, then fire away. Perhaps a "non-IC" self replicating molecule that contains information for all the processes & mechanisms for said alien life, fire away..........Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I'm not going to pretend that I can come up with a totally different system for life, but I don't think you should pretend that there is not a possibility out there.

---

Cobra,All I ask is that you accept the possibility that nothing is IC down here.What I mean by alien IC is what Behe & creationists would recognise as IC. Alien life, that's life as we know it (Jim) would require metabolic systems, methods of reproduction etc. that are going to be IC, as Behe would see it. Now, you are right in that there is the "possibility" that aliens aren't IC (as Behe would see it), but given the specified complexity required for an organism, let alone for an organism to reach a complexity that enables it to create life, the possibility of non IC aliens is probably as low as getting DNA to spontaneously form in a Miller-Urey experiment.Just to push the idea a little further, if an ID WAS the result of abiogenesis, & subsequent evolution allowed those aliens the intellect to create life on earth, you have argued yourself into the position that God isn't required at all anyway, & the entire argument becomes self defeating from a creationist point of view.Also, if those aliens evolved, as they surely must of if God wasn't involved, then the mechanism to create Behes IC exists. That is to say, A+B=C, a mutation in B causes a catalyst D which aids the reaction. So the process is now A+B+D=C. In fact the new catalyst is so good it has made A redundant, which atrophies in the genome. The process is now B+D=C. Behe comes along & says this process is IC & couldn't possiby be natural because it couldn't evolve without losing functionality. A is absent & isn't taken into consideration.So why WOULDN'T aliens demonstrate this sort of IC if they evolved?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

I thought that Irreducibly Complex Structures have basically been proven, but it has not been proven that IC structures cannot be explained by natural mechanisms. So, yes, I accept the possibility that the structures claimed by Behe and others could have evolved by natural means.

---

Contradictory statement. Not ONE alleged IC biological structure has been "PROVEN" to be so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

From: Mark
"Just to push the idea a little further, if an ID WAS the result of abiogenesis, & subsequent evolution allowed those aliens the intellect to create life on earth, you have argued yourself into the position that God isn't required at all anyway, & the entire argument becomes self defeating from a creationist point of view."

​

I'm arguing from an ID point of view. But there is the possibility that God isn't required I suppose. After all, anything's possible (including pink elephant aliens).

---

My argument that an anti-evolutionist adherent of IC who is claiming ID doesn’t require God are wrong, because this REQUIRES abiogenesis & evolution, the very concept they argue against. So, from that persons POV, ID means God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

From: Mark
"So why WOULDN'T aliens demonstrate this sort of IC if they evolved?"
For all we know, aliens could be made out of proton matter or something wierd like that.

---

Protons are protons & life requires energy flow. Can’t happen with simply protons. I realise you’re saying that we simply don’t understand the entire universe, but, just the same, anything ISN’T possible. If abiogenesis & evolution occurred, why no ID? Do you expect every vestige of evolution to stick around without atrophying? This bears a selective material cost & is reason enough to see the back of no longer used parts of processes.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

"OK, how about calling it the "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" argument?"

​

That would be more appropriate.

​

"The important part is the fallacy that a lack of evidence for one theory constitutes positive evidence for another."

​

If the recognition of design is not evidence for design, then I don't know what is.

---

I can’t help but intervene here, how have you recognised design?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

"Contradictory statement. Not ONE alleged IC biological structure has been "PROVEN" to be so."

​

Ok then. I accept the possibility that there are no IC biological structures.

---

Cobra, that’s the best I can ask for at this stage. Thank you. Make no mistake, I recognise that sentence as a huge step.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

"My argument that an anti-evolutionist adherent of IC who is claiming ID doesn’t require God are wrong, because this REQUIRES abiogenesis & evolution, the very concept they argue against. So, from that persons POV, ID means God."

​

Not all ID scientists reject evolution (Behe himself is perfectly fine with the idea of common descent). However, even if they don't accept evolution on this planet, that does not mean that they have proof that it cannot on a different planet with different characteristics.

​

---

Fair point re. evolution. But Behe does reject abiogenesis, making my point that ID means God stands.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

"Protons are protons & life requires energy flow. Can’t happen with simply protons. I realise you’re saying that we simply don’t understand the entire universe, but, just the same, anything ISN’T possible. If abiogenesis & evolution occurred, why no ID?"

​

Yes, you are right. I'm basically saying we don't understand the entire universe. You must realize, however, that the situations that I am talking about don't seem terribly likely to me. BUT if there is even one tiny bit of a chance that ID doesn't mean God, then it is unfair to call it "God of the Gaps" and it is unfair to portray it as an attempt to mix religion in the schools.

​

---

As schraf says, ID Of The Gaps, then. God Of The Gaps is merely a euphemism that describes an argument founded on information we lack, rather than positive evidence supporting an argument. Without any supporting evidence of the ID/God, the argument founders because of this very reason. There is no POSITIVE evidence to support ID.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.