Defence of Intelligent Design

Absolutely and fundamentally wrong.Any gene that either parent has can be passed along to that parent's offspring.If both parents have the same gene, there is a near-100% chance that all offspring will have the gene (and a very small chace that the offspring will get a freshly-mutated version of the gene).If the parents have different versions of the gene, there is a near-50% chance that any particular offspring will have the mother's version and a near-50% chance that the same offspring will have the father's version. Or, looking at it another way, on the average half the offspring will have the mother's version and the other half will have the father's version.And then the filtering power of natural slection comes into play.

Whatever, Good grief, what was that supposed to be an explanation of?Fossils do not decompose.I really don't know how I can make it any clearer. I'll try a bullet point approach so that you have to address each issue.Your assertion: That the Cambrian explosion shows creation, & biblical creation at that.It appears in pre-flood sediments that are unaffected by the flood, & the alleged liquefaction. This means that any sediments in & below the Cambrian explosion are also unaffected by liquefaction/flooding.1/ Why doesn't a single species in the modern day exist in the Cambrian?2/ Why doesn't a single species in the Cambrian exist today?3/ Given that terrestrial plants were created on an earlier day than marine organisms, we should expect them to appear in the flood unaffected Cambrian sediments. They aren't. Not one. Not even pollen. Why?4/ All fish are created on the same day as trilobites, yet where are the teleosts, placoderms, sarcopterygians etc? Completely & utterly absent. Why?5/ Bryozoans are an entire phyla, & are completely absent from the Cambrian record. They should be there, where are they?6/ Why is 5/6ths of the fossil record in pre-flood sediments? How did those sediments get there?7/ There are unicellular & multicellular fossils predating the Cambrian explosion. They exist in sediments that are unaffected by the flood. How did they get there?You have completely absolved yourself from being able to use a flood as an explanation for any of the above.I would like all seven points addressed, one by one please.Please be good enough to click the reply button at the bottom of this post to respond, it makes it easier to track rather than tagging several posts together that actually shows as a reply to one person.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-24-2004]

And yet you continue to reassert your original point...

quote:

---

it changes characteristics, but don't see it increasing the organism complexities, likely its has other genetic problems its passing on into the gene pool, causing a weakening of the gene pool

---

The resulting immune system of the african family is more complex than everyone else's. It handles invading organisms in a different way, such that it is not only better for them, but that we may be able to use it in order to create vaccines (based off their personal immuno-responses).They are not passing on genetic problems or diseases. They are more fit and the only one's managing to stay alive and healthy in that disease ridden part of the world.Other than asserting that their system is not more complex and that they must have defects, made to prop up your original assertion that that is how genetics works, could you show one iota of evidence that you understand anything happening in either of the cases whatsoever?Please mention the cases directly, and explain what you have found in the evidence (and at this point I want a citation) from the cases which support your position.P.S. Mutations are neither inherently beneficial nor detrimental. They just happen. In each specific case where a mutation results in a harm, we can talk about disease and detrimental effects. In cases where they allow greater survival rates, we can talk about benefits. There may be many common genetic defects, and so on average we can say mutations (which actually affect bodily functions) tend to be detrimental.But that does not mean that no beneficial mutations ever occur. And all it takes is a beneficial mutation to get into the genetic pool and spread, to become a new characteristic in the population. This is what we are seeing in Africa. And that is what is predicted in evo.And unless you are going to define information and complexity so that it can be applied by others, it sure does look to be an increase in complexity and information.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Of course you don't see it -- you're completely ignorant!Information is a quantity, and as such it is subject to mathematical description. As I already proved, when selection operates, information increases. All you've rebutted me with is "No, sir, I don't believe you!"Well I'm sorry that you're incredulity's poster-boy -- that doesn't make me wrong. BUT I JUST SHOWED YOU HOW SELECTION CREATES INFORMATION!!!! JonF already exposed your ignorance (which I suspect is deliberate) in regard to this.

This is all interesting but no matter how you cut it, its all just another form of microevolution, supporting the biblical flood, doesn't the creationists believe microevolution explains why we have so many different species within the different kinds from the creatures that survived the flood, which also explains the reason the gentiles were considered unclean, and why a child born between a Jew and a non-Jew would of been unclean, and their offspring not allowed to be a part of the congregation for 10 generations, the issue isn't these micro-changes, but the problem I expressed earlier, in the chromosome numbers, when the chromomsome numbers change the creatures doesn't reproduce, like the mule, its a dead end, like genetics, the different kinds are bound by the chromosome bundles, etc...the problem with the chromosome bundles is not showing the different kinds of creatures are reproducing when their are problems in the number of chromosomes, the reason for still births, and a whole host of genetic chromosome diseases, it appears for macro-evolution to show evolution answers origin, you should have more evidence to support the creatures in the natural are not in supporting the Creationists, Genesis explosion of life, seen happening in the natural by the fossils expressed in the Cambrian explosion (life came on to the scene fully formed), the different designs evident, you will run into the bounds the different kinds are related to the chromosome numbers, and would not the Creationists, Intelligent Design people agree that the different species are related to your micro-changes, etc...P.S. The bible says the creatures would reproduce after their kind, its appears too me, its still whats being seen in the natural, its because of the bounds of the different kinds of creatures chromosome numbers, this genetic expression simply doesn't supports the theory of evolution, but interestingly supports Intelligent Design, etc...Page not found - Department of Medical Genetics

Maybe you could read and reply in this thread, that Rei started to discuss changing chromosome count.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Warren<< Neither the creationists or the anti-ID crowd on this thread understands what ID is. >>Holmes<< Speak for yourself. I got into this while trying to create a documentary on the subject. I have approached the subject as a scientific discipline and am familiar with most of the literature (the only exception being Dembski's later books which repeat his earlier works).>>Warren<< I wasn't aware you were on this thread when I made my comment. Based on what I had read before making my comment it was obvious to me no one here understood what ID is. >>Holmes<< I came to this site seeking out actual ID theorists who could explain some of the weaknesses in its proposed model and stated evidence. I have yet to come across a real ID theorist in these forums and that includes you. Or at least, you have been unable to address any of the issues I bring up. Your best debating tactic appears to be disappearing, only to pop again later repeating your initial claims.>>Warren<< I'm not an ID theorist nor am I a scientist but I do know what ID is and what it isn't. >>Holmes<< As time moved on more evidence has come out supporting evolutionary theory and seriously undercutting ID as a valid, or useful paradigm for research. >>Warren<< If you think ID is anti-evolution then you don't understand ID.>>Holmes<< I post these bits of evidence, but no ID supporter (Including you) have dealt with them at all. This suggests to me a lack of confidence, or understanding on your part. I can talk about weaknesses in proposed evolutionary mechanisms, and have even opened a thread to defend ID. The inability of IDists to allow any negative assessment for their own theory, and that none showed up to help me defend/explore ID (in my thread) makes me even more sceptical of its validity. I will only add in my defense that the rest of your post says the same thing about ID as my earlier post in this very thread does.>>Warren<< As I recall, we didn't agree on what counts as evidence for ID. I usually lose interest at this point.>>Warren<< To me ID is a teleological perspective that generates testable hypotheses. Why can't science function perfectly well with more than one theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses?>>Holmes<< Ahhhhhhh, yes. Here we go again. I have already challenged this idea of dual scientific research programs... how many times now?
While certainly science can function with various theoretical frameworks. The problem is it won't work "perfectly well". It is a waste of time to keep using theoretical frameworks to propose hypotheses, when they don't come up with anything valuable.>>Warren<< What exactly is your theoretical framework? That everything in nature is the result of blind watchmaking? Scientists once viewed the cell as a bag of soup. Please explain how viewing the cell as the product of blind watchmaking helped lead scientists away from this view?I previously referred you to a website where six testable ID hypotheses. are presented. This clearly refutes your claim that a teleological perspective can't come up with anything useful. Besides, it's my contention that scientists often employ teleological reasoning in making hypotheses even though they don't admit this.Also, keep in mind that ID isn't a thesis that has been pounded out and refined over 100 years by thousands of scientists. The design hypothesis is a work in progress and I predict it will emerge as a robust and viable alternative perspective quite capable to generating both research and understanding.>>Holmes<< I have at least two threads of my own, awaiting your response as to why we should bother using ID when it has nothing to say on new developments in biology. <<Warren<< You know, this is such nonsense. Molecular biology helps itself liberally to teleological concepts ("messengers," "codes," "proofreading," etc.). It must do so because nothing makes sense in the cell except in the light of functional logic. But molecular biology certainly does not explain the source of that functional logic. Without teleological concepts and terminology biological research would come to a screeching halt.>>Holmes<< My argument is why bother promoting it as a framework until such time that evolution does not provide a good hypothesis. If in most cases evolution ought to be followed, it's just a waste of time to continually use something else (which consistently does not help).>>Warren<< For the millionth time the issue isn't about evolution. The issue is teleology versus non-teleology. Make your case that the evolutionary process is a totally non-teleological process. Demonstrate that biology and medical science would be better off without teleological concepts and terminology. Want to claim teleological language is metaphorical? Fine. By all means, lead a crusade to eliminate all the metaphorical language from biology and hand it over to the ID people. If there is no design behind life, the non-teleologists shouldn't need these metaphors. So they should stop borrowing from the engineers and draw exclusively from the language of the physicists, chemists, geologists, and astronomers. If the non-design approach is so good, why do the non-teleologists need to steal ID concepts left and right in order to explore the living world? They have a whole universe to draw metaphors from and, given that life is not designed, the non-teleological perspective ought not be so dependent on *so many* intelligent design metaphors.>>[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-24-2004]

Different numbers of chromosomes do not necessarily prevent interbreeding, For example consider Przewalski's horse which has 66 chromosomes (33 pairs) whereas domestic horses have 64 chromosomes (32 pairs). Przewalski's horses and domestic horses interbreed freely, and the offspring (which have 65 chromosomes) are fertile with either Przewalski's horse or domestic horses. See http://www.mhref.com/breeds/takhi/.Of course, having the same number of chromosomes essentially always does not make interbreeding possible.I bet you don't even know what a chromosome is, or what a gene is, or what a mutation is.As usual, your gibberish about chromosomes is a blind alley. It has no relationship to microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, or intelligent design.

If Noah's family are the only survivors from the global flood, then aren't we all Jewish? Don't we all have the genes passed down from Noah? In fact, if Adam and Eve were the original humans, aren't we all descendents of those two, hence all of us are Jewish?How many generations from the flood did it take for gentiles genes to become corrupted?

quote:

---

If you think ID is anti-evolution then you don't understand ID.

---

You know exactly what I was talking about. I believe I even have a post in this thread stating that ID accepts much, perhaps even all evolutionary mechanisms.But you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If ID is indistiguishable from evolutionary theory then it is evo and we have no need of discussing ID.You say the difference is about teleology versus non-teleology, but that is not accurate. The first plank in ID is determining if an organism, or a part of an organism, can be shown to be designed rather than occuring via naturalistic (ie evo) means. Without this there is no discussion of teleology versus nonT. The argument goes, we can show design, and if there is design then there could very well be an end goal (teleology).As it stands, while many ID leaders greatly desire to jump to teleology, even they cannot state that this is a reality. Just because a designer makes something, the object may have no greater teleology than to be as is. Even worse, ID theory has not been able to remove the suggestion that even if designed, it may have been just tinkering with pieces here and there. In that case there would be no teleology besides helping something out for short term reasons.In the end, ID's key difference in scientific methodology is the search for evidence of design. It's use of organic teleology is mainly a part of the political/social agenda, with a few forays into saying that teleology might help scientists propose mechanisms (ie "think like an engineer instead of a detective").

quote:

---

As I recall, we didn't agree on what counts as evidence for ID.

---

I opened a whole thread on this very thing and tried to come up with some good ideas. Where were you?The fact that there are no good ways of identifying design is a strike against ID.

quote:

---

Scientists once viewed the cell as a bag of soup. Please explain how viewing the cell as the product of blind watchmaking helped lead scientists away from this view?

---

What's funny is that scientists dispelled the "bag of soup" idea, long before Dawkins' book came out, so why isn't the answer obvious to you?Scientists did not settle for a "blackbox", and continued to investigate the nature of cells, their internal workings, using greater microbiological techniques.Michael Behe was not the first microbiologist, nor the first biochemist. I was studying this stuff before he wrote his book and I can assure you cells were not described as bags of soup. There are complex organic mechanisms which we are just starting to understand.IDers want scientists to swap "bag of soup" with "bag of mousetraps". Credible scientists ask why... they certainly don't believe the former, and see no utility in the latter. It is asking to jump to a dead end.

quote:

---

This clearly refutes your claim that a teleological perspective can't come up with anything useful. Besides, it's my contention that scientists often employ teleological reasoning in making hypotheses even though they don't admit this.

---

It was pointed out by someone else that these same hypotheses could have been generated outside of a teleological perspective.

quote:

---

it's my contention that scientists often employ teleological reasoning in making hypotheses even though they don't admit this.

---

If you are saying that some scientists, in trying to understand what they are looking at, approach it from a "what would I make if I wanted X to happen?", then you could be right. The problem is moving from a scientists using that as a way to think about something, to stating that then some "creator" must have done the same thing (or something similar) to make it.I would point out that this in no way, lends for a teleology beyond mechanics to achieve a physical goal, and it is clear that ID moves beyond this to teleological social/moral statements.

quote:

---

I predict it will emerge as a robust and viable alternative perspective quite capable to generating both research and understanding

---

Give me a date and I'll take the wager.But seriously, I must ask why? Why do we need to leave nonT science? Has it been failing us in some way? How?

quote:

---

You know, this is such nonsense. Molecular biology helps itself liberally to teleological concepts ("messengers," "codes," "proofreading," etc.). It must do so because nothing makes sense in the cell except in the light of functional logic. But molecular biology certainly does not explain the source of that functional logic. Without teleological concepts and terminology biological research would come to a screeching halt.

---

Yes, I know what you just said is nonsense. Cells contain selfsustaining chemical reactions/reactants. It is easier for humans to describe them in terms of "function", and "purpose". But those are a shorthand.The reality is that there are no "higher purposes". And the use of functional language does not indicate a real teleology behind each organism.I can talk about the function of a dam at the base of a river and how it influences the ecology of the region using teleologic language. But that does not make a dam which resulted from a natural buildup of fallen trees and silt deposits a product of engineering, or intent, with an actual teleology.You are confusing models with reality.And by the way biology and biochemistry would not come to a screeching halt without teleological language. It would just sound more dry and a bit more esoteric.

quote:

---

The issue is teleology versus non-teleology. Make your case that the evolutionary process is a totally non-teleological process.

---

NO. The issue is detection of design and then introduction of teleological concepts.But I'll answer your challenge with a question. If there is a teleology... and end goal... what is it? Point to one thing in biology that has reached an end point, or that even appears to be moving toward an end point.Change continues even today, which is what I showed in the counterexample threads I started. The mechanisms which allowed their detection and tracing back, indicate nonT. Or if they do indicate a teleology I would like you to explain what that teleology was and the method employed.That's what is so great about those counterexamples. Here we see what evolutionary theory (nonT based) would predict, and can get to further explore its mechanisms as a beneficial change occurs (for an organism).If Teleology is true then its mechanisms must also be seen. Where are they?

quote:

---

Demonstrate that biology and medical science would be better off without teleological concepts and terminology. Want to claim teleological language is metaphorical? Fine. By all means, lead a crusade to eliminate all the metaphorical language from biology and hand it over to the ID people.

---

This makes no sense. Why do people have to abandon the use of convenient models and terminology? That would be like saying people can no longer use acronyms, mnemonics, analogies, or metaphors because some other group says that that is cheating.My question to you is why do people have to confuse their convenient models for reality? What benefit does it serve?

quote:

---

If there is no design behind life, the non-teleologists shouldn't need these metaphors

---

They don't need them, but it sure is useful in communication and modelling. That's called a developed language. The ability to distinguish between metaphor and reality is what cements it as a scientific discipline.

quote:

---

So they should stop borrowing from the engineers and draw exclusively from the language of the physicists, chemists, geologists, and astronomers

---

All of these fields use metaphors, though perhaps not as many "functional" metaphors since they are not usually describing complex self-sustaining systems. I might add that chemists are an unusual field to put on that list as cellular processes are biochemistry.If you want an example of nonfunctional metaphor, think of photons, electron shells, conveyor belts (usually used for continental dynamics).

quote:

---

If the non-design approach is so good, why do the non-teleologists need to steal ID concepts left and right in order to explore the living world?

---

Snicker snicker. Did you just ask why nonT scientists needed to steal ID concepts? What world are you living in?ID is the new science. What they have done is stolen the nonT scientists' use of models and terminology (for sake of communication), and conflated them into some sort of reality.If ID and teleology is so correct, why do ID theorists keep needing nonT evo methods to help detect and explain modern biological phenomena as they occur?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Flies,
I apologized, if I thought that the accusations were grounded I wouldn't have apologized. As i said I was having a bad day to begin with and I come home irate already b/c of school, check my email telling me I got a reply on EvC Forum, so I check and read (this is what slightly offended me, i say that not as a justification, mind you):FilesOnly writes:
"Let me guess, you attend the same school as Sweetstuff383 and Matt Tucker, meaning you don't really want to hear opposing (and by that I mean "scientific") viewpoints. You just want to write your pathetic paper that will cover the same old crap that has been refuted over and over, by actual practicing scientists."Now how I saw this as an attack on my friends I don't know, but I'm truly sry. Unfortunately, you were the victim of my bad mood. I typed thoughtlessly and released all the tension and stress of my day on you. If you have never experienced the "angry at everyone" moment, congratulations, but fact is I did and you were wrongly accused and not treated with kindness. At the time i was just mad and not necessarily at you but everyone. Now if this could be put behind us both, and you would please accept my apology and let us both pursue what we see as truth and seek to verify it, I believe that we can both benefit.Thank you,
BRAN(P.S. I am coming from an ID stand point and not creationism and also could you please post a description of how evolution explains irreducible complex creatures, it would help to see both perspectives. Thank you and I am truly sry.)

In a word, scaffolding.Consider the stone arch. It's irreducably complex, right? In that, if you take away any stone, the whole thing collapses, right?Yet, somehow arches are built, piece by piece. How is this done? A scaffold is erected to support the structure until it is completed, then the scaffold is taken away.This is an analogy, of course. But note that the scaffold does the same thing an arch does - hold stuff up - it's just that arches do a better job. So the arch is an "evolutionary" improvement on the scaffold.So, evolution explains "irreducably complex" systems and structures by the observation that such structures aren't really irreducably complex if you build them up the right way - by using "scaffolds", structures that have been co-opted to do the same thing while a better system evolves.

Crash,
True, yes but the arch was designed and the scaffold built by the creator, not by a random unguided and creator-less process as stated by ToE.BRAN

JonF,
In Genesis we are given the account of Cain and Able, Cain killed his brother and was disowned and became a Gentile, Gentiles are of the line of cain. The gentile line began with Cain pre-flood. Them later, post-flood after all were killed with the exception of noah, came Abraham, as the custom of the Semitic people, if a wife was infertile, she would give her husband her maidservant to bare him an heir, This is what happened with Abraham and Sarah, only the difference was that God promised an heir though Sarah and the child her maidservant gave birth to was then disowned, and all the maidservant's son's descendants were known as Gentiles (outsiders). And that is why we are not all jewish.Bran

Warren,I agree that looking at cellular evolution without looking how a living earth defined complexity "intelligently" is going to lead to an incomplete picture. However, Gaia offers a better theory than the IDers: TOPIC: Thermal anomalies on south east of South America: Note DIRECTION OF CURRENTs. Note hydrate fields there. Also consider broad based electrical insUlative properties would reduce sharp capactive transiant differential currents that would elongate cirrus, but would otherwise increase the probability that water vapor would flow uniformly from one particle to the next without sharp contrasts. The cold anomalies to the Southern Ocean are all related to the direction of current of the Southern Ocean--inducting for a greater capacitive displacement current that elongates the cirrus clouds there. In contrast, where some of the big bergs have broke off and where some of the huge warm anomalies exist just southeast of South America, the currents induct in such a way as to reduce cirrus elongation. In short, the warming of the oceans makes these conductive oceans more sensitive to their induction potentials, and the response on clouds is COUPLED in a way that can be visualized.
The anomalies in the air temperatures over the Southern Ocean are matched with data of a warmer ocean. So you have a control and a variable (they are reversable) in that the ONLY difference between the two areas of anomaly are current direction (and any bioligical modulation of the fields). Solar insOlation is the same. Why would direction of ocean current have a THERMAL meaning -- it can only be an electrical meaning, an induction meaning, with perhaps a little gas exchange conductivity meaning from the wind direction changes churning local waters . . . but it is an electrical forcing modulated by the biosphere.