|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: And what do you have? "Some natural process somehow did this for some reason".?
quote: But we don't know their intentions.
quote: No genome manipulation needed. Just the correct initial conditions that would allow for the bac flag. What purpose? The purpose of the bac flag or the purpose of the designer to set up the initial conditions that allowed for one? "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually the "one fell swoop" is under your scenario, ie the theory of evolution. Under Behe's scenario the parts and instructions for the bac flag were part of the initial conditions, ie preprogrammed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: I understand it very well. It is you who doesn't understand what Behe is saying.
quote: But there isn't any evidence of this.
quote: The reasoning is that in order for NS to have something to act on is that, the bac flag, has to be there. NS does not have a plan. It cannot build something the organism may use in the future. Read his book. Then get back to me. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And how do we know what those conditions were? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: And where in geology does it show the earth at one time had a reducing atmosphere? No, you don't have my argument correctly. I suggest you read the literature about ID as written by IDists. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Now you are talking nonsense. We already know that your "some natural process did this for some reason" is a straw man. Only ID limits itself in this way - science does not and never has.
And we certainly do make hypotheses about the intnetions of Stonehenge's builders - that they built it to act as a calendar, based on the astronomical alignments is one. And mcuh is implicit in the simple identification of the builders as human - we know reasons why humans build monuments and these are all available as potential hypotheses. And I might ask how the "designer" could set up the "initial conditions" so that bacteria still somehow grow flagella if the bacterial genome is NOT involved. Either "setting up the initial conditions" manipulates the genome directly or indirectly or you have some explaing to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: I am not asking for the arguments in those books, I am asking for YOUR argument. This is not a book of the month club, this is a discussion board. Please answer this question: Does ID, as you present it, require the existence of a supernatural designer? If yes, what separates ID from other theories in creationism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1420 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
ID man says:
quote:The reasoning, such as it is, ignores the fact that plenty of biological structures serve purposes quite different from the ones they once served. Loudmouth himself started a thread to show that jawbones we inherited from our reptilian ancestors are now the three little bones in the mammalian middle ear. NS can build a structure for the organism's immediate survival needs, and co-opt the structure for a new purpose in the future. Creationists like to denigrate the Darwinian mutation-selection machine, ignoring the power and ingenuity of the process. As I've asked before, though, aren't IC systems the only ones that RMNS didn't design? In that case, aren't hands and antennae and small ear bones all impressive testimony to the design capability of the Darwinian mechanism? regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Just an aside first, and this isn't directed just at you: While I think a lot of the other discussion is useful and very interesting, a significant proportion doesn't seem to be on topic.
The topic of this thread asserts that ID is not Creationism. To settle the issue we need a clear definition of Creationism. A resolution requires this. So work with me here so we can agree on a definition. Like almost all words, Creationism has no single definition, but it doesn't have very many. The most common use is Young Earth Creationism. Another common use refers to both Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism. If there are other definitions they're probably not relevant to this discussion. So when you say that ID is not Creationism, are you referring to both YEC and OEC, or just YEC? By the way, a clarification. When I stated before that we could agree that ID is not YEC, I only meant that we all understand that ID does not believe the earth is 6,000 years old with all the attendant flood geology mumbo-jumbo. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You have skipped answering my posts 128, 131, and 132. The most important for you to address would be post 132.
And it has some reflection on your comments here...
I understand it very well. It is you who doesn't understand what Behe is saying. You said this after describing what Behe outlined as the possibility of "frontloading". But accepting that scenario requires a trust in our knowledge regarding the fossil record and the evolutionary model of common descent. Yet you have spoke against both of these. Please explain which theorist you follow and what the model is for species diversity? Is it (regardless of underlying mechanism) common descent or not? And if not, then you are by your own description in the creationist camp, right?
Read his book. Then get back to me. I have and I am. Yet you keep running from me. LM is correct in bringing up step by step processes, and mrH has added the other element LM may not have mentioned, which is multiple uses of a feature. These are known in biology. Is there a reason to believe that the bacflag could not have emerged this way? I realize you want to fall back on "but we did not SEE it happen", but that is true for ID as well. If you are willing to accept inference to something we have no evidence for on its own, why are we to DOUBT inference to something we do have evidence for on its own?
And where in geology does it show the earth at one time had a reducing atmosphere? I'll back you on this one. We do not know what the exact environmental conditions were at the time life first appeared. This is because on top of general environmental conditions, there were many specific local environments. But this is a double edged sword. While it prevents us from knowing under exactly what conditions life could have arisen, it also prevents critics from claiming they know conditions would have prevented life from rising.
I suggest you read the literature about ID as written by IDists. This criticism is getting tired. You should be able to explain what you mean without constantly telling others they must read ID. It is not like there are a lot of detailed research articles, or deep exhaustive analyses that would be tedious to relate in a post. But as it stands, if you don't want to deal with the problems of people not having read ID literature, why don't you stick to answering my posts? I have read much if not most of their literature. Apparently more than you. And what's more you have not fixed on which IDtheorist's model you are agreeing with. Do you stand behind Behe and common descent, and the fossil record, or no? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Why limit yourself to the atmosphere? Why not in the oceans? In fact, there are reducing environments right now in many places on earth, so why not in the past?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Did we have to know they were human or anything about them in order to detect and understand (or try to) the design? Well, we certainly didn't come to the conclusion that humans made them based on any aspect of the items themselves. Moreover, restricting the possible designers to only humans meant that we could easily come to conclusions about their manufacture and use. In other words, it was due to the a priori conclusion that the designer was human that we were able to determine the purpose and function of their design. So yes, knowing that they were human was crucial to the analysis and detection of their design.
We didn't know who designed or built it but we know it was designed and built. No, we know that humans designed and built it. That knowledge does not come from any aspect of Stonehenge, however.
IOW we know Stonehenge wasn't the product of nature acting alone. Right, because we know humans were there to build it. In regards to the evolution of life, humans weren't around till the end. With no other designer avaliable, we must conclude that no design occured - that the only remaining possibility, no matter how improbable you may find it, is the truth; all other conjectures are impossible.
It does not mean that aliens didn't design and build Stonehenge. What aliens?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6502 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Oh really? You should probably look before you post....here is a small subset of the evidence that you claim does not exist... Microbiology. 2003 Nov;149(Pt 11):3051-72. Related Articles, Links Type II protein secretion and its relationship to bacterial type IV pili and archaeal flagella. Peabody CR, Chung YJ, Yen MR, Vidal-Ingigliardi D, Pugsley AP, Saier MH Jr. Division of Biological Sciences, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0116, USA. Homologues of the protein constituents of the Klebsiella pneumoniae (Klebsiella oxytoca) type II secreton (T2S), the Pseudomonas aeruginosa type IV pilus/fimbrium biogenesis machinery (T4P) and the Methanococcus voltae flagellum biogenesis machinery (Fla) have been identified. Known constituents of these systems include (1). a major prepilin (preflagellin), (2). several minor prepilins (preflagellins), (3). a prepilin (preflagellin) peptidase/methylase, (4). an ATPase, (5). a multispanning transmembrane (TM) protein, (6). an outer-membrane secretin (lacking in Fla) and (7). several functionally uncharacterized envelope proteins. Sequence and phylogenetic analyses led to the conclusion that, although many of the protein constituents are probably homologous, extensive sequence divergence during evolution clouds this homology so that a common ancestry can be established for all three types of systems for only two constituents, the ATPase and the TM protein. Sequence divergence of the individual T2S constituents has occurred at characteristic rates, apparently without shuffling of constituents between systems. The same is probably also true for the T4P and Fla systems. The family of ATPases is much larger than the family of TM proteins, and many ATPase homologues function in capacities unrelated to those considered here. Many phylogenetic clusters of the ATPases probably exhibit uniform function. Some of these have a corresponding TM protein homologue although others probably function without one. It is further shown that proteins that compose the different phylogenetic clusters in both the ATPase and the TM protein families exhibit unique structural characteristics that are of probable functional significance. The TM proteins are shown to have arisen by at least two dissimilar intragenic duplication events, one in the bacterial kingdom and one in the archaeal kingdom. The archaeal TM proteins are twice as large as the bacterial TM proteins, suggesting an oligomeric structure for the latter. Publication Types:Review Review, Academic Cell. 2004 May 14;117(4):527-39. Related Articles, Links Decoding cilia function: defining specialized genes required for compartmentalized cilia biogenesis. Avidor-Reiss T, Maer AM, Koundakjian E, Polyanovsky A, Keil T, Subramaniam S, Zuker CS. Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Division of Biological Sciences and Department of Neurosciences, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. The evolution of the ancestral eukaryotic flagellum is an example of a cellular organelle that became dispensable in some modern eukaryotes while remaining an essential motile and sensory apparatus in others. To help define the repertoire of specialized proteins needed for the formation and function of cilia, we used comparative genomics to analyze the genomes of organisms with prototypical cilia, modified cilia, or no cilia and identified approximately 200 genes that are absent in the genomes of nonciliated eukaryotes but are conserved in ciliated organisms. Importantly, over 80% of the known ancestral proteins involved in cilia function are included in this small collection. Using Drosophila as a model system, we then characterized a novel family of proteins (OSEGs: outer segment) essential for ciliogenesis. We show that osegs encode components of a specialized transport pathway unique to the cilia compartment and are related to prototypical intracellular transport proteins. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 2004;7(1-2):41-51. Related Articles, Links Recent advances in the structure and assembly of the archaeal flagellum. Bardy SL, Ng SY, Jarrell KF. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont, Canada. Archaeal motility occurs through the rotation of flagella that are distinct from the flagella found on bacteria. The differences between the two structures include the multi-flagellin nature of the archaeal filament, the widespread posttranslational modification of the flagellins and the presence of a short signal peptide on each flagellin that is cleaved by a specific signal peptidase prior to the incorporation of the mature flagellin into the flagellar filament. Research has revealed similarities between the archaeal flagellum and the type IV pilus, including the presence of similar unusual signal peptides on the flagellins and pilins, similarities in the amino acid sequences of the major structural proteins themselves, as well as similarities between potential assembly and processing components. The recent suggestion that type IV pili are part of a family of cell surface complexes, coupled with the similarities between type IV pili and archaeal flagella, raise questions about the evolution of these systems and possible inclusion of archaeal flagella into this surface complex family. Copyright 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
? that would be a difference yes? What I believe Joe was saying (and Deism also holds) is that there was no "Divine Intervention in human history"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I'm talking about history in the ordinary sense - rather than evolutionary history. In Christian terms, Jesus' ministry and resurrection at the least represent some Divine involvement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Please help me out here: I have no idea what your point is. As far as I could see Joe was talking about a basic theism that I said sounded a lot like Deism -- NEITHER having anything to do with christianity as far as I can see, so your comments are non-sequiturs...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Joe says that he believes that God did not intervene in the course of evolution. That does not mean that he doesn't believe God has intervened in some sense in human history - inspiring prophets, for instance. Deism rejects that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I would take that up with Joe instead of arguing with me about what you think Joe might or might not believe and building ... what 4? 5? POINTLESS posts on that issue?
sheesh mountain out of anthill ya ask me. what Joe said sounded like Deism to me, and I commented to HIM on that, and I have not seen anything from HIM to change my opinion. got that? I'll let Joe talk for Joe.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024