Design and the intelligence hypothesis

lking Points
Having laid out an ID hypothesis, predictive element, falsification element and having received no cogent reply, I propose the following as being an ICS and accoutable for only by ID.Proposition: Carbon is ubiquitious and essential throughout life as we know it in every form. In fact there is no life that does not contain carbon. The carbon atom is an irreducibly complex system which is essential to every aspect of biological evolution and embedded in every form of life of which we are aware and without which no form of life could exist neither past nor present.Corollary: A IC system is one which cannot be envisioned as working in any useful way absent a component part and cannot be ddemed operational by substituting any replacement part, neither by a series of small changes from less and less complex systems over long time periods principally by random mutation and natural selection.Corollary: Every form of life at the system or subsystem level is then irreducibly complex because one cannot remove carbon from it and still have any semblance of life. There is no organism or subsystem in a living entity which is able to function without any carbon atoms in its structure, can be envisioned to work with a substitute atom for carbon either at the current state of the entity or in any previous status which by small changes could have eliminated carbon or sustitued for it while maintaining life functionlityCorollary: Since no naturalistic explanation for the essentiality of carbon in life there is no viable alternative other than supernatural and the scientific complexity of the carbon atom makes it logically an ID system. Neither is there any scientific demonstrable basis for a non-carbon form of life at any point in the history of life for any living entity.Conclusion: Evolution is a falsified theory because no scientific inquiry has ever demonstrated the development of the carbon atom from simpler "things" in a step by step process and carbon is a subsystem of every living entity without which all such entities cease to be alive. Life is an Irreducibly Complex System in every form for all time and inexplicable from other than an ID perspective ince the removal of one subsystem Carbon renders life to be non-life and cannot be built from simpler forms step by step.Final thoughts on this subject for questions previously posed.Darwins falsifiability statement would not mean one thing less if any "physical subsystem of a living entity" were substituted for major organ/feature/ since all major organs contain carbon atoms as part of their systematic makeup and are indeed a subsystem of the organ.Yet by removing all carbon from the subsystem, by extension component or organ of which it is a part;that enstity will in every case ceae to function, cannot function with any other type of atom other than carbon and cannot be arrived at from a previous state where carbon would not have been necessary for its function.Since the system has one or more components which absent that component cannot function regardless of the stage in development from the first life to that point then the system dependent absolutely on that component which is itself irreducibly complex then the iving entity cannot be accounted for by natural evolutionary means and must have been designed; it is an ID.It also falsifies evolution in the context of current knowledge of living systems at the molecular, even atomic level in adherence with darwins definition ( an organism in life will consist of components/subsystems one of which carbon cannot be removed without destroying all living functionality.I believe I have responded to the final thread preclosing questions.

Only if you believe that the caustic remarks by a grown man whose self confidence and sense of accomplishment are dependnet on portraying themselves as Cat Bird the Evil HR Director from Dilbert occurring at precisely some arbitrary thread length ( those parameters can be changed in about 1 nano-second) and it falling on my precise post among some one hundred that day are UNCORRELATED with the obvious evo bias in this so called open discussion group.

I will be pleased to let you argue from the perspective of star trek based science and all the scientific integrity that brings to the table. I also haven't tunneled underground to the lost world imagined by Jules Verne, but I feel ever so confident in not making those major considerations in my analyses.As to the appeal of fusion based arguments for carbon formation I admit not considering triple neutron collision reactions in the core of stars a billion light years away or in a nuclear reactor as being appropriate to the presumed processes of evolution, namely biosphere based mutation and natural selection ( and yes those terms are used both in abiogenesis and so called chemical predestination literature).I am unaware of Darwins work in nuclear physics as it might relate to fusion temperature speciation ... whatever.Carbon does have isotopes, it does appear in several forms, it does have complex forms. One of the rather popular forms is diamond which is most often discussed in its applications amour, its esthetic, mineral or gemstone complexity, facets and such. Since there is very little amour on this post by design I wanted to clearly concern myself with the complexity of the carbon atom scientifically as in things like say its atomic structure and properties and behaviors scientifically not esthetically although those are certainly important but not in the context of this forum, this "scientific" forum as I am constantly reminded.As to your favorite or most convincing form of debate or argument I am not interested in playing twenty questions, so perhaps you could just state whether you prefer true rhetoric or some form of sophistry.The conclusion by the way is that life is irreducibly complex at the atomic level in that in particular carbon atoms are essential to all life forms we are aware of and that are part of evolutionary theory per Darwin. In fact if carbon atoms are removed from ay life form at any proposed stage in its so called evolution that would be the end of its functionality as life. Neither is their any atomistic substitute for carbon which might have preceeded the instant stage, nor is there any hope for a mutation of the carbon atom into another type of atom (isotopes excluded because carbon 14 plays an insignificant trace element role in life) which could perform equally well.I suspect few will be impressed by the logic that if a phenomenon has not yet been observed that is no reason to suggest it is not right around the corner. That borders on the stuff of fairy tales, the occult, black magic and says essentially no imaginable phenomenon should be excluded from possibility in scientific investigation no matter how preposterously improbable or undemonstrable it may be, because it just might occur. I gave up looking for magic mirrors as a young child.Evopeach

It is probably a valid theory about carbon now being produced in star formation and other fusion activity. However as I read and recall the current carbon cycle is a conservation and balancing scheme in the totality of the earths ecosystem etc. It is true that in the theory of evolution concerning origins that about every thing came from ... out there. Fine but now the carbon cycle does not even mention carbon produced in stars as having any current import in the cycle... its not even mentioned as a source. So its irrelevent to the discussion as to the production of carbon from a simpler form through evolutioary stages a term that is routinely applied to chemicals of life science ,in theories of chemical predestination... nothing really new, its an evolutionary theorist concept.So my entire line of reasoning is in the context of darwinian and earth biosphere contained operations. Thus carbon cannot be produced from simpler elemental forms in evolutionary terms consistent with the popular definitions and current carbon cycle conditions.Now it surprises me to learn that the extension of thought or concepts though opposed to one debater or the other is a crime worthy of ridicule and intimidation efforts. I do not even know the mind of Behe or others but I do know that in Wilder-Smiths writings ( and he greatly influenced the current generation of ICS and ID types)he looked at consciousness theories and their relationship to the debate, information theory et al and gladly suffered the opponents ridicule for years.Now as to the IC of life based on carbon and perhaps N,H,phosphorus as well the systems simply are so absolutely dependent on their presence throughout the living cell that they cannot be removed without death end of the road for life... uncontested I believe. So since there is no precursor or set of evolving stages leading up to a carbonless cell or life form and no ready atomistic substitue that maintains life again without debate I think life is irreducibly complex and cannot be accounted for naturalistically since the reasoning applies to the first form and to one mutation or change removed. It has to be designed because there can be no simple to complex scheme and no viable theory of abiogenesis is extant and is declared not a part of evolutionary theory.There should be room for novel thought even if its also original.But enough its hardly worth the firestorm

Well at least I have communicated the context of the carbon ID argument as rightfully being independent of prelife fusion generated carbon. So when I say carbon cannot be made of evolutionary steps from simpler systems is is correct as to the evolutionary post life theory maintained by the commuity currently... as in abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.Now that being true, life is absolutely irreducibly complex because it never, no never exists, no matter how simple the form of live may be, without carbon atoms in every divisible aspect of the form. And carbon is not beng made nor can it in this context from a simpler set of components state by stage, carbon is irreducibly complex itself. It cannot arise abiogenetically because it cannot be in any way supported in that capacity.. period, never can happen if fifty failed years of experiment and study comport with utter failure. So much so that after fifty years of effort , the evolutionary community declares abiogenesis as having no important role in evolution as evolution begins after life firat appears.I say again that life is irreducibly comlex, designed and ID at that.Evolution is indeed falsified in darwinian terms , though admittedly novel.

So it is not scientific to postulate that no human can demonstrate a standing unaided vertical jump that exceeds 64 inches?According to your line of reasoning it would be unscientific because we can predict that they could if only were consider the everyday occurrence of jumping on the moon.Now since carbon creation only takes place spontaneously at fusion temperatures in stars some million of light years away and is currently not even a consideration in earthbound, post first life evolutionary.. the only kind that matters to this forum by their definition it is perfectly scientific to state that for the science and hypothesis at hand the creation of carbon step by step from simpler entities. There is no chance by anyones theory that evolution as defined by this forum post first life and by darwinian mechanisims includes fusion temperature phenomenon.Thus your reiteration of a true but totally inappropriate and illogical out of context assertion is rather fallacious reasoning.Now once one thinks properly about those phenomena that are appropriate to this forums dicsussion on evolution here on earth after the appearance of first life accoring to darwins definitions and those herein it is elementary that the absolute necessity for a particular subsystem of life (itself IC in context)in every form, at every stage at all times that life is then irreducibly complex because it cannot exist absent the subsysyem and is the product of ID since no natural process can be defined which gives rise to it through darwinian staged processes in any respect.And given the absolute necessity for carbon, its elemental nature in context and no alternative substitution for it in life nor any way for simple life forms to evolve per darwinianism the theory is falsified by darwins own fefinition.QED

Perhaps you could let them do their job and you do yours whatever that is.

Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------So it is not scientific to postulate that no human can demonstrate a standing unaided vertical jump that exceeds 64 inches?
According to your line of reasoning it would be unscientific because we can predict that they could if only were consider the everyday occurrence of jumping on the moon.Now since carbon creation only takes place spontaneously at fusion temperatures in stars some million of light years away and is currently not even a consideration in earthbound, post first life evolutionary.. the only kind that matters to this forum by their definition it is perfectly scientific to state that for the science and hypothesis at hand the creation of carbon step by step from simpler entities. There is no chance by anyones theory that evolution as defined by this forum post first life and by darwinian mechanisims includes fusion temperature phenomenon.Thus your reiteration of a true but totally inappropriate and illogical out of context assertion is rather fallacious reasoning.Now once one thinks properly about those phenomena that are appropriate to this forums dicsussion on evolution here on earth after the appearance of first life accoring to darwins definitions and those herein it is elementary that the absolute necessity for a particular subsystem of life (itself IC in context)in every form, at every stage at all times that life is then irreducibly complex because it cannot exist absent the subsysyem and is the product of ID since no natural process can be defined which gives rise to it through darwinian staged processes in any respect.And given the absolute necessity for carbon, its elemental nature in context and no alternative substitution for it in life nor any way for simple life forms to evolve per darwinianism the theory is falsified by darwins own fefinition.QED

I sort of try to keep up with the entire thread and not just the ones that I write since that would leave me uninformed and render my posts useless and vapid.. void of content. May you could try that approach to.

In your ear fairy

Little Percy Cat Bird, shove it where the sun doen't shine. There does that do it for you .. as in permanent suspension... my oh my what a calamity! Thanks for the laughs. I do hold you in derision you know. This last week has crystallized my view that the evolutionary community is the NewSpeak community of the 21st century and I plan to redouble my financial support of the D.I. and one other long time opponent of the intellectually vacuous non-theory called darwinian evolution. Grown people acting like little spoiled children who when confronted with honest disagreement and in general alternative ideas by a large and growing body of scientists simply yell louder, grasp form over substance, exercise contrived censorship and in general display all the reasons why the polls of the American people show complete distain for you and yours. Now go back to your little self congratulatory emails and self assuring avatars. You are like the forty year street sweeper who working at the Eagles concert parking lot gets a little uniform and a flashlight to direct parking .. the preeminent power position of his otherwise pitiful unaccomplished life.You people have seen your apex ... its all downhill from here.Kissy KissyEvopeach

Conditional Apology;You have to tell me if that thing on your head is a birthmark, a tatoo, a parasite or are you really an alien. I 'm leaning toward the latter.