Thread: intelligent design theory: logic in the argument?

I am trying to figure out if the main id argument is logical but it is sort of bouncing back and forth in my head and I keep asking hmm can you really say or infer that ?Here's my thoughts.Ids argument is that specified complexity (, computers, electronics, etc) is only known to result from intelligent activity. They use abductive reasoning to show that since DNA is a massive source of specifically arranged components that act to serve a function, they exhibit specified complexity or functional complexity.And that's the gist of the argument. The only known source of specified complexity being intelligent activity equates to an intelligent source for the origin of life and the information needed to produce it as the most plausible conclusion. It must be the most plausible as it is the only known source of specified complexity. Yet the origin of life has no known cause. The origin of specified complexity may be restricted to an intelligent source, but we are not talking simply of specified complexity. We are talking about life and sentience. and yet life has no known cause. Scientists cannot make life in test tubes. Id actually uses this as a claim against the chemical soup theory. They say, hey... If chemical processes can create life, why can't you make life ? But humans are the only known intelligent source capable of producing specified complexity. So in other words id is saying that we were likely designed because the only known cause specified complexity is intelligence yet the issue is not the complexity but the life. And humans cannot create life. Thus there is no known source capable of creating LIFE not simply SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Does this make any sense to anyone ?This stuff is fascinating to me. I have so many books I'm trying to start but I can't stop getting new books on evolutionary theories every time I finish one.

Welcome to the forum. A few points:

1) ID is not a theory, it's bullshit written by people who are either dishonest or do not understand basic science.
2) The logic if there is any is fundamentally flawed and is debunked in too many places for me to need to repeat it here. Do some critical reading of the material you have and read what people who actually understand evolution say.
3) Not being able to make life in the lab does not "disprove" anything, a quick experiment in the lab (even if it lasts years) can not be expected to reproduce something that occurred over millions of years.

If you are interested in evolution and want to learn do not waste your time with ID, it is pointless except as an example of how nutjobs with a religious agenda pervert science. It is at best an exercise in wishful and sloppy thinking, at worst intellectual dishonesty.

I deeply appreciate the response. However, I have read books on both sides of the issue and at present moment in December of 2013 scientists do not know how life originated. Further scientists know no mechanism that accounts for macroevolution. Micro evolution is well documented and observed, but macro is an utter mystery. They simply cannot account for novel animal form. Some of the most prominent scientists in the world, including Richard Dawkins admit science has not figured many of the issues relating to evolution and origins out. I appreciate a good discussion so I hope that didn't come off any certain way as I meant no offense or hostility. Its just that when an id proponent says there is no scientific literature to account for macroevolution, and then one goes to the scientific literature and sees that he was correct, how can we totally dismiss the argument ? All this said, I do believe id is wrong and there are just some processes/mechanisms/ etc we don't know about yet

If the Universe and/or Life needed a "creator" then, logically, that creator needed a creator itself, which in turn needed its own creator, and so on. Turtles all the way down.

Evolution is not a theory of lifes origin, it is a theory of "evolution" so your first point is irrelevant.

Macro vs micro evolution is not my field, there are better biologists on the forum more qualified to address that point.

However, ID proponents want to dismiss evolution because it can't explain 100% of everything. This shows they don't understand how science works, evolution gives a very good explanation for whole areas of biology but it obviously needs some refinement -- this is how science works by refining good theories so they model reality better.

Compare this to ID, it explains absolutely nothing (Goddidit is not an explanation), it has no predictive power and relies on fallacious arguments and cherry picking to even appear to be credible (which it isn't). This is the intellectual dishonesty I mentioned in my first response.

Evolution, while not a "perfect" theory is the best model we have and so far there is no evidence that disproves the essentials of it, ID is a crock of shit made up by biased religious fundamentalists, it is certainly not science.

Your last point: "I do believe id is wrong and there are just some processes/mechanisms/ etc we don't know about yet" I can agree with.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

Micro evolution is well documented and observed, but macro is an utter mystery.

Macro evolution is just a collection of micro evolutions - enough micro evolutions to prevent a species reproducing with its 'original' species.
It is as little of a mystery as micro evolution is.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

They simply cannot account for novel animal form.

That is like saying that although we understand how a single footstep works, we cannot account for a 10 mile journey.
Considering that macro evolution is made up of micro evolutions, how can macro evolution not happen?

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

I deeply appreciate the response. However, I have read books on both sides of the issue and at present moment in December of 2013 scientists do not know how life originated. Further scientists know no mechanism that accounts for macroevolution. Micro evolution is well documented and observed, but macro is an utter mystery. They simply cannot account for novel animal form. Some of the most prominent scientists in the world, including Richard Dawkins admit science has not figured many of the issues relating to evolution and origins out. I appreciate a good discussion so I hope that didn't come off any certain way as I meant no offense or hostility. Its just that when an id proponent says there is no scientific literature to account for macroevolution, and then one goes to the scientific literature and sees that he was correct, how can we totally dismiss the argument ? All this said, I do believe id is wrong and there are just some processes/mechanisms/ etc we don't know about yet

Macro-evolution most certainly is not an utter mystery.

Please read though this: Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The third sentence: "Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales"

And it is basically as simple as that. Creationists come forth with all sorts of wild claims, often deliberately dishonest ones, which no scientist in a related field takes seriously.

The nature of science is to figure things out according to the scientific method. It's very nature is one of not having all the answers and trying to fill in the blanks. The presence of those blanks say absolutely NOTHING about the validity of the scientific method or the state of current knowledge.

Scientists now know that genes are not the only source of information passed to offspring. Epigenetic information largely accounts for morphology. It follows that Darwinian mutation to genes would not effect overall body plan as epigenetic info is largely responsible for the body development, not genes, which is what random mutations is said to alter?. It would effect minor things but not overall development. I mean this id guy writes this stuff and debates people and fr what I've read/ watched no one really has am answer to his claims. Again I'm just interested in this stuff don't rage at me please.

There's nothing to imply some kind of external "intelligent" agent responsible for this happening, though.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

Epigenetic information largely accounts for morphology. It follows that Darwinian mutation to genes would not effect overall body plan as epigenetic info is largely responsible for the body development, not genes, which is what random mutations is said to alter?. It would effect minor things but not overall development.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

It would effect minor things but not overall development.

Both mutations and epigenetics effect overall development.

What exactly is your question?

(And there's no such thing as Darwinian mutations.)

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

Scientists now know that genes are not the only source of information passed to offspring. Epigenetic information largely accounts for morphology. It follows that Darwinian mutation to genes would not effect overall body plan as epigenetic info is largely responsible for the body development, not genes, which is what random mutations is said to alter?. It would effect minor things but not overall development. I mean this id guy writes this stuff and debates people and fr what I've read/ watched no one really has am answer to his claims. Again I'm just interested in this stuff don't rage at me please.

The thing is science is not debate. Making retorical points is very different from data interpretation in the laboratory or field.

The only difference between micro and macro, as noted, is time scale.

There are clear documented instances of macroevolution already known, such as nylon-eating bacteria.

Please learn the terminology too, "darwinian" evolution is a scaremongering term to make evolution sound bad, not a commonly used biology term.

Originally Posted by Daecon

If the Universe and/or Life needed a "creator" then, logically, that creator needed a creator itself, which in turn needed its own creator, and so on. Turtles all the way down.

This is the standard argument used against the cosmological argument, but I'm not really sure if it's that good, if the first cause established a cause and effect relationship then there wouldn't need to be a cause before it because it didn't exist.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Daecon

If the Universe and/or Life needed a "creator" then, logically, that creator needed a creator itself, which in turn needed its own creator, and so on. Turtles all the way down.

This is the standard argument used against the cosmological argument, but I'm not really sure if it's that good, if the first cause established a cause and effect relationship then there wouldn't need to be a cause before it because it didn't exist before.

That is a confusing rather than a clarifying reply.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Daecon

If the Universe and/or Life needed a "creator" then, logically, that creator needed a creator itself, which in turn needed its own creator, and so on. Turtles all the way down.

This is the standard argument used against the cosmological argument, but I'm not really sure if it's that good, if the first cause established a cause and effect relationship then there wouldn't need to be a cause before it because it didn't exist.

Which, in turn, removes the need for a creator to create the universe; the universe itself could have established the 'cause and effect' relationship.

ID is based upon a flawed premise.

Firstly, it avoids the scientific method by suggesting that a lack of sufficient evidence (in the eyes of a very select few) for evolution is somehow a suggestion that an idea for which there is no evidence (a creator) is given plausibility.

Secondly, its supporters have the gall to use the word "intelligence" in the name. The fact is, if we were designed by an omniscient force, we were designed very poorly as an organism in light of what we could have been. If we were thusly designed to fit within a specific system, then that would tend toward a natural evolution and not a creator. For instance, if I could build any possible car for myself with no obstacles, why would I set a price limit?

Finally, ID is based upon denial, not evidence. It finds support in denying or attempting to debunk theories supported by evidence. It's a case of not having anything good to say about yourself, so you attack others. It's a cart before the horse thing. It's a case of someone attempting to confirm God by bastardizing both science and religion. ID is, in my opinion, the ultimate abomination. I don't see how everyone isn't offended by it.

Originally Posted by Daecon

If the Universe and/or Life needed a "creator" then, logically, that creator needed a creator itself, which in turn needed its own creator, and so on. Turtles all the way down.

I don't believe in an intelligent Creator either, but I have never been a fan of the above argument.
I do believe the Big Bang is by far the best explanation we have of the development of the Universe, but either the BB was caused by a preceding event or it just "happened".
I don't have a problem seeing the BB as an event but, as a layperson, I do find it very difficult to regard the BB as the first cause of the Universe. If some other event caused the BB then does this not give rise to the same problem of "turtles all the way down"?

I deeply appreciate the response. However, I have read books on both sides of the issue

And you think this gives you an unbiased view?
There's really no controversy when 99% of scientists are on one side of this "issue" you speak of. In fact, since 99% of scientists accept evolution, then to get a truly unbiased view from the scientific community, you should read one anti-evolution book for every 99 pro-evolution books you read. Does that make more sense to you?
Hm... I don't know about you, but I don't feel like reading 100 books, even on a subject I love. How about a lengthy internet article against evolution vs. ten books that support it? That sounds good.

Or better yet, go and browse through: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

There you will find a host of creationist claims and direct rebuttals to them. The more you read, the more you should be getting disgusted with how some creationists have been carrying on.

The problem arises whenever people think of "GOD" or "The Creator" as a seperate entity from the universe and all that that embodies.
This leads to the concept of the momentary "GOD" as "GOD" was not "GOD" before the moment of creation, nor after that moment when "GOD" seperated the creation from "GOD".
And, in that error of reasoning, many religions go astray as they focus on a seeming once upon a time communication(with god), and not on nature it'self.
I would suggest that scientist come close to being part of a viable connection to creation and all that that embodies.

(GO SCIENCE---------------"nearer my god to thee")

How can someone fool themselves into thinking that it is better to listen to the people who make things up, rather than the people who put effort into learning how the universe actually works? I simply cannot understand it. If the basis of an argument, at it's core is "because X said so", rather than "because our theory matches this test of reality" it's best to just ignore it.

I also have to strongly agree with PhDemon in that ID is not a theory. I know it's odd to pick at terminology, but this is an important one.

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm checking out that origins site now. It seems id kind of picks and chooses what evidence/data to include or exclude relative to how well it supports their cause. Also how is Darwinian mutation not a term ? Darwin's theory is based on natural selection working on random mutations in a population that can be passed to offspring. And Richard Dawkins uses the term Darwinian evolution frequently.Thanks for the info guys this is very interesting. It does seem id is making a very sneaky argument and one that may be hard to dispute in some areas simply because they're claiming a omnipotent god is responsible

Our ideas of evolution have, well, evolved a bit since Darwin, so a distinction is often made.

The crux of ID is to use the fact that we cannot disprove a force which exists outside the physical realm and couple that with simply denying every idea that comes along and better explains origins of life.

ID can be explained simply as manipulating facts to support a forgone conclusion.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm checking out that origins site now. It seems id kind of picks and chooses what evidence/data to include or exclude relative to how well it supports their cause. Also how is Darwinian mutation not a term ? Darwin's theory is based on natural selection working on random mutations in a population that can be passed to offspring. And Richard Dawkins uses the term Darwinian evolution frequently.Thanks for the info guys this is very interesting. It does seem id is making a very sneaky argument and one that may be hard to dispute in some areas simply because they're claiming a omnipotent god is responsible

Whenever dealing with matters of science a good principle is falsification, ask yourself: Can I disprove this idea? As for the term Darwinian evolution the theory is the process by which we evolve not evolution itself, Darwin's theory is the best we have - the reason to avoid the term is: a) It has negative connotations with the idea of social darwinism i.e applying ideas of natural selection to social institutions which flourished in the late 19th century with the work of Herbert Spencer and in the 20th century as some sort of justification for the horrendous acts of the Nazi's etc. b) because when we say 'evolution' pretty much everyone knows we're speaking of Darwin as it is the dominant theory. c) to distinguish between the original evolution of Darwin to contemporary research which follows similiar lines but differs (i.e Darwin had no idea of genetics)

It appears likely that for millions if not billions of years there was no consciousness in the universe. During this time no one or thing was saying "wow we exist, aint that special?".

The only reason we are conscious, is because we happen to be in a small region of the cosmos where past conditions have enabled complex atoms to form and then molecules to replicate into life forms, and some life forms were better able to replicate when they were able to perceive the environment (and react in accordance).

Once you understand this, you might conclude that you can not be all knowing before theres anything to know, and even once there is something, you also cant even be somewhat knowing until parts of the stuff in existence can organize in a way that can perceive-store-structure models that represent what is out there (and itself).

The atoms and molecules on a comet are not asking if there is an intelligent design, not because a magical being has forsaken these atoms, but because they just happened not to be in the right environment, if your hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and other atoms had been drifting in space in an ateroid between mars and jupiter, they would not be part of an organized group of atoms whose interaction caused and emergent property to ask itself "Hey whats up guys? Why are we here?"

there's a few logical flaws in the intelligent design argument that haven't been picked up by other posters (unless i missed them)

(1) ID proponents have no measurable and independent way of determining whether a certain level of complexity is irreducible or not, which leaves us with their own assertion that it is
(2) the classic creationist trick of picking on holes in current scientific knowledge has been carried forward by ID proponents, making the unwarranted extrapolation that unsolved issues are unsolvable and always will be - now show me a field of science that doesn't contain gaps, and i'll show you a field of science that is dormant or moribund; in other words, if there were no gaps, scientists wouldn't have anything to do
(3) as often happens with the god of the gaps, it tends to shrink away from the limelight as more results come in : assertions that x number of components all need to be in place and working together in a specified way for something like the flagella to work crumble into dust as soon as scientist starting finding examples of working flagellae with fewer than the magic number
(4) also in common with creationists, ID adherents create a false duality, which they then use to claim that since science can't explain certain issues (and in their implication never will), the only option left must be "the designer" which in their less guarded moments they admit equals god - unfortunately life is far less black-and-white than they're willing to admit

when it comes to the origin of life, it's true that life has not yet been created ab initio in the lab, although a few experiments are not far off
does this mean it never will be ? after all, the statement "the origin of life is nothing but complicated chemistry" has driven the research programme forward for the past 50 or 60 years, and although it has not yet achieved the ultimate goal, it has been extremely successful in driving research towards a better understanding of how it could have happened
but let's say it comes to the worst case scenario, and scientists finally give up on ever being able to figure out how it happened (not a very likely scenario because scientists are a tenacious bunch and like most people love a good mystery), does that mean that the case for creation by god is proven ? i hope you have now followed my logic to the point where you have to admit that is not the case

if the creation of life or any other complex structure by an intelligent designer is to be accepted as a scientific theory, it needs to stand on its own legs and start making testable predictions that stand the test of time and scrutiny - just claiming that the opposing team don't come up with a satisfactory answer either just isn't good enough

arguments from disbelief mixed with the god of the gaps just won't cut the mustard

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I also have to strongly agree with PhDemon in that ID is not a theory. I know it's odd to pick at terminology, but this is an important one.

It's not even a hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I also have to strongly agree with PhDemon in that ID is not a theory. I know it's odd to pick at terminology, but this is an important one.

It's not even a hypothesis.

As I said, it's

Originally Posted by me

a crock of shit made up by biased religious fundamentalists

Originally Posted by marnixR

when it comes to the origin of life, it's true that life has not yet been created ab initio in the lab, although a few experiments are not far off

I have already seen a few creationists hedging their bets by saying that even if we could create life in a lab, it still doesn't mean it can happen in the wild and besides, god made the materials and effects that is used.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by marnixR

when it comes to the origin of life, it's true that life has not yet been created ab initio in the lab, although a few experiments are not far off

I have already seen a few creationists hedging their bets by saying that even if we could create life in a lab, it still doesn't mean it can happen in the wild and besides, god made the materials and effects that is used.

Step 1: Deny supported science.
Step 2: Insert general Goddidit.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit.

My take on it:

Step 3: Dupe scientific illiterates into believing "atheist scientists" are undermining the morals and faith of whatever fundamentalist sect they belong to and ask for money to spread propaganda against the heathen bastards.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Or better yet, go and browse through: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

There you will find a host of creationist claims and direct rebuttals to them. The more you read, the more you should be getting disgusted with how some creationists have been carrying on.

I found this on another forum and it by far, would have to be one of the best rebuttals to ID that I have seen: The Stonemaker Argument

i like the following paragraph :

Finally, let us for the sake of argument, accept that the premise is true: Anything that is complex, must be designed. Wouldn't we then by our own premise, have to accept that the designer itself, which is complex by definition, must also be designed?

so in essence, it's not complexity that's the defining sign of design, but the probability that a certain feature or creature came about through natural processes - hence "irreducible complexity" is a totally superfluous concept when it comes to identifying design

The layman's response would be mine and it is; That to make suggestion of Intel / design is tantamount to accepting myths as truths, and I can not do that. Having made a point of study of the writings of Richard Dawkings and he has a persuasive manor.. Recently I witnessed his on line lecture of the 'Larynx nerve tract'.. comparing fish with a Giraffe., and found it entirely convincing..
The end of the argument with a big fat full stop. If that were the design it's a fault. That just does not work for me.. No design is the only path open. It quickly becomes a mater of common sense.. Evolution, which age has shown me to be not so common. I will also add that a view of facts known, changes rapidly when religious doctrines are concerned. when for science a demand of method and 'proofs' must conform. but for faiths no such proofs can be found.. The argument goes wanting for substance. There is none.

howdidigethere, welcome to the forum. Several members have dismissed ID in general and the "macro evolution has not been observed" argument in particular. While they are likely correct to dismiss the latter I note that no one has actually refuted it with evidence. If you still have reservations on this point could you specify a macro-evolutionary step that you feel, or that creationists claim, has not been observed? We could then address that and, hopefully, satisfy you fully.

i thought it was pretty obvious that, if micro-evolution creates new species by interrupting the gene flow between populations, there is nothing to stop that small difference from becoming a large difference given sufficient time

and before you say that micro-evolution only makes for small incremental changes, what if the regulatory genes are involved ? all of a sudden you get a large change in the phenotype for a small change in the genotype

as for evolution and speciation happening in the wild over relatively short periods, Lake Apoyeque in Nicaragua is only 1800 years old, and a chiclid fish has already split up into 2 populations that are distinct and mostly mate within their own group
another example is the apple maggot fly, which split from a relative that feeds on hawthorns, something that only could happen with the introduction of apple trees in the US - in this case the separation is more due to behaviour and timing of when their respective feeding grounds produce fruit, but once 2 populations no longer interbreed, that's the start of them becoming incompatible for subsequent interbreeding

I don't know what macroevolution means, but there are plenty of examples of speciation that have been observed:
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
(I think that includes at least some of marnixR's examples.)

Originally Posted by marnixR

i thought it was pretty obvious that, if micro-evolution creates new species by interrupting the gene flow between populations, there is nothing to stop that small difference from becoming a large difference given sufficient time

This is the conventional view. This is the consensus view. I am not convinced.

I was not convinced in the 1960s that natural selection, acting on mutations, could provide the whole mechanism for large scale innovation. The discovery of hox genes, which I take you to refer to when you say regulatory genes, provided a possible explanation. I continue to suspect that there is another mechanism we have yet to identify.

Your examples are not what I would describe as macro-evolution. The term is not well defined, but I think in this context it is referring to changes well above the species level.

One of the outstanding issues with this evolutionary argument is the time period involved to which I can add that it may take thousands of years for a seemingly small change to become established as the new norm., Our lifespan is short on the time scale of evolutionary issues. Any doubt of facts as known can be quickly brushed aside when you take in the work of Dawkins, Darwin and many others in this field of science. It is a field of science that this astronomer accepts as real.. Galapagos.
I reject completely the concept of 'Intelligent Design' as the implication that there could be a designer.. is just obscene.

On philosophical and scientific grounds I am violently opposed to Intelligent Design because it prevents any serious exploration of the possibility of intelligent design. I can readily envisage humans manipulating the genomes of species on other planets for a variety of reasons. If that is possible, then it could have happened on the Earth at one or more times in the past. If we reject, a priori, the possibility, then we shall always be blind to the evidence were there any there.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I am violently opposed to Intelligent Design

Then, I recommend you burn down the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by John Galt

I am violently opposed to Intelligent Design

Then, I recommend you burn down the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Like this?

Can I just burn down KFC? (It's closer, and while not as bad a creationism is still pretty awful)

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Can I just burn down KFC? (It's closer, and while not as bad a creationism is still pretty awful)

Perhaps, but it would be more ironic if you burnt down the Creation Museum in Kentucky with fossil fuel.
If you think the U.S. is too far, you can always go to Bristol's Creationist Zoo (and I did not make up that one).

Holy F***ing shit, this stupid is almost literally on my doorstep, right where are those matches...

You could pull it off. Just tell them the devil told you to do it... ( passes matches.)

Originally Posted by John Galt

Your examples are not what I would describe as macro-evolution. The term is not well defined, but I think in this context it is referring to changes well above the species level.

as i've already said (or at least implied) macro-evolution is but micro-evolution given either sufficient time or disruption of the development paths
my 2 examples show the process to incipient species, which if allowed to continue will lead to full speciation

following complete separation of the gene pools, what prevents from drifting forever further apart ?

I'm just about to finish Stephen Meyers 400 page manifesto that is " Darwin's doubt" . guy seems absolutely nutty. I'm curious though, are the gaps in the fossil record this big ubiquitous throughout the fossil record or just in the Cambrian ?Meyer also talks about junk DNA. He says that evolution predicts junk DNA and intelligent design says most DNA would be functional. He then (in the next sentence) goes on to say that now a fully 80% of DNA has been shown to be functional, which he assumes to be evidence for design. Because evolution predicts large amounts of worthless remnant DNA, it fails as a theory because ONLY 20% IS NONFUNCTIONAL. Do we not have trillions and trillions of nucleotide bases in our bodies ? And he thinks 20% of those hundreds of trillions of DNA bases being worthless is evidence of design ? The hell.Also u haven't thought much about this and I'm sure I could figure it out but: if natural selection only selects for fitness advantage, wouldn't worthless mutations be weeded out so that all DNA would be functional ? I know the common assumption is evolution would produce a lot of trial and error type leftovers, but by virtue of the mechanistic processes that strictly forbids a loss in fitness, wouldn't non functional mutations in DNA be destroyed via the death of the animal ? Or is neutral evolution now the common theory ? Thanks guy

What gaps in the fossil record are being referred to?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What gaps in the fossil record are being referred to?

Good luck getting any honest details at all about that from a stephen meyer book.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What gaps in the fossil record are being referred to?

He talks about how up until say 600 million years ago the strata revealed a certain level of sophistication in terms of animal development. Then, during the Cambrian explosion , massive amounts of new information ( genetic or epigenetic or both, and other types) are oberaved in a very small window of time. If i recal correctly he gives estimates of as low as 5 million years up to about 20 million. He shows some math regarding mutation rates and some other favotrs scientists use to estimate how much evolutionary progress can be expected in a given time. Basically his claim isbthat by known estimations the amount of info in the cambrian sgould have took hundreds ofmillions of years to accumulate and it happened in 10 or so million. He further says that there are no intermediary fossils. We go from pre cambrian very very basic animals to trilobytea and very complex form. He says if they evolved via gradual Darwinian natural selection and mutation we should see imperceptibly gradual change and many fossils reflecting that gradual change. Instead its like massive jumps. He says this indicative of design.And for the people saying if micro evolution is true so is macro, here's what Meyer says:Epigenetic info is mostly responsible for development of form. DNA is what makes proteins. New proteins may be able to yield some small 'micro' changes like color or beak length increases. However to majorly alter morphology you need to alter epigenetic information which is not altered by mutation. Further he claims there are dgrn's in place (developmental gene regulatory networks) that are so infinitely complex and dependent upon each step working exactly as it should that any alteration to the system is catastrophic and results in deformity that would necessarily be destroyed by natural selection.Don't shoot the messenger for this, I think he's crazy. Just giving my interpretation of what he is thinking

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

He then (in the next sentence) goes on to say that now a fully 80% of DNA has been shown to be functional, which he assumes to be evidence for design. Because evolution predicts large amounts of worthless remnant DNA, it fails as a theory because ONLY 20% IS NONFUNCTIONAL.

first of all, it's only called "junk" DNA in the popular press and newspapers, presumably because it's more catchy than non-coding DNA
secondly, i don't know where he gets his figures from - according to wikipedia, it's 98% non-coding, meaning it doesn't encode for protein sequences, but that's not the same as saying it's totally useless

e.g. just recently so-called junk DNA has been implicated in how the embryo shapes certain features of the body :

Your face may have been sculpted by junk DNA

other known uses of non-coding DNA are for instance quarantining of retroviral inserts so that they can no longer express themselves - this part of the genome is allowed to accumulate like rubbish in the attic because it doesn't get expressed and hence is invisible to natural selection

I feel like maybe some people on here just kind of buy into evolution from the word go and don't really keep up on the literature ? How can you say junk DNA is sort of useful---not totally useless---- when it has been shown to be absolutely essential for myriad biological processes to work ? It regulates the expression of genes, helps with the amalgamation of genes that work together to perform some process and literally like dozens of other critical processes that are essential for life. The part in his book escapes me but they found some massive amount of uses for the useless junk DNA..... It was a huge breakthrough recently believe it was called ENCODE research project which showed junk DNA works with protein coding DNA to regular sort of when and where the . it regulates the timing and expression of the genes. ( which we know is crucial as each cell may have genes it doesn't use)I don't know much as I just got interested in this subject but Meyer is certainly right about scientists being very hostile and angry towards the issue. What 95% of the answers on here have been Meyers an idiot etc. I just want to learn more I don't need to hear how dumb he is

For those of you interested in specifics, here is Meyer's argument:
"the neo-darwinian mechanism fails to account for the origin of genetic information because: (1) it has no means of efficiently searching combinatorial sequence space for functional genes and proteins and, consequently, (2) it requires unrealistically long waiting times to generate even a single new gene or protein. It has also shown that the mechanism cannot produce new body plans because: (3) early acting mutations , the only kind capable of generating large-scale changes, are also invariably deleterious, and (4) genetic mutations cannot, in any case, generate the epigenetic information necessary to build a body plan. " -meyer, darwins doubt

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

I feel like maybe some people on here just kind of buy into evolution from the word go and don't really keep up on the literature ?

I think you are just pretending not to be a creationist.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

I feel like maybe some people on here just kind of buy into evolution from the word go and don't really keep up on the literature ?

On the contrary. The theory of evolution, although a well-supported scientific theory with an almost insurmountable amount of evidence that speaks in favor of its premises, requires a bit of scepticism. I have yet to see a member who states that (s)he accepts the theory of evolution because science says so.

How can you say junk DNA is sort of useful---not totally useless---- when it has been shown to be absolutely essential for myriad biological processes to work ? It regulates the expression of genes, helps with the amalgamation of genes that work together to perform some process and literally like dozens of other critical processes that are essential for life. The part in his book escapes me but they found some massive amount of uses for the useless junk DNA.....

Who said that "junk DNA is sort of useful"? Member marnixR has given a few examples of the uses of non-coding DNA. I have also made a thread stating that junk DNA is not really junk.

It was a huge breakthrough recently believe it was called ENCODE research project which showed junk DNA works with protein coding DNA to regular sort of when and where the . it regulates the timing and expression of the genes. ( which we know is crucial as each cell may have genes it doesn't use)

ENCODE is, according to its own website, a comprehensive parts list of functional elements in the human genome, including elements that act at the protein and RNA levels, and regulatory elements that control cells and circumstances in which a gene is active.


Furthermore, I fail to see what Intelligent Design (which is creationism in disguise) has to do with non-coding DNA in a genome.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

How can you say junk DNA is sort of useful---not totally useless---- when it has been shown to be absolutely essential for myriad biological processes to work ? It regulates the expression of genes, helps with the amalgamation of genes that work together to perform some process and literally like dozens of other critical processes that are essential for life.

Everything you have written about junk DNA is 100% crap. Quit it, it's irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. Ask questions, fine. Please quit making declarations about stuff you know nothing about.

What are these dozens of critical processes that are essential to life?

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

How can you say junk DNA is sort of useful---not totally useless---- when it has been shown to be absolutely essential for myriad biological processes to work ? It regulates the expression of genes, helps with the amalgamation of genes that work together to perform some process and literally like dozens of other critical processes that are essential for life.

Everything you have written about junk DNA is 100% crap. Quit it, it's irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. Ask questions, fine. Please quit making declarations about stuff you know nothing about.

What are these dozens of critical processes that are essential to life?

It's not intellectually dishonest to repeat something that I see in a book which then references dozens of scientifically reviewed articles from which it got its info?

roles of Non-protein coding segments of dna:

1) regulation of dna replication, 2) regulation of transcription, 3) mark sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material, 4) influence the proper folding and maintenance of chromosomes, 5) control the interactions of chromosomes with the nuclear membrane (and matrix), 6) control RNA processing, editing, splicing, 7) modulate translation, 8) regulate embryological development, 9) repair dna, and 10) aid in immunodefense or fighting disease, among other functions.

so i have seen the articles supporting these, can you tell/show me where they are wrong and the articles that repudiate them? do not tell me what not to write please and please, show me the articles disputing these claims, or show me which of these is not essential to proper life function.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

For those of you interested in specifics, here is Meyer's argument:
"the neo-darwinian mechanism fails to account for the origin of genetic information because: (1) it has no means of efficiently searching combinatorial sequence space for functional genes and proteins and, consequently, (2) it requires unrealistically long waiting times to generate even a single new gene or protein. It has also shown that the mechanism cannot produce new body plans because: (3) early acting mutations , the only kind capable of generating large-scale changes, are also invariably deleterious, and (4) genetic mutations cannot, in any case, generate the epigenetic information necessary to build a body plan. " -meyer, darwins doubt

Yes, but this is rubbish. His assertions in (1) and (2) sound like pseudo-mathematics and will probably come from Dembski. In fact, Meyer's own lab at the Discovery Institute did an experiment to show this was all impossible in the time avaiiable but came out demonstrating the opposite, in spite of being arranged to make it as hard as possible. I quote below an amusing article about it (sorry this is reprinted full, but it was too long ago to be still traceable on the original web link, when I tried just now)

QUOTE

Category:Intelligent Design <http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/intelligent_design/>
Posted on: December 15, 2006 9:30 AM, byEd Brayton <http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/>
New Scientist has anarticle <http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225824.000-intelligent-design-the-god-lab.html> about the Biologic Institute, the lab that the DI set up about a year ago in Redmond, Washington. I guess is where that unnamed research is going on under double-secret probation. It's headed by Douglas Axe, author of a couple of ridiculously hyped "pro-ID" articles that turned out to be anything but that. The article is fairly amusing, as it begins with one of the directors of the institute, George Weber (also the head of the local chapter of the creationist group Reasons To Believe - remember, ID advocates are not creationists...except for those who are), tells the author that the lab is a wing of the Discovery Institute and that their goal is to "challenge the scientific community on naturalism." That leads to him being fired from the board of the institute for failing to parrot the party line. Repeat after me: this has nothing to do with god; this has nothing to do with god; this has nothing to do with god. Learn it. Know it. Live it.
So what will they actually be doing at this lab? I mean, it appears to be an actual working lab; it has bunson burners and pipettes and everything. There is no actual ID theory from which one can derive hypotheses to be tested, and as Minnich admitted in the Dover trial, all of the hypothetical tests they can come up with are really tests (poorly designed ones at that) of evolution, not of ID. That's because all of their positions rest first on the failure of evolution to set up the false dichotomy that if evolution is wrong, ID must be true. I thinkJason Rosenhouse <http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2006/12/new_scientist_on_biologic.php> is correct on the kind of research the lab will produce:

• One suspects that what will emerge from the lab is the sort of milquetoast, run-of-the-mill research that fills the back pages of second-tier journals. They'll produce results like, "Point mutations in the obscurity gene, which codes for the protein esotericase, leads to a catastrophic loss of function." Then the shills at the DI will shamelessly peddle this as cutting-edge research in support of ID. Such results clearly show that esotericase couldn't possibly have evolved, right? The conscienceless lickspittles at the various ID blogs will wield it with comical indignation the next time a scientist points out that there is no research in support of ID.

This isn't exactly a fisky prediction, of course, since we've already got a well established pattern of this happening. We all remember a few years ago as Dembski spoke breathlessly about how Behe and Snoke's upcoming 2004 paper "may well be the nail in the coffin [and] the crumbling of the Berlin wall of Darwinian evolution." In fact, that paper ended up as one of the nails in the ID coffin in the Kitzmiller trial, as Behe wasforced to admit <http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005/10/behe_disproves_irreducible_com.php> under oath that their computer simulation had in fact concluded that an irreducibly complex protein binding site could evolve in only 20,000 years even when the parameters of the experiment were purposely rigged to make it as unlikely as possible.
And we heard the same thing about Axe's2000 paper <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&li st_uids=10966772> on perturbation in enzymes. Dembskihailed <http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000212> this research as proving the existence of biochemical systems "for which any slight modification does not merely destroy the system's existing function, but also destroys the possibility of any function of the system whatsoever." In fact, this was a wildly inaccurate claim about the nature of Axe's research, as Matt Inlay documented inthis post <http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/bill_dembski_an.html> at the Panda's Thumb. Axe's paper was a classic "knockout" experiment, where greater and greater numbers of point mutations were induced and at each step, measurement of the ability of the enzyme to function was measured, in an attempt to find out how many such substitutions had to take place before all function was lost.
According to Dembski, the experiment showed thatany slight modification of the sequence not only destroyed the enzyme's function but also destroyedthe possibility of any function of the system whatsoever. That claim could scarcely be less credible. Axe performed the knockouts in groups of 10 amino acid substitutions and found that none of the four substitutions, by themselves, seriously affected the enzyme's function. It found that you had to combine three sets of substitutions to reduce function by 99%, and had to combine all 4 sets of substitutions to kill function completely. This means that you could substitute 10 or 20 amino acids at a time and only get a negligible decrease in function. If you substituted 30 amino acids all at once, you lost 99% of the function. And if you knocked out 40 at a time, you could kill all function. But this is a full 10% of all the amino acids in the entire protein, and 20% of the exterior residues, which is what the experiment was dealing with. As Inlay tells us:

• As previously mentioned, at least 30 substitutions were required to reduce activity greater than 99%, and 40 mutations to completely abolish it. This amounts to about 20% of the exterior residues, or 10% of the total protein. This can hardly be considered "slight", by any definition of the word. One substitution would be considered slight, not 30 to 40. This is not just a semantic quibble, as the changes that occur during the course of gradual, 'Darwinian' evolution occur one substitution at a time (except in cases of recombination and exon shuffling).

It should also be noted that, contrary to Dembski's claim, Axe's experiment made no attempt to study any other function other than the original function of the enzyme. But in fact, other functions do in fact increase with those changes:

• I don't know how Dembski can claim that the mutations destroyed other functions of the system, since Axe never tested for other functions. This is basically an appeal to ignorance. However, as it turns out, another group analyzed mutations in the active site of the exact same gene (TEM-1) and found that certain "slight modifications" drastically reduced the original function of the system (penicillin and ampicillin resistance), but increased a separate, distinct function (cephalosporin resistance).

The ID Clown Posse knows all of this, of course. Behe knows damn well that the paper he did with Snoke provides no support whatsoever for ID, and in fact arguesagainst irreducible complexity, but that doesn't stop him from promoting it as such anyway. Dembski knows damn well that Axe's papers didn't really say what he claimed they said. But that's not the point.

UNQUOTE

howdidigethere,

You are confusing non-coding DNA with junk. You might be surprised to learn that even professional researchers make this mistake. The two terms are NOT synonymous.

Originally Posted by Zwirko

howdidigethere, You are confusing non-coding DNA with junk. You might be surprised to learn that even professional researchers make this mistake. The two terms are NOT synonymous.

When i said junk dna i should have clarified i meant the supposed junk dna. Protein coding makes up a small percent of genome and tje test was all thought to be worthless. Im saying that "junk" is actually not joke but just non protein coding. When people speak of junk dna theyre talking about perceived junk ie the previously unknown useful non protein coding dna. Issue of semantics. Does nothing to address the point, which you already knew.

No. This is more crap. Junk DNA is by definition DNA sequence that has no known function. It has been defined that way for at least 40 years - it's not mere semantics. Non-coding DNA was NEVER thought to be all useless - the importance of non-coding DNA has been known for at least 50 years.

An example of junk DNA would be a psuedogene. An example of non-coding DNA would be a centromere sequence. One has function, the other does not. Neither codes for protein. The two concepts are conceptually different.

So, first off, please start using paragraphs and spell checking. It will make communicating with you much easier.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What gaps in the fossil record are being referred to?

He talks about how up until say 600 million years ago the strata revealed a certain level of sophistication in terms of animal development. Then, during the Cambrian explosion , massive amounts of new information ( genetic or epigenetic or both, and other types) are observed in a very small window of time. If i recal correctly he gives estimates of as low as 5 million years up to about 20 million. He shows some math regarding mutation rates and some other favors scientists use to estimate how much evolutionary progress can be expected in a given time. Basically his claim is that by known estimations the amount of info in the cambrian should have took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate and it happened in 10 or so million.

So does he at all address the fact that he seems to be going off 50-70 year old fossil data? It has been known for decades that the complexity of the Cambrian life was not a "sudden explosion". Rather many of the taxa were already present prior to that. Take a look at the early Cambrian biotas and the older Edicarian biotas. The change in the 50-100 million years during the Cambrian was an increase in calcification of the oceans resulting in the incorporation of minerals into biotic structures, resulting in increased levels of fossilization probability.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

He further says that there are no intermediary fossils. We go from pre cambrian very very basic animals to trilobytea and very complex form. He says if they evolved via gradual Darwinian natural selection and mutation we should see imperceptibly gradual change and many fossils reflecting that gradual change. Instead its like massive jumps. He says this indicative of design

Again quite clearly he is going off very outdated knowledge of the known fossil record. There are a number of more intermediary and simple forms known from older sediments such as the Edicarian biotas.

p.s. its Trilobite (or the subclass name Trilobitomorpha)

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

I feel like maybe some people on here just kind of buy into evolution from the word go and don't really keep up on the literature ?

I think you are just pretending not to be a creationist.

I thought this after reading the OP (cynical, moi?) but thought I'd give the benefit of the doubt, from the later posts I think you're right. I wonder how God feels about his supporters lying to promote what they percieve as His work...

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

(1) it has no means of efficiently searching combinatorial sequence space for functional genes and proteins and, consequently

It doesn't need to do any such search.

(2) it requires unrealistically long waiting times to generate even a single new gene or protein

How long is "realistic"?

As we have seen new genes and proteins (and even species) arise in a single generation, this doesn't seem a very compelling argument.

(3) early acting mutations , the only kind capable of generating large-scale changes, are also invariably deleterious

Citation needed.

(4) genetic mutations cannot, in any case, generate the epigenetic information necessary to build a body plan

Citation needed.

I assume from the level of ignorance and lies, that this Meyer must be a religious nut?

Originally Posted by Strange

I assume from the level of ignorance and lies, that this Meyer must be a religious nut?

He is an advocate for ID and he is connected to the Discovery Institute.

Gareth Cook reviewed Darwin's Doubt and called it a "masterwork of pseudoscience":

But do not underestimate “Darwin’s Doubt”: it is a masterwork of pseudoscience. Meyer is a reasonably fluid writer who weaves anecdote and patient explanation. He skillfully deploys the trappings of science—the journals, the conferences, the Latinate terminology. He has a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. He appears serious and, above all, reasonable. The Cambrian argument has been a part of creationism and its inheritors for many years, but Meyer’s project is to canonize it, a task he completes with great skill. Those who feel a hunger for material evidence of God or who sense that science is a conspiracy against spiritual meaning will find the book a thrilling read.

(Bold mine)

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

I am trying to figure out if the main id argument is logical but it is sort of bouncing back and forth in my head and I keep asking hmm can you really say or infer that ?Here's my thoughts.Ids argument is that specified complexity (, computers, electronics, etc) is only known to result from intelligent activity. They use abductive reasoning to show that since DNA is a massive source of specifically arranged components that act to serve a function, they exhibit specified complexity or functional complexity.And that's the gist of the argument. The only known source of specified complexity being intelligent activity equates to an intelligent source for the origin of life and the information needed to produce it as the most plausible conclusion. It must be the most plausible as it is the only known source of specified complexity. Yet the origin of life has no known cause. The origin of specified complexity may be restricted to an intelligent source, but we are not talking simply of specified complexity. We are talking about life and sentience. and yet life has no known cause. Scientists cannot make life in test tubes. Id actually uses this as a claim against the chemical soup theory. They say, hey... If chemical processes can create life, why can't you make life ? But humans are the only known intelligent source capable of producing specified complexity. So in other words id is saying that we were likely designed because the only known cause specified complexity is intelligence yet the issue is not the complexity but the life. And humans cannot create life. Thus there is no known source capable of creating LIFE not simply SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Does this make any sense to anyone ?This stuff is fascinating to me. I have so many books I'm trying to start but I can't stop getting new books on evolutionary theories every time I finish one.

There are 2 basic problems with so-called Intelligent Design that disqualify it as science.

The first is philosophical: that it consists of no more than raising objections to the current theories. It advances NO observable or testable predictions of its own. As such, it is NOT a scientific theory, by any reasonable definition. Worse than that, it is actually antiscientific, in that it encourages people, when they encounter something they can't explain, to simply fold their arms and say, "God did it", instead of trying to puzzle out a natural explanation. This is the very antithesis of scientific enquiry.

The second is that it is thoroughly disingenuous in origin, having been invented purely to overcome the legal ban on creationism being taught in US state schools. It is no accident that the prime mover behind the Discovery Institute is not a scientist but a LAWYER (Philip Johnson). If you read the judgement in the Kitzmiller trial, especially the unintentionally hilarious account of how "Of Pandas and People" was updated, and about the "Wedge" strategy, the origins of ID are quite apparent. The whole ID enterprise is shot through with intellectual dishonesty, in pursuit of the political objective of teaching creationism in US schools as a means of getting God back into US society. This is politics and social engineering , not science.

One would be a fool to take at face value the arguments of people with an agenda such as this. Everything they say needs to be questioned and validated. Just to give a single example, trying to compress the Cambrian radiation into 5-20 m years is not justified. It spanned at least 40 million. That is 2/3 of the timespan between us and the dinosaurs - and quite a bit went on in that time, as we all know.

Originally Posted by Zwirko

No. This is more crap. Junk DNA is by definition DNA sequence that has no known function. It has been defined that way for at least 40 years - it's not mere semantics. Non-coding DNA was NEVER thought to be all useless - the importance of non-coding DNA has been known for at least 50 years. An example of junk DNA would be a psuedogene. An example of non-coding DNA would be a centromere sequence. One has function, the other does not. Neither codes for protein. The two concepts are conceptually different.

..... Yes. And when I spoke of "junk " DNA I was speaking of the "junk" everyone assumed to be there for the longest time. Not knowing most of that junk was simply complimentary to coding regions... Ik the difference its a very easy concept

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

Yes. And when I spoke of "junk " DNA I was speaking of the "junk" everyone assumed to be there for the longest time. Not knowing most of that junk was simply complimentary to coding regions... Ik the difference its a very easy concept

Makes no sense.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

..... Yes. And when I spoke of "junk " DNA I was speaking of the "junk" everyone assumed to be there for the longest time. Not knowing most of that junk was simply complimentary to coding regions... Ik the difference its a very easy concept

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory' ." Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

[QUOTE=exchemist;

There are 2 basic problems with so-called Intelligent Design that disqualify it as science.

The first is philosophical: that it consists of no more than raising objections to the current theories. It advances NO observable or testable predictions of its own. As such, it is NOT a scientific theory, by any reasonable definition. Worse than that, it is actually antiscientific, in that it encourages people, when they encounter something they can't explain, to simply fold their arms and say, "God did it", instead of trying to puzzle out a natural explanation. This is the very antithesis of scientific enquiry.

The second is that it is thoroughly disingenuous in origin, having been invented purely to overcome the legal ban on creationism being taught in US state schools. It is no accident that the prime mover behind the Discovery Institute is not a scientist but a LAWYER (Philip Johnson). If you read the judgement in the Kitzmiller trial, especially the unintentionally hilarious account of how "Of Pandas and People" was updated, and about the "Wedge" strategy, the origins of ID are quite apparent. The whole ID enterprise is shot through with intellectual dishonesty, in pursuit of the political objective of teaching creationism in US schools as a means of getting God back into US society. This is politics and social engineering , not science.

One would be a fool to take at face value the arguments of people with an agenda such as this. Everything they say needs to be questioned and validated. Just to give a single example, trying to compress the Cambrian radiation into 5-20 m years is not justified. It spanned at least 40 million. That is 2/3 of the timespan between us and the dinosaurs - and quite a bit went on in that time, as we all know.[/QUOTE]

~ I could not agree more; I look at stem cell research and do not know how the cell knows whats it going to be.. By what sort of encoding does the work., but I can say and will. That it is not a entity outside of the body that makes these choices.. I do not. I can not, put a God in the equation. Only a idiot would. ~ Now as unkind as that conclusion is. It is at the hub of this question. Designed by whom and by what ? The dogged persistence of the DNA to advance and prevail. Does not require a God.. Evolution is science and this is a science forum. Should we ask a astrologer.. Hell no.

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

Yes. And when I spoke of "junk " DNA I was speaking of the "junk" everyone assumed to be there for the longest time. Not knowing most of that junk was simply complimentary to coding regions... Ik the difference its a very easy concept

Makes no sense.

it makes perfect sense. When I wrote the phrase JUNK DNA i was using it in the sense that it was used before we discovered that genes were regulated by the non coding portions of dna. "junk dna" not junk dna, because it isnt actually junk. they estimated 90 some percent was useless, yet it was simply non coding and complimentary to coding regions.

so, like I said, the "junk dna" scientists thought for so long to be evolutionary remnants, is infact not junk. It makes perfect sense.


I also do not need to cite sources when im direct quoting from a book which has literally hundreds of sources. go look at the book. "signature in the cell"

I DO NOT SUPPORT OR CONDONE CREATIONISM. But when I get on the site and am attacked and "hes an idioit. evolution occurs" "dont listen to meyer" etc, it makes me question whats going on. I just want answers, and after reading meyers 2x books, 1k pages worth, with all these sources supporting him and the claims he purports, it is odd to come on and have people say: he has no proof of that, etc ,when I just read a thousand pages of his with scientific literature backing him. Now, I was perhaps ignorant of his willingness to ignore new info to push his agenda, but that doesn't mean I need to be attacked-- for any question. Just politely reply to my questions.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

it makes me question whats going on.

What is going on is:

(a) You are getting factual answers from people who understand the science.

(b) You are seeing some amount of frustration from people who have seen countless people attempt to challenge the (incredibly well-supported) theory of evolution using the deceitful trick of "I'm just asking questions." This doesn't necessarily mean that everyone thinks that you are being dishonest but we have just got rather cynical about "innocent questions" that appear to put as much weight on pseudo-science as real science.

I have no idea who Meyer is. I know little about creationism (the little I have learned is from cretinists posting on science forums like this - with depressing regularity). I have nothing against religion.

But just from the few small snippets of Meyer's work you have quoted here, he is clearly either ignorant or dishonest (or both). I don't understand why you would read something like that at all. I certainly don't know why you would read it before you have developed a thorough undertsanding of the science and, thereby, the tools to analyse and refute it.

Obviously any comments that appear to support Meyer and his ilk will be attacked. Because science.

I DO NOT SUPPORT OR CONDONE CREATIONISM.

But by supporting Meyer's views, you are doing exactly that.

Meyer is not an idiot. He is a geophysicist. But I understand the confusion.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

it makes perfect sense. When I wrote the phrase JUNK DNA i was using it in the sense that it was used before we discovered that genes were regulated by the non coding portions of dna. "junk dna" not junk dna, because it isnt actually junk. they estimated 90 some percent was useless, yet it was simply non coding and complimentary to coding regions.

so, like I said, the "junk dna" scientists thought for so long to be evolutionary remnants, is infact not junk. It makes perfect sense.

No. You're still confusing junk with non-coding DNA.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

it makes me question whats going on.

What is going on is:

(a) You are getting factual answers from people who understand the science.

(b) You are seeing some amount of frustration from people who have seen countless people attempt to challenge the (incredibly well-supported) theory of evolution using the deceitful trick of "I'm just asking questions." This doesn't necessarily mean that everyone thinks that you are being dishonest but we have just got rather cynical about "innocent questions" that appear to put as much weight on pseudo-science as real science.

I have no idea who Meyer is. I know little about creationism (the little I have learned is from cretinists posting on science forums like this - with depressing regularity). I have nothing against religion.

But just from the few small snippets of Meyer's work you have quoted here, he is clearly either ignorant or dishonest (or both). I don't understand why you would read something like that at all. I certainly don't know why you would read it before you have developed a thorough undertsanding of the science and, thereby, the tools to analyse and refute it.

Obviously any comments that appear to support Meyer and his ilk will be attacked. Because science.

I DO NOT SUPPORT OR CONDONE CREATIONISM.

But by supporting Meyer's views, you are doing exactly that.

I guess my issue was being ignorant to the fact that a philosopher of science could write a book which has endless citations of scientifically accredited work which may be false or irrelevant (and done by other id nuts) to making the claim for id. Now I know..

Originally Posted by John Galt

Meyer is not an idiot. He is a geophysicist. But I understand the confusion.

Are geophysicists immune from being idiots? If he believes what he writes then he is very much an idiot, because he refuses to learn from the reams of criticism that is routinely heaped upon his works. If he's just lying for Jesus then, well, I suppose he's quite clever.

Wiki says his PhD is in history/philosophy.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

ID is based upon a flawed premise.

Firstly, it avoids the scientific method by suggesting that a lack of sufficient evidence (in the eyes of a very select few) for evolution is somehow a suggestion that an idea for which there is no evidence (a creator) is given plausibility.

Secondly, its supporters have the gall to use the word "intelligence" in the name. The fact is, if we were designed by an omniscient force, we were designed very poorly as an organism in light of what we could have been. If we were thusly designed to fit within a specific system, then that would tend toward a natural evolution and not a creator. For instance, if I could build any possible car for myself with no obstacles, why would I set a price limit?

Finally, ID is based upon denial, not evidence. It finds support in denying or attempting to debunk theories supported by evidence. It's a case of not having anything good to say about yourself, so you attack others. It's a cart before the horse thing. It's a case of someone attempting to confirm God by bastardizing both science and religion. ID is, in my opinion, the ultimate abomination. I don't see how everyone isn't offended by it.

May I ask from where did you get your intelligence? If you consider yourself intelligent, the question that arises for me is, where did my intelligence come from. If anyone could claim total intelligence this question of ID would be answered many millions or even billions of years ago. My opinion is that there are two views but only one outcome, I am suspecting the bottom line of that question to end up with everyone agreeing that science and ID will always exist as opposites. Tt is imperative that we account for our own intelligence.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

Now I know..

Great, does that mean you'll stop posting nonsense about junk DNA?

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Originally Posted by John Galt

Meyer is not an idiot. He is a geophysicist. But I understand the confusion.

Are geophysicists immune from being idiots? If he believes what he writes then he is very much an idiot, because he refuses to learn from the reams of criticism that is routinely heaped upon his works. If he's just lying for Jesus then, well, I suppose he's quite clever.Wiki says his PhD is in history/philosophy.

PhD is in philosophy of science

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

I guess my issue was being ignorant to the fact that a philosopher of science could write a book which has endless citations of scientifically accredited work which may be false or irrelevant (and done by other id nuts) to making the claim for id.

There is no reason to think that someone with a PhD is any more trustworthy or reliable than anyone else. (It would be the fallacy of argument from authority to claim they were.) In fact, there are a good many PhDs and Nobel Prize winners who have extremely strange views. Sometimes even about their own branch of science - look up Erik Andrulis' paper on "gyres" for a rather sad example.

But I am quite sure that someone with a PhD, especially in a branch of philosophy, is able to put together a very persuasive argument (and know how to find evidence that appears to support it.)

Originally Posted by Stargate

May I ask from where did you get your intelligence? If you consider yourself intelligent, the question that arises for me is, where did my intelligence come from.

Your intelligence comes from your brain and is determined by a combination of your genes and your upbringing/environment. (Is that what you mean?)

If anyone could claim total intelligence this question of ID would be answered many millions or even billions of years ago.

Why? As this Meyers shows, it is possible to be intelligent and deluded.

My opinion is that there are two views but only one outcome, I am suspecting the bottom line of that question to end up with everyone agreeing that science and ID will always exist as opposites.

I would like to think that evidence would eventually displace IDiotic ideas but I expect there will always be people who prefer fantasy to reality.

Tt is imperative that we account for our own intelligence.

What!? Why?

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

PhD is in philosophy of science

Do you blindly believe anyone with a PhD^* or just the ones who agree with you?

*(if so send me all your money and I'll give you some magic beans)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

May I ask from where did you get your intelligence? If you consider yourself intelligent, the question that arises for me is, where did my intelligence come from.

Your intelligence comes from your brain and is determined by a combination of your genes and your upbringing/environment. (Is that what you mean?)

If anyone could claim total intelligence this question of ID would be answered many millions or even billions of years ago.

Why? As this Meyers shows, it is possible to be intelligent and deluded.

My opinion is that there are two views but only one outcome, I am suspecting the bottom line of that question to end up with everyone agreeing that science and ID will always exist as opposites.

I would like to think that evidence would eventually displace IDiotic ideas but I expect there will always be people who prefer fantasy to reality.

Tt is imperative that we account for our own intelligence.

What!? Why?

I wish someone would stop Stargate posting in the main forums, he makes creationists look intelligent

QUOTE] Originally Posted by Stargate [/QUOTE]
May I ask from where did you get your intelligence? If you consider yourself intelligent, the question that arises for me is, where did my intelligence come from.

[QUOTE Your intelligence comes from your brain and is determined by a combination of your genes and your upbringing/environment. (Is that what you mean?)][/QUOTE]

I was referring to the prime source of intelligence. The question is, what are we referring to when we say intelligence design or ID, Are we using our own intelligence as a reference point. If so where did we acquire this intelligence?

Why? As this Meyers shows, it is possible to be intelligent and deluded.

I think this is a given, we are all really intelligent and deluded at the same time.

I would like to think that evidence would eventually displace IDiotic ideas but I expect there will always be people who prefer fantasy to reality.

You seem to constantly forget that great ideas are usually created from idiotic ideas.

Tt is imperative that we account for our own intelligence.
What!? Why?

if we can account for our own intelligence we can try to trace it back to where it came from.

I am so sorry about the typing, I am trying to use this multi quote and not yet got the hang of it.

Originally Posted by Stargate

[I was referring to the prime source of intelligence. The question is, what are we referring to when we say intelligence design or ID, Are we using our own intelligence as a reference point. If so where did we acquire this intelligence?

Our intelligence arises from our brains. That is the "prime source".

When Cretinists say "Intelligent Design" they simply mean "God Did It". (No intelligence required.)

You seem to constantly forget that great ideas are usually created from idiotic ideas.

I can't think of a single example where that is true.

if we can account for our own intelligence we can try to trace it back to where it came from.

It comes from your brain.

Originally Posted by howdidigethere

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Originally Posted by John Galt

Meyer is not an idiot. He is a geophysicist. But I understand the confusion.

Are geophysicists immune from being idiots? If he believes what he writes then he is very much an idiot, because he refuses to learn from the reams of criticism that is routinely heaped upon his works. If he's just lying for Jesus then, well, I suppose he's quite clever.Wiki says his PhD is in history/philosophy.

PhD is in philosophy of science

Indeed. Which makes it even more dishonest of him to advance as "science" something which manifestly is not. He should - and probably does - know better, but carries on nonetheless.

I have not read his book but frankly, given the foregoing, I don't see why I or any scientist should, any more than we should read Charles Berlitz or Erich von Daniken.

To be fair

Originally Posted by exchemist

Erich von Daniken.

is bloody funny, shame it's unintentional.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

[I was referring to the prime source of intelligence. The question is, what are we referring to when we say intelligence design or ID, Are we using our own intelligence as a reference point. If so where did we acquire this intelligence?

Our intelligence arises from our brains. That is the "prime source".

When Cretinists say "Intelligent Design" they simply mean "God Did It". (No intelligence required.)

You seem to constantly forget that great ideas are usually created from idiotic ideas.

I can't think of a single example where that is true.

if we can account for our own intelligence we can try to trace it back to where it came from.

It comes from your brain.

Are you saying there is a cosmic brain that gave us our intelligence? Or are you saying we are not an intelligent design?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Are you saying there is a cosmic brain that gave us our intelligence?

Which part of

Originally Posted by Strange

Our intelligence arises from our brains.

or

It comes from your brain.

do you think says "cosmic brain"?

Or are you saying we are not an intelligent design?

We're not.
That's what he said.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

Are you saying there is a cosmic brain that gave us our intelligence?

Which part of

Originally Posted by Strange

Our intelligence arises from our brains.

or

It comes from your brain.

do you think says "cosmic brain"?

Or are you saying we are not an intelligent design?

We're not.
That's what he said.

I think I have finally come to the conclusion that you are obsessed with Stargate. I do not know what it does to you but I think you should take it easy on your blood pressure. I think it is beginning to become obvious to all that you are targeting me and not what I write. Very sad though.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

Are you saying there is a cosmic brain that gave us our intelligence?

Which part of

Originally Posted by Strange

Our intelligence arises from our brains.

or

It comes from your brain.

do you think says "cosmic brain"?

Or are you saying we are not an intelligent design?

We're not.
That's what he said.

I think I have finally come to the conclusion that you are obsessed with Stargate. I do not know what it does to you but I think you should take it easy on your blood pressure. I think it is beginning to become obvious to all that you are targeting me and not what I write. Very sad though.

How about actually addressing the points that have been raised in the post, rather then sidestepping?

Originally Posted by Stargate

I think I have finally come to the conclusion that you are obsessed with Stargate.

But, then again, you have consistently shown you're unable to make coherent judgements.
And what sort of prat refers to themselves in the third person?

I do not know what it does to you but I think you should take it easy on your blood pressure.

I think it is beginning to become obvious to all that you are targeting me and not what I write.

Except that I DID address what you wrote, and not "target" you personally.

Perhaps if you made fewer stupid "conclusions" I'd have less occasion to correct you.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Are you saying there is a cosmic brain that gave us our intelligence?

Of course there isn't.

It. Comes. From. Your. Brain.

YOUR BRAIN.

YOUR brain.

Or are you saying we are not an intelligent design?

Of course we aren't.

Originally Posted by Stargate

I think I have finally come to the conclusion that you are obsessed with Stargate.

Are you starting to refer to yourself in the third person? Bill von thinks that's rather odd.

Originally Posted by billvon

Are you starting to refer to yourself in the third person? Bill von thinks that's rather odd.

Red Panda agrees with Bill von.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Welcome to the forum. A few points:

1) ID is not a theory, it's bullshit written by people who are either dishonest or do not understand basic science.
2) The logic if there is any is fundamentally flawed and is debunked in too many places for me to need to repeat it here. Do some critical reading of the material you have and read what people who actually understand evolution say.
3) Not being able to make life in the lab does not "disprove" anything, a quick experiment in the lab (even if it lasts years) can not be expected to reproduce something that occurred over millions of years.

If you are interested in evolution and want to learn do not waste your time with ID, it is pointless except as an example of how nutjobs with a religious agenda pervert science. It is at best an exercise in wishful and sloppy thinking, at worst intellectual dishonesty.

your answer is sort of bullshit by offending people in your answer and not giving proof that you are right.

Originally Posted by Weterman

your answer is sort of bullshit by offending people in your answer and not giving proof that you are right.

His answer is quite accurate if not politically correct. Intelligent design is a political strategy intended to try to counter a perceived "secular bias" in society. (This was seen in the "wedge document" leaked from the Discovery Institute, initially the primary advocate of Intelligent Design.) It is not a scientific theory.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Weterman

your answer is sort of bullshit by offending people in your answer and not giving proof that you are right.

His answer is quite accurate if not politically correct. Intelligent design is a political strategy intended to try to counter a perceived "secular bias" in society. (This was seen in the "wedge document" leaked from the Discovery Institute, initially the primary advocate of Intelligent Design.) It is not a scientific theory.

whatever, but if a guy wants to offend people for their beliefs, and even without proof that he is right, something must be wrong with him.

The proof that he is right about Intelligent Design being nonsense is in the idea of Intelligent Design itself. It has no supporting evidence and is based purely around skepticism and denial of facts.

ID has the same amount of factual and logical support regarding origins as the Great Space-Faring Unicorn Hypothesis, wherein life was created by a race of super intelligent unicorns from Gamma Ceti II (read: none).