Intelligent Design - theory, examples, implications

[Fishteacher73]

Let's see, wouldn't you need instructions to make parts, instructions to assembly them in the proper order, instructions to transport the parts for the assembly, molecular machines to assembly the parts, what have I left out? That's a good bit of integrated information. (wonder if there is any payroll or accounting being done in those factories?) :eek:

 

You already have the machinery in place for this. We all start off as one cell. Does that mean that it cannot grow and differentaite (Don't tell my cells....They think they can)?

 

It is not like we have a central wharehouse inside making eyeballs in our innards and then fed-ex them to our face... so there really is no transport involved other than the regular circulatory system which bings the raw materials and removes the wastes.

 

There are not cells that construct other parts of the body (EDIT: forgot about blood cells)..(Stem cells maybe could be considered, but all they do is differentaite to the medium surrounding them and become part of it, but they do not secrete an eye or a spleen).

 

So yes, all you really need is the DNA instructions for the cells in that area of the face to grow like an eye. This is part of the reason that you really do not have mutations that result in complete replication of an organ or body part (there's polydactylism, but that is the only example I can really see, and we already have redundant multiple instructions for ifingerss...we got ten of them to make).

 

And yes you have payroll and accounting...Nucleus manages (some accounting too), mitochondria are payroll, ER is the assembly line, golgi bodies are logistics and storeage, lysosomes are waste removal and recycling, cell membrane is protection, etc. etc.

[pgrmdave]

Please direct me to where I mentioned IC with the eye.

I've given a number of examples of ID:

-eye

-neural connections between eye and brain

post number 34

[Lolic]

So we still need to evaluate what is written and try to understand how the authors reach their conclusions, so that we don't accept things for proof that do no stand up to scrutiny.

Thanks, now I follow you. Agree.

 

For those who believe that Intelligent Design is merely God in the Gaps…

Here is a short summary explanation then a link to the full article.

 

“contemporary design theory does not constitute an argument from ignorance or a God-of-the Gaps fallacy…. Design theorists infer design not merely because natural processes cannot explain the origin of such things as biological systems but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of intelligently designed systems, that is, they possess features that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause…. Design theorists infer a past intelligent cause based upon present knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. Inferring design thus employs the standard uniformitarian method of reasoning used in all historical sciences. These inferences do not constitute arguments from ignorance any more than any other well-grounded inferences in geology, archaeology, or paleontology, --where provisional knowledge of cause-effect relationships derived from present experience guides our inferences about the causal past….Dembski shows that whenever events are both highly improbable and specified, we infer intelligent design (not chance, law, or some combination of the two) as the best causal explanation for the event or artifact in question. Thus he shows that design inferences are based upon the presence of particular features implying an intelligent cause, not (solely) upon the absence of evidence for the efficacy of natural causes. We would not say, for example, that an archaeologist had committed a ‘scribe-of-the-gaps’ fallacy simply because he inferred that an intelligent agent had produced an ancient hieroglyphic inscription.”

 

http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_teleologicalevolution.htm

 

In short, we are talking about making an inference to the best explanation. A rather common practice utilizing the best information we have, considering the available hypothesis, their strengths and weaknesses. Based upon all available information, we make a decision…we make an inference to the best explanation.

[Fishteacher73]

It just seems odd to me to throw out a theory that we have observational evidence of the evolutionary process(We have seen the work of natural selection and speciation) and take up the "someone else did it approach".

 

Would not a process that developed intelegence not exhibit some abstract reflection of that ability in some of its other processes?

[Lolic]

It just seems odd to me to throw out a theory that we have observational evidence of the evolutionary process(We have seen the work of natural selection and speciation) and take up the "someone else did it approach".

Would not a process that developed intelegence not exhibit some abstract reflection of that ability in some of its other processes?

Hi Fishteacher,

Good points!

 

I'm certainly interested in the origin of information in DNA, the current theory doesn't handle that to well and no naturalistic theory I know of does.

 

I don't believe the current theory handles the Cambrian Explosion very well either.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119

or preferably pages 238-246 of Lee Strobels, "The Case for a Creator"

 

That said, since I frequently ask you to look at material, can you direct me to the best example of speciation you know of? I would appreciate that.

 

I believe there are other "reflections of that ability" as you mention above.

 

1) there are many cosmological constants that are finely tuned that make our universe possible, and our world, and us. (examples are the expansion rate of the universe, the strength of the nuclear forces, and many many more)

 

2) ask youself what is the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler. How do you know that? Is it just a preference or something more than that? While you may not be perfect, I would bet that if someone treated you unfairly, or abusive, you would know immediately and sense it is unfair or unjust. Where does that internal sense of fairness or justice come from? If there is one moral law, or rule we can all agree on, like it's wrong to torture children, then maybe there is a moral law giver.

 

if you would, please check your private messages. :naughty:

 

thanks!

[Fishteacher73]

I don't believe the current theory handles the Cambrian Explosion very well either.

 

There are some arguments of if there really was a Cambrian explosion. There are theories now that indicate that pre-Cambrian life was just as diverse, but the nature of inverts. makes them hard to fossilize. The Burgess Shale has exhibited the great diversity of the Cambrian. The diversity in this fossil bed is now being reconsidered and most of the fossils are actually fitting into existing phyla.

 

 

1) Any one specific set of circumstances has a large probability against it. Just as in lotto, any one seires numbers has an equal probability of happening. If you have a 7 digits to get a winning number with each one being 0-9, you would have 9,999,999 variation. To get 1234567 has the same odds as 7777777 or 8645197. Does that make any one outcome more relivant? Only if you happen to have that sequence on your ticket. Yes, there have been many close calls and lucky breaks to produce a planet that sustains life. If it had not been so, we simply would not be here.

 

2) Just about any psychologist wwould probably comply that the "moral compas" of an individual is usually tuned in early youth by external factors. Peer and family interactions are what tends to form concept of what is right or wrong. This is why abuse is cyclical. Most serial murderers report of horrid childhoods. (Aside from the nurture aspect there is also evidence of genetic sources for various psychological disorders).

We do not have a universal moral law. If we did people would not torture children as you suggested. But they do every day. Humans have no inherent moral guide.

 

As for current examples of speciation involve the group of fish loosly known as African cichlids. This is specifically a group of cichlids that live in three likes in the Rift Valley of Africa (Tanganyka, Malawai, and Victoria). These lakes are reasonably new (9 to 12 million years old) and have a water chemistry that is toxic to many fish (The water is increadably hard and alkaline; Tanganyka: pH 8.6-9.0; Hardness 200-300 ppm).

Taxonomy of these fishes is increadibly complex and in a constanat state of flux as there is argument over color variants/gergraphical variants/sub-species, etc. This is in part because these fish ave not fully differentaited and are still in the process of speciation. Genetic mapping has made it to a degree easier to study these fishes but it is still an excellent example of evolution and speciation.

 

Here are two journal articles that go into detail about the diversity and speciation of these guys as well as various mapping techniques.

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/5107

http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/6/924

[TeleMad]

Please help my poor failing memory (perhaps it hasn't evolved far enough!!). I recall discussing what I consider a fantastic design that I do not believe mutation can account for. Please direct me to where I mentioned IC with the eye.

 

 

It was right here...

 

 

Lolic: There are numerous pathways that point to design, intelligent design. The eye is one example. It’s sophistication, irreducible complexity, the inference of design, specified complexity, the integration with the brain, signal processing – some want to attribute that to natural laws and I think the evidence shows otherwise.

(http://www.hypography.com/scienceforums/showthread.php?t=831&page=21&pp=10)

[Queso]

well i don't know much, but i can say that out of all the things that amaze me, the eye is definitely one of them. i think IDers can't grasp how long evolution actually takes. millions, and millions of years. slowly but surely, we, and many other organisms on this planet, developed a way make out shapes and decipher the frequencies of light that reflect off of them. whatever, i'm trying to be complicated. TO SEE. yeah, pretty amazing i must say!

[TeleMad]

Are you retired or a lobbiest? You seem to have great quantities of time to defend your faith.

 

No, I work full time (45 hrs/wk) as a programmer/database manager and also am working towards my second BS - first was in CIS, the second will be in biology. That's why I haven't had time to respond to you for the last 2 days. ... too busy.

 

Lolic: Will you take me up on my money back guarantee on the book?

 

Nope. I'm already quitre well versed in intelligent design and don't have time to read books (it's hard to find time to post).

 

I already pointed out 4 ID tapes I bought and watched, from ARN.ORG. I also bought and read several books on ID, including:

 

1) Behe's Darwin's Black Box

 

2) Dembski's The Design Inference

 

3) Another one of Dembski's, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology

 

4) Wells' Icons of Evolution

 

5) The infamous Of Pandas and People

 

6) Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

 

7) A book about intelligent design that included a number of different authors, one per chapter (Behe, Dembski, etc.), but I've sold it and I can't remember its title

 

8) Thaxton & Bradley's The Mystery of Life's Origin

 

 

I also argued for ID for years at ARN.ORG, a site you recently posted a link to. Do a search for DNAunion ... that's me.

 

So I am quite familiar with intelligent design and see no need to try another book, especially when I am short on time.

[TeleMad]

[quoting materia]: Dembski shows that whenever events are both highly improbable and specified, we infer intelligent design (not chance, law, or some combination of the two) as the best causal explanation for the event or artifact in question.

 

And how does one scientifically apply probability to biology? Look at what you did! You came up with a probability of something like 1 in 10^500 for the formation of hemoglobin, yet Behe says for hemoglobing that the case for design is weak and far from satisfying! The reason? Because the probability of getting hemoglobin when you start with myoglobin is quite good!

 

I say the same basic logic applies to eyes (and hearts, and other such complex biological structures). Yes, if one erroneously looks at the eye as it exists today and in isolation and consider its popping into existence fully formed - as you did with hemoglobin -then the probability is surely astronomically small. But nature got to start with an ocellus, and because of that, the probability of success increases astronomically.

 

That's the probability problem of applying Dembski's design detectors to biology. Then there's the problem of specification. What is the specification - the independent pattern that gets matched - for the eye?

[TeleMad]

Hi Fishteacher,

 

That said, since I frequently ask you to look at material, can you direct me to the best example of speciation you know of? I would appreciate that.

 

I already gave you a good one a week or so ago. Here it is again.

 

"The mechanism of sympatric speciation has been experimentally verified for many plants. One example is a group of species, collectively called hemp nettles, that occurs in temperate parts of Europe and Asia. One hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit (2n = 32), is a naturally occurring allopolyploid thought to have formed by the hybridization of two species, G. pubescens (2n = 16) and G. speciosa (2n = 16). This process occurred in nature but was experimentally reproduced. Galeopsis pubescens and G. speciosa were crossed to produce F1 hybrids, most of which were sterile. Nevertheless, both F2 and F3 generations were produced. The F3 generation included a polyploid plant with 2n = 32 that self-fertilized to yield fertile F4 offspring that could not mate with either of the parental species. These allopolyploid plants had the same appearance and chromosome number as the naturally occurring G. tetrahit. When the experimentally produced plants were crossed with the naturally occurring G. tetrahit, a fertile F1 generation was formed. Thus, the experiment duplicated the speciation process that occurred in nature." (Biology: Fifth Edition, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R. Berg, and Diana W. Martin, Saunders College Publishing, 1999, p411-412)

[Lolic]

well i don't know much, but i can say that out of all the things that amaze me, the eye is definitely one of them. i think IDers can't grasp how long evolution actually takes. millions, and millions of years.

Hi Orbsycli

What's your opinion about some of the false and misleading information that is taught about evolution? I mentioned this book before, but didn't have this link so people can look into it without buying the book. What do you think of this? It's a short and interesting read.

 

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

 

Why would Stephen J. wait years before saying anything about the bad information?

 

Why use inaccurate drawings for years when accurate ones are available?

[Buffy]

Well ignoring the fact that the American Spectator is considered a wacko right-wing publication even by conservatives, it engages in much of the same deception that it accuses its targets of. It tries to imply that this conspiracy was widespread and intentional. In fact, most of the arguments here are either debatable (even Miller-Urey is of value) or use innuendo to imply conflict and dissention on points where there is no real debate in the scientific community like evolution of limbs, beaks and apes to humans. Just about the *only* thing this article is useful for is showing the woeful state of science education in the US, which is due significantly to the promotion of anti-science by various groups. Its true that there are public schools that are using amazingly outdated science texts, and that is due significantly to groups like the John Birch Society (publishers of American Spectator) who rail against raising taxes for anything including schools. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy! To try to make points based on blatantly misinterpreting texts (like "Berra's Blunder": only so called by people who don't like Evolution), is disingenous at best.

 

Is there something else here that you find convincing?

 

Still Evolving,

Buffy

[TeleMad]

... but didn't have this link so people can look into it without buying the book. What do you think of this? It's a short and interesting read.

 

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

 

Geez, Wells starts right off with a gross distortion!

 

Jonathan Wells: If you had asked me during my years studying science at Berkeley whether or not I believed what I read in my science textbooks, I would have responded much as any of my fellow students: puzzled that such a question would be asked in the first place. One might find tiny errors, of course, typos and misprints. And science is always discovering new things. But I believed – took it as a given – that my science textbooks represented the best scientific knowledge available at that time.

 

It was only when I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and development biology, however, that I noticed what at first I took to be a strange anomaly.

 

Wells makes it sound like he believed everything he learned about evolution while getting his education and it wasn't until after he finally got his Ph.D. that he started doubting it. HOGWASH!!! He decided to "destroy Darwinism" before he even entered the Ph.D. program for biology.

 

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

(http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm)

[Lolic]

There seems to be an interest in attacking his character, but what about the issues he brings up? Poor evidence, false evidence, people knowing the evidence was misleading, etc. Even if someone had the worst motives in the world for doing something in science, shouldn't we concern ourselves with the evidence instead of character assassination? It's interesting to know the motive, but the issue of the evidence being right or wrong seems most important here.

 

Has he made false claims? Is this really good evidence and the best evidence Macro Evolution has to offer and deserves to be in the text books?

[Lolic]

Here are two journal articles that go into detail about the diversity and speciation of these guys as well as various mapping techniques.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/5107

http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/6/924

As a fish expert, please help me here. Exactly how much support does this lend to macro evolution? What should I infer from this that will make be believe in (provide evidence for) common descent from a single chance creation of life that branched into all that we see today through natural selection acting on mutation?

I did take the time to read them, I woule like to know how you put them into perspective.

thank you!

[Lolic]

I also argued for ID for years at ARN.ORG, a site you recently posted a link to. Do a search for DNAunion ... that's me.

I'll bite, tell me why you switched?