Intelligent Design

[Michael]

Originally posted by SVRP
a major blunder on your credibility. I can only see you doing this if you are suffering from severe ‘tunnel vision’. You only see what you want to see. Peripheral vision doesn’t exist for you.

SVRP, you are almost correct. I traditionally go to the last of each article to determine if it has been properly quoted (as a proper quote will follow an article to its proper conclusion and a sloppy quote doesn’t). Why do I do that? Because, I am a busy person and haven't the spare time to waste looking up your information for you - which was, by the by, misquoted never the less. To be "quoted" the information must represent the article. When you take a piece of information out and then laud it around to represent your point of view (which is not the point of the article and even the opposite) then you are doing what can amount to expulsion in some places (University) and fired from your job in others. Anyway, let me add the missing ending of the article that you used to generate this question (which I will answer as well).

So let’s piece together this little conundrum. From my earlier post you can see that the issue to which they are referring isn’t evolution but the textual writing from Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History. Which you can obviously go back to my post and read. So, the Journal Nature has published a second response from others at the British Museum that were pissed off about the manner in which Dr. Colin Patterson was (and this is important) taken out of context. How funny it would be to send them to your website and show them that their letter of complaint, regarding the misuse of Patterson’s words, resulted in they themselves being misquoted. It’s really sad isn’t it. So let me end by adding their last paragraph and you will see why I skipped over the proceeding paragraphs:

Nature Vol. 290 page 173 12 March 1981 ….Charles Darwin died nearly a century ago and is honoured at South Kensington as a great man of science. It does neither him nor science any service to misrepresent the status of his work.

Question So what do these scientists know about the evidence that we don’t know in order to make them write this letter or make the above quote?
Answer These people were referring to the use of Dr. Colin Patterson phrase “If the theory of evolution is true” over Nature’s editors choice of ‘If the theory of evolution is not an open question among serious biologists, the features used to classify species in groups . . . were acquired by the common ancestor of the group.’ See above for Dr. Colin Patterson’s rebuttal.
Question If evolution was true shouldn’t they be the proponents and in the forefront proclaiming the veracity of the facts for evolution?
Answer As you can see the these are not ‘opponents’ and are indeed ‘proponents’. The issue is the way in which the editor of Nature allowed Dr. Patterson to be dragged through the mud in the article ‘Darwin’s death in South Kensington’ Nature Vol. 289 February 1981 p735
Question Why would they write such a letter?
Answer Because they are friends and colleagues of Dr. Patterson and when a HUGE impact journal, with out a doubt the most influential Journal of Biology in the world, snubs their friend they get right pissed off about it.

Thus I still maintain you are scratching at anything to support your belief in ID. Pulling a 22 year old - readers section - letter to the editor of Nature and twisting its intended meaning is a prime example of this “scratching around”. SVRP – if you need ID to make your life happy then that’s fine - live with ID. Its truly fine by me. Just remember that belief and Religion are not science.

Science is a cold mistress, if you get your feelings hurt by her – well, she’s a bitch and that’s the nature of Science. If you want to jump into it be prepared to harden up. You will be challenged in everything you say and quote. Again, it’s the nature of science. I don’t intend to hurt your feels SVRP. That is the insensitivity that comes with science. Truly, I think you’re probably a nice person. That isn’t going to convince me of ID. Scientific theories need evidence to back them up – or out they go.

Originally posted by SVRP
Since you don’t believe the reference I had written to be true, then let us propose a third individual who is reading these responses to do the research and locate the letter. Then we will know who is misleading whom and who is lying

A very appropriate solution if anyone is interested:
Nature Vol 289 26 Feb 1981 p 735
Nature Vol 290 12 March 1981 p 82

Originally posted by SVRP
But this doesn’t address your narrow-mindedness, coupled with your ‘tunnel vision’, when dismissing all articles from other scientists just because they do not appear in your favorite ‘premiere’ journal. What a prejudicial and pompous point of view.

That “narrow mindedness” is called scientific harshness. Its means that in the area of science, scientists cut through bullshit theories like a knife through butter leaving only the hardest tried true and tested theories on the table. ID doesn’t even dull the edge!
Sorry for that!! But true

The reason that a journal must be peer reviewed to publish in the scientific community. If that were not the case any idiot could publish anything in any journal. So yes there is a HIGH standard. Surely you wouldn’t want your children taught from a math book that psycho-Joe down the road wrote after a night of binge drinking and LSD or a History book that Nancy threw together form what she remembers her granddaddy telling her? At least not in public school. I don’t think we could count as credible a UFO conspiracy magazines notion that the Earth was seeded by Aliens as credible?

SVRP - Surely you agree there must be a standard?

In that same way, for science to be credible it must be published in a credible peer reviewed journal.

SVRP: Just answer me this one question: why is it that intelligent design has never been published in any peer reviewed reputable journal?

here’s a list:
United States National Library of Medicine
PubMed
National Institutes of Health
Natinal Science Foundation

There are thousands of Journals. Everything from Physics to Chemistry to Math and Biology. Millions of Articles. Why isn’t ID published in ANY of them? Conspiracy or Bullshit?

Originally posted by SVRP
You have pushed your presupposition and biasness on this forum when an opposing viewpoint or question is brought forward, legitimate viewpoints and questions that the Theory of Evolution must address.

As you can see I answered your questions. Please indicate what you did not understand.

Originally posted by SVRP
If the Theory of Evolution is true then it should stand on the evidence and not on other theories.

Elaborate please.

Also, electromagnetic theory is based on statistical theory as a matter of fact so is atomic orbital theory as well as molecular orbital theory. I never see proponets of ID complain about the perfectly valid methodology of these theories? But they do go on and on about evolution.

SVRP – please explain what “other theories” Evolution stands on and how this does not meet your needs to be classified as scientific?

Originally posted by SVRP
And if scientists from different viewpoints question certain aspects of the evolutionary process, they should only be dismissed if their conclusions do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, not because their belief does not agree with your belief. The former is the scientific approach, the latter is prejudicial judgment.

Sounds sort of correct except it should be the other way around. If a scientist proposes a theory. Its the theory that is tested - NOT the questions about the theory themselves. I could ask the question "so how does Lapercon's effect electromagnetic theory?". The question has no revelence and SHOULD be dismissed. In the same manner "Spontaneous Cell Self Assembly" should be dismissed - this is because evolution does not assert that has occured.

SCRP, please show me where ID stands up to scientific scrutiny.

If ID did stand up to scientific scrutiny it would be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal by now. In science there comes a time when the theory has shown no scientific merit while a revival theory is found to stand up to the rigorous scrutiny. As ID has not stood up to “the scientific scrutiny” it is not a valid theory in evolutionary science.

IN conclusion the question becomes: Why are there any proponents of ID? Is ID even based in science? As we can see – the answer is no it is not. But the public is easy to fool. And ID proponents use the general publics naivety against them. Why ID? They [the clergy] came up with ID as a way to sneak religion into public schools. We have separation of church and state for a reason - lets keep it that way.

-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800 They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

 

[Maia]

Originally posted by SVRP
...

If the Theory of Evolution is true then it should stand on the evidence and not on other theories.

How on earth is this true? If a theory is not a well established explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is backed up by substantial physical evidence, there is no reason for theories to be discredited simply because they apply other theories to explain some aspect of the natural world.

 

[SVRP]

James R wrote

I've made the point before that certain chemicals will only combine in certain ways, as dictated by the laws of chemistry. This is not a random thing, nor need it be designed. There's your third choice.

Not according to George Wald. (See previous responses for George Wald’s quote).

Michael wrote

IN conclusion the question becomes: Why are there any proponents of ID? Is ID even based in science? As we can see – the answer is no it is not. But the public is easy to fool. And ID proponents use the general publics naivety against them. Why ID? They [the clergy] came up with ID as a way to sneak religion into public schools. We have separation of church and state for a reason - lets keep it that way.

Nice spin on words, Michael, but exclusion or addition of the last sentences does not alter the main point of their implication when they wrote in response to an editorial in ‘Nature’ magazine, February 26, 1981.

“As working biologists at the British Museum of Natural History we were astonished to read your editorial ’Darwin’s death in South Kensington’. How is it that a journal such as yours that is devoted to science and its practice can advocate that theory be presented as fact? This is the stuff of prejudice, not science, and as scientists our basic concern is to keep an open mind on the unknowable. Surely it should not be otherwise? You suggest that most of us would rather lose our right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase ‘If the theory of evolution is true…’ Are we to take it that evolution is a fact, proven to the limits of scientific rigor? If that is the inference then we must disagree most strongly. We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution. What we do have is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in favor of it and as yet no better alternative. But the theory of evolution would be abandoned tomorrow if a better theory appeared.” (This letter was signed by twenty-two of the Museum’s staff of biologists and appeared in Nature magazine, Vol. 290, p. 82, March 12, 1981)

If they were referring to Colin Patterson’s letter or pamphlet, why didn’t they say so? The answer is they were not. They were addressing the previous article in Nature magazine that implied the Theory of Evolution was true. They responded with, “If that is the inference then we must disagree most strongly. We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution.” The main point was made with or without addition quotes. Darwin was a man of science, but it had nothing to do with the main point of their letter. Colin Patterson is a respected colleague but it had nothing to do with the main point of their letter. Anyone can read that for themselves.

And as for your ‘hunch’ on Dr. Ian Macreadie’s statement, the following link is an interview with the him.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3985.asp

In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:

"...A tidal wave of new books... threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'."
David C.C. Watson, "Book Reviews," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Terre Haute, Indiana: March 1989), p. 200

Science Digest reported: "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96.)

Who are these scientists? Here are the links to a list of them, and they include scientists with triple doctorates.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html#3

http://www.creationists.org/outstanding.html

http://www.creationists.org/switch.html

 

[Michael]

OFF The Topic

SVRP,
A) At one time “all” (relatively speaking) people thought the world was flat. Then along came Eratosthenes in ~200 B.C. and he measured the circumference of the earth and proposed the “round-earth” theory. The world was round and the “flat-earth” theory could be discarded by the intellectules. But to the layman the notion the Earth was not flat probably caused him all sorts of stress – “I mean it’s quite plain to see the Earth is flat . . . right?” No matter how hard Eratosthenes’s tried to convince laymen that the world was not flat and indeed round, some wouldn’t have a bar of it. You are one of these people. Which is fine by me. You can believe in what ever you want – including that the Earth is flat. Which I don't think you believe - but you can nevertheless. So long as there are never ANY such “flat-earth” theories taught in public Universities. Including ID, Alien Seeding, “The Matrix” style Universes – all of which have the same evidence for one another, none.

B) As a scientist I will agree to the fact that at one time in our histories “all” people thought life came-to-be through the powers of god(s). Than along came Darwin and his theory of Evolution. The God-Created-Us theory is now discarded. How do I know it’s discarded? Because I work in the Academic world. ID is never ever taught at public university as a scientific valid theory of How-Life-Came-To-Be.

C) What could change this? If evidence of ID was discovered. However, there are none. Scientifically speaking ID can imply Aliens, God(s), Buddha et cetera. There is no evidence that ID is valid. But I think I can safely say SVRP, you are a concerned Christian. You are worried that more and more young people enter University and discover atheism. This is alarming to the Christian communities. They desperately need ID as a way to halt the flow out of the Church and into the Learned.

Oh well - find another gimmick ID is not going to do it.

 

[Michael]

ON the topic

Because we went way off track - lets bring it back to focus: Intelligent Design.

Now, back to the topic of ID and lets take a good hard look at it. All of the posts above could be bull shit in the wind for all it’s going to matter. Here we go:

Intelligent design (ID) refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity. From: Intelligent Design network Inc.

Question: Are there any recently published articles of ID in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
Answer: No

Question: Is ID taught in University as a viable alternative to Evolution?
Answer: No

Question: Why isn’t ID taught in University as a viable alternative to Evolution?
Answer: There is no published evidence to support ID as a viable theory.

Three Fallacies made by proponents of ID:

Question: Does Evolution imply God doesn't exist?
Answer: No

Question: Is it true that Natural selection could only have happened randomly and by chance.
Answer: No

Question: Whatever happens randomly and by chance cannot be designed by God.
Answer: Not true.

None of these beliefs are essential to natural selection. There is no inconsistency in believing in God the Creator of the universe and in natural selection. Natural selection could have been designed by God. Or, natural selection could have occurred even if God did not exist. The choice is not either natural selection or design by God or some other superintelligent creatures. God could have designed the universe to produce life by random events following laws of nature. God could have created superintelligent aliens who are experimenting with natural selection. Superintelligent aliens could have evolved by natural selection and then introduced the process on our planet. There may be another scientific theory that explains living beings and their eco-systems better than natural selection (or intelligent design). I underlined the "God did not exist" because in essence this is what scares the shit out of proponents of ID. An explanation that doesn’t need God to account for life. Well that’s just too bad.

This is an important point: Rather than provide positive evidence for ID (such as publish in a peer reviewed scientific journal). ID proponents mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. However, even if each and every one of these arguments against natural selection are successful, that would NOT increase the probability of ID. You MUST publish positive evidence for your theory in order to validate it. There are no publications for ID. Publish all you want against evolution. That’s a good thing. If there are weaknesses in the theory lets discover them. Nevertheless, this does nothing – absolutely nothing – in advancing the theory of ID. Hence it is not taught at public university.

Let me stop here to make the point that argument from design is not a scientific evidence of Intelligent Design. Nor is it even an intelligible proof. Nevertheless, as it was the reason I posted the The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design I may as well also post William Paley’s quote:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there.

If you have some trouble with philosophy here is a not-to-difficult-with-some-effort to read book that covers what the argument from design is and David Hume’s (among others) response: The Question of God: An Introduction and Sourcebook

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker p 141
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it.

 

[sage]

C) SELF ORGANISED LIFE 2

we have seen how self organized collectively autocatalytic chemical loops can arise abiogenecally and form the rudimentary basis of early life. But several steps are still needed for it to evolve into fully fledged compartmentalized life capable of replication and heredity.
The first autocatalytic networks were noncompartmentalised systems. Such systems had were continuously created and destroyed until they were encased by geometrically well-defined boundary. This may have occurred due to the spontaneous synthesis of a chemical shroud formed by the byproducts of the reactions within the network itself or by the utilization of pre-existing autocatalytically self-replicating micelles viz. sodium carpylate.
The formation of sheaths would have helped in stabilizing the network, increasing the concentration of the reacting chemicals and also a type of rudimentary replication that involved fissioning into two once the volume exceeded a critical threshold. Unequal transfer of network material to daughter components would have been the raw material of change. Some such changes resulting in addition or deletion of cross catalytic loops could have resulted in increased stability and replication capabilities. Thus by classic Darwinian process of natural selection the chemical networks would tend to become more stable, more resistant to changes in the surrounding, have greater capability of replication and would have attained greater hereditary capabilities.

These proto cells did not have genes were information could be codified and stored. Having no such database the proto cells had extremely simple metabolic networks. So the next step in complexity had to involve the generation of the genetic apparatus. This is not as difficult as it seems, as the chemicals that composed the autocatalytic and cross catalytic networks of proto cells were simple peptides, RNA, single stranded DNA, p-RNA, PNA etc. though RNA and DNA were at first present only as ordinary chemical reagents by the dint of their capability to take part and catalyze a whole host of reactions, once natural selection has set in, it is only a matter of time before their inherent ability to encode information was utilized. This is so because even a single imperfectly encoded information regarding the successful completion of a single chemical reaction loop would have stabilized the entire network to a large extent conferring differential survival advantage to the proto cell in question. Thus proto cells with rudimentary genetics will quickly replace their non-genetic counterparts. The process will continue until the present level of complexity and interdependence has evolved.
Finally we come to the question of evidence. They are at best circumstantial but here they are.
CATALYZING POWER OF RNA
First discovered in Thomas Chech’s laboratory involved in the processing of RNA. Since then RNA have been found to catalyze carbon-carbon bond formation, ones that ligate RNA molecules together, other that ligate amino acids and form the basis of protein synthesizing systems. Due their enzymatic activities such RNA are called ribozymes. New research is showing that single stranded DNA also has good catalyzing capabilities.
ABIOGENESIS OF RNA and PEPTIDES
In 1996 James Ferris and Leslie Orgel demonstrated how RNA and small peptides upto 55 amino acids long could have spontaneously assembled on one of the catalytic surfaces provided by minerals such as clay, or hydroxylapatite present in primordial earth. Alan Davidson and Robert Sauer have shown that simple peptides 80-100 amino-acids long and composed of only three amino acids show complex folding. Peptide ligase activity has been demonstrated in even peptide strands which are only 33 amino acids long.
REDUNDANCIES IN THE TRANSLATION APPARATUS
Though modern genetic code is complex, it is by no means perfect. In most cells only 20 of the possible 60 amino acids are utilized to form proteins. The translation principle in ribosomes follow a triplet code and shows as many as 44 redundancies. Thus amino acid leucine is encoded by 6 different synonymous triplets: UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA , CUG. Such redundancies are what we expect of evolution which occurs in ad hoc manner and is not aimed at attaining perfection. The design need not be perfect, but good enough to survive. The absence of 40 amino acids is not on purpose. They are absent simply because the they were not present in the vicinity when the first proto cells assembled.

 

[sage]

Finally SVRP I can answer some of your queries.

Scientists have only two choices for the explanation of how life began on earth, random choice or intelligent design. As microbiologists discover the complexity of a single living cell, and what it takes to form the first cell, they have found that the likelihood it occurred by random choice is highly improbable. More and more scientists are accepting intelligent design as the answer when they realize what it takes to form the first living cell. If the scales seem overwhelmingly in favor of anything it is in favor of intelligent design.

see my last few posts. It shows how life may have arose abiogenecally. It is neither random choice nor intelligent design. According to this idea early life did not have information encoded in genes. RNA and DNA functioned only as catalytic chemicals, a work today done by enzymes. It was only later that the possibility of encoding information in peptide chains was realized.

? If you don’t mind reciting the way the first cell occurred then I would be more than happy to read it. Just please be sure to answer how the reproductive cell components were gathered, how the correct specifications of all components appeared in the same place at the same time, how the correct components were properly assembled, how the destructive elements that were present did not overwhelm the cell assembly, and how the cell assembly was energized with life.

you do not need a cell as it is today to have life. An enclosing filament may be needed, but even that is not necessarily true. What you need is a collectively autocatalytic chemical reaction chain and you have a sort of life. Even genes are not necessary and only come into the picture later as a means of increasing the stability and hereditary capabilities of such a self organized reaction chain.

Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 10^4,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one.

I am assuming that that is the probability of chance construction of a cell from abiogenic material. Whoever said that is true. Read my previous posts (and the following ones too).

“It is highly premature for [evolutionists] to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.
There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life”

as you can see small chains of RNA and amino acids can be produced from situ. Moreover the codification of information in genes was not essential for early life. The DNA code evolved only later. DNA is a language which contains information. So intuitively we would think that it had to be arranged in a particular way according to standard rules of grammar for it to have some meaning. I am taking your example. The words NKNTWEIOEIMYTNHATCESGA’ does not convey any information to us conversant to the standard rules of English grammar. Only if it is arranged in a special way such as ‘THE ENEMY IS NOW ATTACKING’ do we obtain some meaningful information from that bunch of symbols. Who arranges it, us intelligent humans. And so you assume that since DNA code is also a language whose words are arranged in a specific meaningful manner, the arrangement of its letters must be made by an intelligent being as it is impossible to get that specific meaningful arrangement there by chance. BUT ALL THIS TIME WE ARE ASSUMING THAT A STANDARD RULE OF GRAMMER EXISTS BEFOREHAND THROUGH WHICH WE EVALUATE WHETHER A SET OF WORDS CONVEY ANY MEANINGFUL INFORMATION. BUT THAT IS NOT TRUE FOR THE DNA CODE. THE RULE CAME INTO BEING ONLY AFTER THE COMPLETELY RANDOM ARRANGEMENT OF WORDS CAME INTO BEING. Suppose we have with us a random series of letters say 1547893005798312345067 and I am assigning meaning to it in random. Say we say ‘154’ means THE; 78930 means ENEMY; 05 means IS; 798 means NOW ; 312345067 means ATTACKING. So by assigning at random meanings to meaningless clumps of words we are getting back information such as THE ENEMY IS NOW ATTACKING . what good will this do, you may ask, as we can assign any arbitrary meaning to a sequence. Yes but next time when you come across the same sequence you will instantly know what it means. DNA was and always is a random sequence of nucleotides. Random, yes, but a sequence that remains more or less constant over moderate time periods. Evolution has assigned meanings to groups of random letters in this sequence making it a code. THE ARRANGEMENT CAME FIRST AND THEN MEANING WAS ASSIGNED TO THIS ARRANGEMENT. There exists only one problem with this process of assigning meaning to a predetermined arrangement. Due to mutations as the arrangement changes, words are added or deleted ; it becomes completely meaningless or assumes new meanings. The new meanings lead to useful or harmful effects paving the way for evolution, while meaningless parts become junk( introns) until new meanings are assigned to the reshuffled words by the translator(ribosomes) as it also evolves with time.

finally a synopsys:-
1) complex systems can spontaneously rise from simple systems if taken far from equilibrium. Such systems are called self organized systems.
2) similarly complex collectively autocatalytic chemical networks arose abiogenecally on early earth forming the beginning of life.
3) they were composed of simple peptides and RNA chains which could arise naturally and have good catalytic capabilities. Information was not yet genetically encoded.
4) once these chemical networks became enclosed in membranes evolution towards further complexity and specialization began as the race for survival heated up.
5) soon ways to codify vital information through genetics was discovered. The rest was inevitable.

 

[Mucker]

This may have already been posted on another thread (in fact I know it was) but it is relevant here. How did the different sexes come about?? I can't see how Evolution can account for this, given the shape and design of our bodies (as riverline has said). If we came from the Earth's water being heated, and 'we' crawled onto the land, on all the different continents, then why was there the same shape and design to all these creatures (especially with regards to gender)??! (Sorry if I've interupted the thread).

 

[Mucker]

To be "quoted" the information must represent the article.

I wouldn't say so! If something contains any information that proves one's point, then it can be used, surely.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by Mucker
I wouldn't say so! If something contains any information that proves one's point, then it can be used, surely.

surely not

 

[James R]

To the intelligent design people:

In case you missed it, please take a look at this thread on ID:

If ID is right, then what?

 

[MarcAC]

SAGE

You should have a look at Jenyar's post on JamesR's thread above, it might save you some time.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by Jenyar
… you are misreading the nature of ID. It points towards a Creator (the "Intelligence behind the design"), but changes nothing about the nature of what was created. Scienctific enquiry would still be just as useful, just as productive, and just as necessary. It's a contrived fallacy that one 'because of' replaces another.

An example:
Say the ID theory 'Intelligence' = A, and it's 'creation' = Z

Science has shown that X+Y = Z,
ID says A is the cause that Z = X+Y
Science bristles its feathers, thinks a bit, and states: X*Y =Z^2 !
ID says A is the cause that Z^2 = X*Y
Science does some more research and after 200 years emphatically asserts that: B(C+D)/E =Z !!
ID just shrugs and says: A is the cause of everything from B to Y that might = Z, since A is the cause of Z.

Science bristles it feathers .. ah yeah.

Substitute A = Aliens, Smurfs, Lepercons, et cetera .. the same logic applies.

The conclusion is that however complex and mysterious the description of Z becomes, the longer this side of the equation becomes, but it changes nothing about A being the creator. And if we go on the premise that ID has become accepted: the more we will stand in awe of the Intelligence that created it all.

I’m in awe at the power and logic already!

Of course, Science never could quite prove that anything = A...

so profound, again I’m in awe.

As we were talking about science. It needs to be stated that to make it out of the realm of whimsical fiction (where ID is located) and into the realm of factual based science, one must do a little something called publish evidence for the theory in question in a scientific journal.

There is no published evidence for ID. None, Zilch, Nadda.
ID is not science. ID is a fiction with no evidence.

Some of you may want to read that last sentence again if it was just to much all in one take. Take your time. It will eventually sink in ...

Originally posted by MarcAC
I'd think that I.D. would be responsible for every aspect of the how. Religion as defined will become prominent within any I.D. theory. Religion seeks to answer why I.D. did what I.D. did. If it is indeed I.D.... there must be a why. right?

smurfity smurf smurf? Wow you so smurfy!
you can think smurfs are responsible for .. X,Y,Z... but in order to make it out of the land of bull shit and into the land of science you must do an experiment and publish some evidence.

As there is NO evidence for ID, you’ll find ID (or smurfs for that matter) has never been a published in a journal.

So we can safely conclude ID theory has as much support as say smurfs created the world.

Simple enough? Yeah that’s it starting to sink in already…

 

[James R]

Er...Michael... it isn't actually necessary to publish something in a scientific journal for it to be true.

 

[SVRP]

Michael wrote

What could change this? If evidence of ID was discovered. However, there are none. Scientifically speaking ID can imply Aliens, God(s), Buddha et cetera. There is no evidence that ID is valid. But I think I can safely say SVRP, you are a concerned Christian. You are worried that more and more young people enter University and discover atheism. This is alarming to the Christian communities. They desperately need ID as a way to halt the flow out of the Church and into the Learned.

Oh well - find another gimmick ID is not going to do it.

Thank you, Michael, for your concern, but just like your arguments it is unsubstantiated. And you are woefully inappropriate to argue for evolution if you don’t know what the opposition is writing. Just like a horse with blinders, you are ignoring the growing arguments for intelligent design. The increasing number of scientists considering ID as a viable explanation will catch you off guard like the proverbial deer caught in a car’s headlights. So I might suggest some evening reading material so you can be up-to-date on what is being discussed without your knowledge.

Balashov, Yuri V. ''Resource Letter AP-1: The Anthropic Principle." American Journal of Physics. 59, 12 (1991) 1069-1076.

Carr, B. J., M. J. Rees. ''The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World." Nature 278 (1979) 605.
Study of the way in which the values of the constants of Nature control the principal structures in the Universe together with discussion of the implications of changing the values of these constants.

Cirkovic, M., N. Bostrom. ''Cosmological Constant and the Final Anthropic Hypothesis." Astrophysics and Space Science 279, 4 (2000) 675-687.
Examines the implications of recent evidence for a cosmological constant for the prospects of indefinite information processing in the multiverse.

Crews, Frederick C. ''Saving Us from Darwin." The New York Review of Books (2001).

Dembski, W. A. ''Randomness by Design." Nous 25 (1991) 75-108.

Dowrick, N., N. A. McDougall. ''Axions and the Anthropic Principle." Physical Review D 38, 12 (1988) 3619-3624.

Earman, J. ''The SAP Also Rises: A Critical Examination of the Anthropic Principle." Philosophical Quarterly 24, 4 (1987) 307-17.

Fellgett, P. B. ''Gaia and the Anthropic Principles." Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 29, 1 (1988) 85.

Gale, George. ''The Anthropic Principle." Scientific American 245, 6 (1981) 154-171.

Maddox, John. ''New Twist for Anthropic Principle." Nature 307 (1984) 409.

Maddox, John. ''A Further String to the Believers' Bow." Nature 398 (1999) 766-767.

Maddox, John. ''The Unexpected Science to Come." Scientific American 281, 6 (1999) 62-67.

McMullin, E. ''Indifference Principle and Anthropic Principle in Cosmology." Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci 24, 3 (1993) 359-389.

Richards, Jay Wesley. ''Many Worlds Hypotheses: A Naturalistic Alternative to Design." Perpsectives on Science and Christian
Faith 49, 4 (1997) 218-227.

Rosen, Joe. ''The Anthropic Principle I." American Journal of Physics. 53, 4 (1985) 335-339.

Rosen, Joe. ''The Anthropic Principle II." American Journal of Physics. 56, 5 (1988) 415-419.

Rubakov, V. A., M. E. Shaposhnikov. ''A Comment on Dynamical Coupling Constants and the Anthropic Principle." Modern Physics Letters A 4, 2 (1989) 107-109.

Shaposhnikov, M. E., I. I. Tkachev. ''Higgs Boson Mass and the Anthropic Principle." Modern Physics Letters A 5, 21 (1990) 1659-1662.

Smith, Quentin. ''The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism." Religious Studies 28, September (1992) 347-351.

Smith, Q. ''The Anthropic Principle and Many-Worlds Cosmologies." Australian Journal of Philosophy 63 (1985) 336-48.

Sober, Elliott. ''Testability." Proceedings and Addresses of the APA 73, 2 (1999) 47-76.
A philosophical exposition of the recent controversy on design hypothesis by Behe and Dembski.

Squires, Euan J. ''Do We Live in the Simplest Possible Interesting World?" European Journal of Physics 2, 1 (1981) 55-57.

Tegmark, Max. ''Is 'The Theory of Everything' Merely the Ultimate Ensemble Theory?" Annals of Physics 270, 1-51 (1998).

Tipler, Frank. ''Anthropic-principle Arguments Against Steady-state Cosmological Theories." Observatory 102 (1982) 36-39.

Wilson, P. A. ''What Is the Explanandum of the Anthropic Principle?" American Philosophical Quarterly 28, 2 (1991) 167-73.

Wilson, P. A. ''Carter on Anthropic Principle Predictions." British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (1994) 241-253.

Zycinski, J. M. ''The Anthropic Principle and Teleological Interpretations of Nature." Review of Metaphysics 41, 2 (1987) 317-333.

Zycinski, J. M. ''The Weak Anthropic Principle and the Design
Argument." Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 31, 1 (1996) 115-130.


Happy reading.

 

[SVRP]

It is very kind of you, too, Sage, to credit me with all those statements that I placed in quotation marks, but I think you should read the articles they were pulled from. Their links appear right next to them.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3991.asp
http://answersingenesis.org/docs/4192msc1-10-2000.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-313.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-317.htm

Siegfried Scherer is Professor of Microbial Ecology at the Technical University of München. And he is also Director of Microbiology at the Technical University at München-Freising, S. Germany. He states in his book, Evolution: A critical Textbook (1998:275), about the information, found in the bacterial cell, about apobetics, pragmatics, semantics, syntax, statistics:

"The DNA carries biological information - sign-sequences of base-pairs, which have a certain meaning in the cell. On the level of the syntax, the rules are laid down, according to which the signs of a sign-consequence are joined together. This form of information one calls 'encoding'. Each encoding is based on an agreement (convention). Without this knowledge, information cannot be processed. Codes appear in different forms, like Morse-signs, computer-programs or the tail-wagging-dance of the bees.

"The level of the semantics deals with the meaning of a sign-consequence, like that of a sentence or a nucleotide-consequence of the DNA. So, a syntactically correct word-order is possible. But they have no meaning yet... That is, why one must still add there the levels of pragmatics (How is information changed into action?). And then, one must add apobetics (goal-aspect): (What shall be acchieved by this information?), if this information shall be grasped universally."

"An especially important characteristic of information is its replacement-function. The information, according to its nature, is not the matter itself or the facts themselves. But the encoded signs do stand for something. This is at first spatially and temporally independent of them. So, the signs in the newspaper do stand for bygone events. And the technical drawing stands for a machine, which must still be built. Like this it is also with the sequences of the tripletts in the encoded regions of the DNA. They stand for proteins, which must still be synthesized. This characteristic of information clearly shows us: They are bound to a material carrier. But according to their nature, they are non-material." (1998:275, 276).

Scherer reports about the Miller-experiments, and the synthesis of amino acids:

"One has found out during the different experiments, under different experimental conditions (composition of gases, reaction time etc): Of the 20 proteinogene amino acids, only a few are synthesized. When optimistically interpretating the previous results, one can synthesize after Miller (1986) in one single experiment up to 13 proteins, which build up the proteins. Amino acids with basic qualities, lysin, arginin and histidin, have not been found yet in prebiotic simulation experiments. One presupposes during these experiments: Favorable outer physical conditions, like matching pressure and temperature, which must stay within narrow limits, so that the reaction products will remain stable. In the 'primordial soup model' one must therefore postulate. The different parts, which have arisen at different places, have been washed together later on. This scenario becomes more and more implausible.

"Especially significant in the results of Miller-experiments is: Most of the molecules are mono - and polyfunctional molecules in the produced mixture. That are compounds, which are able, to combine themselves with one or with many reaction partners. These substances have long-range consequences for the following steps in the concept of the prebiotic chemistry." (1998:140).

"The presence of monofunctional components (for example of carbonic acids) namely always prevents the forming of longer chains. Because the surplus monofunctional molecules will block then the ends of the few short chain fragments. The chains cannot grow then any longer. The ratio of monofuntional compounds to the bifunctional ones determines then, how long the chain will be, according to what one can expect there statistically.

"The Miller-experiments could be viewed as a first step in the direction of vital molecules. But this step leads into a dead end. Because during these experiments, many other materials do also arise, together with the amino acids, at the same time. They will prevent the next necessary steps. All these experiments do start, therefore, with the needed pure mixtures of amino acids. But they have not been produced abiotically. That is, the problems of isolating and cleaning them, one just presupposes without discussion. One just assumes that they have been solved." (1998:141).

Scherer than answers these questions on the formation of nucleic acids: Have also nucleic acids arisen in the Miller-Experiments? And could they have evolved by themselves in the primordial chemical soup? How long are they able to live?

"Original compounds are produced in multi-stage syntheses. Then, one must also use water-free solvents. Until now, a selective synthesis is therefore missing for ribose under primordial soup conditions.

"Beside the open questions, regarding the prebiotic synthesis of the sugars, also their low chemical stability causes difficulties. The half-life for ribose (time, during which half of the material is changed), is at pH 7 and 0°C 44 years. Under more alkaline or sour conditions or with higher temperature, this time will be then still shorter. The lifespan of this compound is very short within the long geological times. That is, it will then not be available anymore under prebiotic conditions after synthesis and isolation for further chemical reactions. In this situation, postulated long times are contraproductive. Larralde et al. 1995, conclude from this: 'The results show: Stability investigations do show us: One cannot use ribose and other sugars as prebiotic reagents, except under very special conditions. It follows that ribose and other sugars cannot have been a part of the first genetic material.'" (1998:143)

Prof. Scherer answers questions regarding nitrogen bases: Could the needed nitrogen bases have arisen by themselves in the primordial chemical soup? How long could they have lived in there?

"Theories about the formation of the RNA-bases adenin, guanin, cytosin, uracil also cause considerable difficulties, when studying them closer. Adenin is the base, which under prebiotic conditions can be most easily made. Namely, by adding 5 HCN molecules to it. But under the most suitable conditions, it will exist only hundred years. This is far too short, so that it could be available for a longer time for continuing reactions.

"The difficulties with the prebiotic synthesis and the low chemical stability of the compounds, with their relatively short half-lives, caused Shapiro (1996) to conclude: 'The results, that are available presently, do not confirm the idea that RNA or an other system of replication, which used RNA-bases, was involved at the start of life.'" (1998:143).

Prof. Scherer in regards from the single-components to the RNA and DNA .

"It has been shown above: RNA and DNA molecules are made from the needed nucleotides. But one has not been able, to prove this yet experimentally under primordial soup conditions. In experiments one has tried to cause nucleotides to come together (to form chains), to form nucleic acids. But then one must only use components, that have not arisen under prebiotic conditions. They have been synthesized under controlled laboratory conditions." (1998:144).

Prof. Scherer on Chirality.

"Many molecules, that occur in creatures, show two energetically equivalent forms. They do correspond to each other like the mirror-inverted right and left hand. Each one of the two possible chiral molecule forms is called an enantiomer. The 'handedness' of the molecules is known by the term chirality. In creatures, we often find only one of the two forms. For example, d- and not l-ribose in der RNA, l-amino acids in proteins. Proteins and nucleic acids will only function, if they have enantiomer-pure compounds.

"The proteins do have a three-dimensional structure (secondary -, tertiary - and quaternary-structure). If one adds mirror-inverted parts (d- instead of l- amino acids), their three-dimensional structure, and with it also their mobility (dynamics) will be disturbed. Then it will also not be able to move around as an enzyme, which is very important. The same applies also to the disturbance of superstructures (for example der geometry of double helix structures) in nucleic acids, when inserting sugars, which are enantiomerly mixed. The biological function depends upon specific, chirally unambiguous structures. Without it, it cannot function.

"During the chemical synthesis of such compounds, the two forms do arise in the ratio of 1:1. One calls this mixture a racemate. This applies also to prebiotic conditions. Only if there is chiral information, will the selectively desired form be able to arise. For example, in the form of a chiral catalyst, an enzyme or by using starting compounds, which do contain only one of the two possible forms.

"Pure enantiomers outside of living cells tend to the racemize. That is, this mixture will again have a ratio of 1:1. Thus, the amino acids from proteins in products of elimination, and organisms, which have died, will racemize. The formation of enantiomer-pure compounds is a main-problem in prebiotic chemistry. And up to now it is still unsolved, theoretically as well also experimentally." (1998:144, 145).

Prof. Scherer on the RNA-world.

"The proteins are indispensable, because of their enzymatic function in metabolism. The nucleic acid molecules are needed, to store genetic information. When synthesising the nucleic acids, one needs in the simplest cells, which one now knows, more than hundred enzymes. When making proteins, the cell needs, beside the genetic information, the DNA, a complex apparatus of proteins. Which one of the two molecule-types are supposed to have arisen first? Both are needed at the same time. This problem is for the prebiotic chemistry especially important. ... How has the first unit of replication arisen, that is, a molecular constellation of a protein and an RNA, that is able, to double itself?

"The prebiotic synthesis of nucleic acids, including the RNA, however, is unsolved. A RNA-world has therefore now no basis in prebiotic chemistry. ... About the RNA-world, as a possible station for the arising-of-life, more and more disillusion comes up. Orgel already summarizes this in 1989 with the following short words: 'At the moment there is now no convincing theory, which would be able to explain, how the replicating RNA has arisen.'" (1998:145, 146).

 

[SVRP]

For those who live in he US, have a safe and enjoyable holiday weekend.

For those who live elsewhere, have a safe and enjoyable weekend.

Have a great weekend everyone.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by James R
Er...Michael... it isn't actually necessary to publish something in a scientific journal for it to be true.

what's this about truth?
Er .... James, please re-read my last two posts: scientific.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Michael
Science bristles it feathers .. ah yeah.

?

Substitute A = Aliens, Smurfs, Lepercons, et cetera .. the same logic applies.

You sure? I know some atheists always come up with stuff like "Invisible Blue Smurfs that you can't see" and stuff like that, but, not all. As far as I know smurfs are some blue cartoons that were created by cartoonists - then your logic leads to them creating the universe? Wow, bristle on.

I’m in awe at the power and logic already!

Yes, Jenyars logic seems quite sound.

As we were talking about science. It needs to be stated that to make it out of the realm of whimsical fiction (where ID is located) and into the realm of factual based science, one must do a little something called publish evidence for the theory in question in a scientific journal.

Does your logic lead you to this conclusion?

There is no published evidence for ID. None, Zilch, Nadda.
ID is not science. ID is a fiction with no evidence.

What others see as evidence you don't, through your logic but that doesn't necessarily mean their logic is faulty does it?

smurfity smurf smurf? Wow you so smurfy!

You seem quite fascinated with those things. You are the first person to equate this blue writiing to smurfs to my knowledge. I don't think that they are I.D.. You seem to think they can be equated to I.D. through your logic, but, well, I disagree. Be careful, fascinations can evolve into obsessions, then you might start thinking smurf everytime you see anything.

you can think smurfs are responsible for .. X,Y,Z... but in order to make it out of the land of bull [cesnored] and into the land of science you must do an experiment and publish some evidence.

You could do an experiment and publish the results. Simple isn't it? You could animate a smurf... then... animate it creating everything in the universe... and publish the animation as evidence. Look at the guys at CERN, they do the equivalent everyday... o.k. maybe not.

As there is NO evidence for ID, you’ll find ID (or smurfs for that matter) has never been a published in a journal.

Only atheists [some] equate I.D. to stuff like smurfs. I call it "atheisticalogical" thinking

So we can safely conclude ID theory has as much support as say smurfs created the world.

Hey I liked smurfs too, but, still, as I said above, be careful.

 

[Michael]

Anthropic Principle

SVRP: could you provide an explanation of the “Anthropic Principle” and then how that proves we were made from super smart-as aliens (aliens equating to female/male/neither gods, super-smart other-evolved-creatures, really-super-smart-smurfs, computers machines with AI god like powers, et cetera...)

But before I waste my time defining AP why don’t you
1) read an article and
2) explain what AP means then
3) how this relates to evolution and then
4) define ID and lastly
5) what evidence does Anthropic Principle provide for said definition.
6) How does AP differ from Cosmological Argument

Here’s another review article which was recently published yet not on your list. Cosmology, Life, and the Anthropic Principle . That can start you on your way.

Of course, SVRP, by taking into account the observed fundamental universal constants the weak anthropic principal is said (by its proponents) to explain critical features of the universe by pointing out that if they were absent, we would not be here to observe them. SVRP, how is this argument different from the cosmological argument? Which is not even an arguable proof of God (nor ID for that matter). Anyway, obviously on your reading journey you will happen across the alternative explanation, sometimes referred to as the strong anthropic principle which states that the universe must have the properties which allow the development of observers within it. Although not always made clear by its advocates (SVRP being one of them and who is going to fully explain the principal to us), the 'must' is intended in the strong sense that implies that the universe has a purpose. Which again (at least to me) is merely a restatement of the argument from design. As we have the process of evolution – the ID theory has been discarded. Why has ID been discarded? Because evolution has scientific evidence published in scientific journals unlike ID which has NO said evidence published.

Oh, look here, poor SVRP is caught in another illogical loop of circular reasoning. Can you see it SVRP? You will/may as you try to explain Anthropic Principle as the bases of your Teleological argument.

Outside of the topic of evolution, but on the topic of AP, some versions of the inflationary big-bang theory allow for the existence of multiple universes with differing physical constants (if you have an interest see: Parallel Universes or the direct link: Parallel Universes) and, secondly, an as-yet-to-be- discovered theory-of-everything may provide an ultimate explanation.

This group of publications you listed concerns what is referred to as “The Anthropic Principal”

1. Balashov, Yuri V. ''Resource Letter AP-1: The Anthropic Principle." American Journal of Physics. 59, 12 (1991) 1069-1076.
2. Carr, B. J., M. J. Rees. ''The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World." Nature 278 (1979) 605.
3. Cirkovic, M., N. Bostrom. ''Cosmological Constant and the Final Anthropic Hypothesis." Astrophysics and Space Science 279, 4 (2000) 675-687.
4. Dowrick, N., N. A. McDougall. ''Axions and the Anthropic Principle." Physical Review D 38, 12 (1988) 3619-3624.
5. Earman, J. ''The SAP Also Rises: A Critical Examination of the Anthropic Principle." Philosophical Quarterly 24, 4 (1987) 307-17.
6. Fellgett, P. B. ''Gaia and the Anthropic Principles." Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 29, 1 (1988) 85.
7. Gale, George. ''The Anthropic Principle." Scientific American 245, 6 (1981) 154-171.
8. Maddox, John. ''New Twist for Anthropic Principle." Nature 307 (1984) 409.
9. McMullin, E. ''Indifference Principle and Anthropic Principle in Cosmology." Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci 24, 3 (1993) 359-389.
10. Rosen, Joe. ''The Anthropic Principle I." American Journal of Physics. 53, 4 (1985) 335-339.
11. Rosen, Joe. ''The Anthropic Principle II." American Journal of Physics. 56, 5 (1988) 415-419.
12. Rubakov, V. A., M. E. Shaposhnikov. ''A Comment on Dynamical Coupling Constants and the Anthropic Principle." Modern Physics Letters A 4, 2 (1989) 107-109.
13. Shaposhnikov, M. E., I. I. Tkachev. ''Higgs Boson Mass and the Anthropic Principle." Modern Physics Letters A 5, 21 (1990) 1659-1662.
14. Smith, Quentin. ''The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism." Religious Studies 28, September (1992) 347-351.
15. Smith, Q. ''The Anthropic Principle and Many-Worlds Cosmologies." Australian Journal of Philosophy 63 (1985) 336-48.
16. Tipler, Frank. ''Anthropic-principle Arguments Against Steady-state Cosmological Theories." Observatory 102 (1982) 36-39.
17. Wilson, P. A. ''What Is the Explanandum of the Anthropic Principle?" American Philosophical Quarterly 28, 2 (1991) 167-73.
18. Wilson, P. A. ''Carter on Anthropic Principle Predictions." British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (1994) 241-253.
19. Zycinski, J. M. ''The Anthropic Principle and Teleological Interpretations of Nature." Review of Metaphysics 41, 2 (1987) 317-333.
20. Zycinski, J. M. ''The Weak Anthropic Principle and the Design Argument. "Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 31, 1 (1996) 115-130.