Are You Intelligently Designed?

Are You Intelligently Designed?

There are 409 comments on the The Capital-Journal story from Oct 23, 2012, titled Are You Intelligently Designed?. In it, The Capital-Journal reports that:

Sometimes, when I'm discussing or debating issues with online atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists, the huge topic of Intelligent Design comes up, and they ask me to explain the Intelligent Design hypothesis to them.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Capital-Journal.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#182 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> You'll have to specify the formula and I seriously doubt that you are capable of doing so,
33,900 results on avogrado log 2 ratio formula for genomic change
PCR Protocols
Slope=-1/log2 (after multiplying both sides by (slope/log2).. How many copies are in a certain amount of human genomic DNA?..(1.85 x 1012 g/mol) x (1 mole /6.02 x 1023 (Avogadro's number)).. or DMSO (2-10%) can be added to the PCR for template DNA with high GC content (these change the Tm of primer-template ..

PLOS Computational Biology: The Genomic Pattern of tDNA Operon
DH Ardell - 2005 -
Yet the change in the tRNA profile with growth rate is less than would be expected from .. slopes of the log-linear .. where NA is Avogadro's number,- is the growth rate in doublings/h, V. is ..

Genomic DNA functions as a universal external standard
JJ Yun - 2006
Several mathematical formulas that calculate relative fold changes have been proposed: equation M1 (15).. m is the mass of the DNA, NA is Avogadro's number (6.02 1023 ..(B) Comparison of Log2 Ratios for each gene.

Clinical qPCR Tech Guide v4 www.genomeweb.com/
A series of 10-fold dilutions of human genomic DNA (500 ng50 pg) was amplified to assay for .. and get the power and flexibility to meet changing research needs..Gene .. calculated from Avogadro's number and the molarity.(calculated .. A260/A230 ratios. RNA is .. efficiencies and your relative quantity calculation ..

An introduction to information theory and entropyastarte. csustan.edu/
T Carter - 2011
Application to Biology (genomes). by changing the base, using the formulas, for b1, b2,x> 0, x = b log b1.(x). 1 and therefore log .. Avogadro's, and O is too easily confused with. 0. This leaves .. ratio of C+G to A+T different from one.

High-Throughput, Whole-Genome Sequencing repository.upenn.edu/cgi/
GJ Bittle - 2009

PCR Amplification of shRNA from Genomic DNA .
PLOS ONE: Empirical Evaluation of Oligonucleotide Probe Selection. Of great excitement is a recent application, microarray-based genomic selection ( MGS),... In most analysis techniques, data for a given probe is the log(2) ratio of signal .... or that our Tm calculation effectively describes length and/or GC content ..... size surface area, V the hybridization volume, and NA Avogadro's number.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#183 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
What's the mathematical formula for comparing the similarity of two strings of letters?
Still no answer.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#184 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I doubt that you could defend what is claimed. What's the mathematical formula for comparing the similarity of two strings of letters?
I finally was able to find some of your published work in an international available journal.

Dear Penthouse

I am a middle school math teacher in a small Texas town and I never thought this could happen to me. I was working late one night...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#185 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I doubt that you could defend what is claimed. What's the mathematical formula for comparing the similarity of two strings of letters?
As was obvious, they counted the point differences in the case of cytochrome-c. That does not require any particularly complicated mathematics for a protein of 100 bases. Regarding large sequences, where there may be insertions or deletions that might disrupt the sequence, I do not know.

However, I am not concerned. I assume that the researchers have a valid methodology and that you could look it up yourself before trying to score cheap points.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#186 Jan 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
However, I am not concerned. I assume that the researchers have a valid methodology and that you could look it up yourself before trying to score cheap points.
Thanks for the honest reply. You asserted that you don't know the answer to my middle-school science question. This is no cheap shot; it's the entire debate. I assert that evolutionists are so intensely programmed with pseudo-scientific religious dogma that not only are they incapable of answering my middle-school science question, they are extraordinarily satisfied with their ignorance. Thus, they really don't have the desire to search for the answer.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#187 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> You'll have to specify the formula and I seriously doubt that you are capable of doing so, since you can't answer elementary questions. Are all LEGO toy creations so similar that each is a derivative of one common design?
Specify the formula? Do you realise the consequence of your objection is that you sharing almost 50% of your DNA with each of your parents (plus around 125 to 175 mutations extra) would be completely irrelevant because each of you were magically poof-uh, I mean, "designed" by your invisible magical Jewish wizard?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#188 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It's irrelevant to you because you refuse to understand that I'm asking you to build a self-replicating life form and to then randomly fiddle with the manufacturing blueprint.
I know. But that request is irrelevant to the validity of biology. I can't build stars either, but that doesn't put their existence in doubt. And you're still operating of the assumption of "design" which you are unable to demonstrate. But what we CAN demonstrate however is that self-replicating organisms acquire random mutations as a normal part of reproduction, and that in general they don't suffer any adverse effects. However you've just disputed this by claiming DNA is irrelevant because God magically poofed everyone into existence separately.

And though "design" is still undemonstrated, your other flaw is invoking "common" design. Something which is done for only two reasons - to save time and/or resources. Something which an all-powerful immortal creator has an infinite supply of. So not only can you not demonstrate "design" of any sort, you certainly can't demonstrate "common design", plus you also imply your designer has limits. In which case I would like to know how God's limitations were determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#189 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Thanks for the honest reply. You asserted that you don't know the answer to my middle-school science question. This is no cheap shot; it's the entire debate. I assert that evolutionists are so intensely programmed with pseudo-scientific religious dogma that not only are they incapable of answering my middle-school science question, they are extraordinarily satisfied with their ignorance. Thus, they really don't have the desire to search for the answer.
Shubee, I know that its an easy look-up and not likely to yield any results that make a material difference to this conversation. So long as the method used is consistent in each comparison, it will yield a consistent nested hierarchy of variation based on evolutionary distance. And in fact, different methods ARE used, though not mixed, so your question was a flawed one.

You on the other hand raise this trivial point with an obvious agenda.

You are trying to shift the discussion away from the very simple, and obviously irrefutable point, that experimental evidence has shown that fitness recovers in populations when natural selection is reintroduced.

Since you may be crazy but you are not stupid, you know that this experimental evidence falsifies Muller's Ratchet and utterly refutes Sanford's genetic entropy hypothesis and your own "devolution" hypothesis. So you try to deflect attention instead of acknowledging it honestly. You also ask me a stupid question in the hopes that shooting the messenger will make the message go away.

You might want to heed Feynmann's words regarding your own pet hypothesis:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman

I suggest you go back to the drawing board. Devolution is finished.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#190 Jan 29, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Still no answer.
http://www.perlmonks.org/...
It is not just about a formula that would tell you how many differences you'll find. f.i. the answer: 24 differences does not tell you anything, frankly.
But (i was looking for the scientist that for years month after month, 16 hours a day, had simply with pencill and paper compared the genome of the simplest cell in mud with the human genome. He called it a monks life.) where those differences are and what they do.
So it would still be about finding likely sites/nodes and comparing, and writing a program for that.

For god-did-it you woud still have to explain the transmogrifying (what a word!) of mud and a side (rib for silly translations) that made Adam and Eve. And how that became flesh.
So i would say the ball is in the creationist camp.
That evolution can explain it, does not take the responsibility away from creationist to find out for themselves, since they -literalist they are- claim it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#192 Jan 29, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Thanks for the honest reply. You asserted that you don't know the answer to my middle-school science question. This is no cheap shot; it's the entire debate. I assert that evolutionists are so intensely programmed with pseudo-scientific religious dogma that not only are they incapable of answering my middle-school science question, they are extraordinarily satisfied with their ignorance. Thus, they really don't have the desire to search for the answer.
Shubee honestly, i would say you are the one that is always deflecting. Which sometimes leads to an interesting discussion,
since we might also get deflected (to each his/her own hobby.)

But frankly literalist creationist introduce the idea of the proto-type and later struggle to explain differences. Ham (there are two version of that story, but for simplicity... and is was by the way noticing that Abraham had had intercourse, when that was actually forbidden) was a bad dude so that's why black people are black.
One of the reactions is having the ridiculous situation where african-americans claim to be the real hebrews/israelish with some chip on their shoulder about jews.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#193 Jan 29, 2013
Danzig...reported to Mods.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#194 Jan 29, 2013
tsss devolution...and the woman gave birth to a puddle of mud!
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#195 Jan 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Shubee, I know that its an easy look-up and not likely to yield any results that make a material difference to this conversation.
You think so but my thesis still stands. Darwinists frequently yap about chimps and humans being nearly indistinguishable but when their propaganda is honestly probed, it is clearly shown that Darwinists are remarkably ignorant about middle-school science.
Chimney1 wrote:
You are trying to shift the discussion away from the very simple, and obviously irrefutable point, that experimental evidence has shown that fitness recovers in populations when natural selection is reintroduced.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that if you prevent all persons that have inherited genetic diseases from procreating, then fitness of the entire population will cease decreasing dramatically.
Chimney1 wrote:
Since you may be crazy but you are not stupid, you know that this experimental evidence falsifies Muller's Ratchet and utterly refutes Sanford's genetic entropy hypothesis and your own "devolution" hypothesis.
Why should I believe that Darwinists know how to measure fitness if they can't even specific a formula to quantify the similarity that they're always yapping about?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#196 Jan 29, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> You think so but my thesis still stands. Darwinists frequently yap about chimps and humans being nearly indistinguishable but when their propaganda is honestly probed, it is clearly shown that Darwinists are remarkably ignorant about middle-school science.
<quoted text> It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that if you prevent all persons that have inherited genetic diseases from procreating, then fitness of the entire population will cease decreasing dramatically.
<quoted text> Why should I believe that Darwinists know how to measure fitness if they can't even specific a formula to quantify the similarity that they're always yapping about?
Nothing but projection here.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#197 Jan 29, 2013
I would call it deflecting.
You plonk down links to the avogrado ratio and entire books on formula's used in genomics...and we might as well list anything to do with statistic methods...and here shubee goes whining about middle-school maths.

But apparently he did not get the reason for primates being connected.

What can seem a hinderance might be a boon in evolution fitness thinking, so i think the second statement kittenkoder lists is also nill and void.
And might indeed be a projection of some weird internal teeth-gnashing.

Suddenly we are measuring fittness of populations?
Shifting the goalposts.
And apparently you can only do that with middleschool maths that compare lists of names, and by using some eugenic principle.

FREAKY!!!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#198 Jan 29, 2013
Kitten how is the mail in GB.
What's the average delivery-time from London to Luton? 1 hour? So why does it take allready 2 days now...
Is postman Pat completely popsicled and bogged down in snowdrifts?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#199 Jan 29, 2013
MAAT wrote:
I would call it deflecting.
You plonk down links to the avogrado ratio and entire books on formula's used in genomics...and we might as well list anything to do with statistic methods...and here shubee goes whining about middle-school maths.
But apparently he did not get the reason for primates being connected.
What can seem a hinderance might be a boon in evolution fitness thinking, so i think the second statement kittenkoder lists is also nill and void.
And might indeed be a projection of some weird internal teeth-gnashing.
Suddenly we are measuring fittness of populations?
Shifting the goalposts.
And apparently you can only do that with middleschool maths that compare lists of names, and by using some eugenic principle.
FREAKY!!!
Deflection may be more accurate.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#200 Jan 29, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Kitten how is the mail in GB.
What's the average delivery-time from London to Luton? 1 hour? So why does it take allready 2 days now...
Is postman Pat completely popsicled and bogged down in snowdrifts?
um, what?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#201 Jan 29, 2013
Why should I believe that Darwinists know how to measure fitness if they can't even specify a formula to quantify the similarity that they're always yapping about?

Why is my middle-school challenge a deflection?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#202 Jan 29, 2013
Shubee wrote:
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that if you prevent all persons that have inherited genetic diseases from procreating, then fitness of the entire population will cease decreasing dramatically.
That is not what was observed. Recovery of fitness was observed, not mere preservation or reduction in decay rate.

Fitness was measured by longevity and fecundity.

Both declined by 1-3% over the generations when natural selection was removed from the population.

Both recovered at a similar rate when natural selection was reintroduced.

According to Sanford, the accelerated decline experienced by the population was to be expected, but also should have been irreversible. Recovery is impossible because, according to Sanford, the continuing influx of novel deleterious mutations will always overcome natural selection's tendency to increase fitness. There are too many deleterious mutations for natural selection to weed them out faster than they arise. That is Sanford, pure and simple, and it leads to a very precise prediction.

If Sanford genetic entropy was correct, the observed recovery of these populations would be impossible. It happened. Sanford is falsified. And since the essence of your hypothesis is merely riding on Sanford's coattails, so are you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 20 min Subduction Zone 161,511
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 25 min Subduction Zone 70,764
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr River Tam 30,929
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 7 hr Out of the Night 242
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 12 hr Subduction Zone 170
Religions are the original fake news and fascis... 14 hr Paul Scott 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 17 hr Dogen 3,876
More from around the web