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.

Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#323 Feb 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
This argument might be valid if all humans have acquired all genetic diseases simultaneously.
What counts is that all self-replicating bio-molecular machines, in all series, are continually acquiring new genetic diseases.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#324 Feb 1, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>What counts is that all self-replicating bio-molecular machines, in all series, are continually acquiring new genetic diseases.
Nope, genetic changes, not necessarily genetic diseases.

We have evidence that there are at least 75 average changes in genome per generation. What evidence do you have that these result in diseases and not simply changes?

And for the ones that do end up in diseases, thought they would seem to be very few. It is also fairly obvious that they would not reproduce and those bad genes would therefore disappear.

That is why Sanford was debunked. Bad genes don't get reproduced. Good ones do.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#325 Feb 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
We have evidence that there are at least 75 average changes in genome per generation. What evidence do you have that these result in diseases and not simply changes?
There isn't any doubt as to the outcome of the thought experiment in Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem. If you don't believe that, then just do the experiment empirically.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#326 Feb 1, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>There isn't any doubt as to the outcome of the thought experiment in Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem. If you don't believe that, then just do the experiment empirically.
Yes there is no doubt. Sanford was full of shit. That is why his idiotic idea never got any traction in the scientific community.

I am glad that we can agree on this.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#327 Feb 2, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>There is no medicine that counteracts against the increasing number of genetic diseases.
But will there be? Perhaps some "Gattaca" type scenario.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#328 Feb 2, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>And as the number of new genetic diseases escalate, devolution theory will grow in acceptance to the point of being practically undeniable.
In your dreams. You will be on your death bed, rattling out your last breaths and your idiotic ideas and your pathetic website will STILL be making people laugh at you.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#329 Feb 2, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>There isn't any doubt as to the outcome of the thought experiment in Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem. If you don't believe that, then just do the experiment empirically.
"Thought experiment" is like saying you're too lazy to do any actual work so you'll just ponder it and make up the results. Where are the actual experiments?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#330 Feb 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
Where are the actual experiments?
What real-world experiment would you accept that is meant to represent a test of Sanford's universal principle?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#331 Feb 2, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>What real-world experiment would you accept that is meant to represent a test of Sanford's universal principle?
The same ones geneticists do for finding the common decedents.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#332 Feb 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The same ones geneticists do for finding the common decedents.
It's odd that you say that because my guess has always been that you're a mortician. Regardless, I'm sure that Dr. Sanford and I agree that you're clueless and that you have no idea on how to test his universal principle.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#333 Feb 2, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It's odd that you say that because my guess has always been that you're a mortician. Regardless, I'm sure that Dr. Sanford and I agree that you're clueless and that you have no idea on how to test his universal principle.
If his idea cannot be tested, then it is not scientific.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#334 Feb 2, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>What real-world experiment would you accept that is meant to represent a test of Sanford's universal principle?
Easy. According to Sanford, recovery of fitness is impossible, as genetic entropy should be a one way ratchet due to novel deleterious mutations in every generation accumulating faster than they can be "swept clean" by natural selection.

By allowing entropy to occur through the suspension of natural selection, we should then observe that recovery to previous fitness states is impossible even after natural selection is reintroduced.

This is not merely a thought experiment, of course. Its a real experiment, carried out on a number of species.

Fitness recovers, and Sanford's hypothesis is falsified.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#335 Feb 2, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>There isn't any doubt as to the outcome of the thought experiment in Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem. If you don't believe that, then just do the experiment empirically.
The problem with a thought experiment is that even if the conclusion follows form the assumptions, you have no guarantees your assumptions are correct.

Scientists may use thought experiments to dream up new hypotheses, but empirical evidence is the gold standard. And empirically, Sanford fails.

His assumption errors are more than can be recounted here, but for starters:

1. An assumed distribution of deleterious versus neutral and beneficial mutations with no empirical backing.

2. An assumed "original state" of genetic perfection which is manifest right through his book, but never had to be the case in reality.

3. The weak assumption that all mutations could be treated as equivalent to point mutations, and his complete inability to deal with gene duplication as the primary mechanism of new inormation / material creation in evolution. He even writes a piss poor appendix on the subject which completely fails to address it and merely harps on (again) about point mutations.

4. The mischaracterisation of DNA as a symbolic code equivalent to human language, whereas in reality it is a non-symbolic template that follows non-arbitrary chemical rules.

5. A ridiculous assumption that specificity is high right across the genome, when we know that high specificity is restricted to minor portions.

6. Ignoring Kumira's own findings including the modifying assumption Kimura made in his original research, where he left out beneficial mutations because they caused too HIGH a rate of evolution.

7. An apparent complete ignorance of geology and astronomy as shared by YEC's generally.

8. An overriding desire to discredit evolution not for scientific reasons but because he feared the societal impact of "atheism".

Like all of you reality deniers, all he was left with was bad science and self delusion leading to our sympathy at best but more deserving of ridicule and contempt at your complete lack of intellectual integrity.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#336 Feb 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy. According to Sanford, recovery of fitness is impossible, as genetic entropy should be a one way ratchet due to novel deleterious mutations in every generation accumulating faster than they can be "swept clean" by natural selection.
By allowing entropy to occur through the suspension of natural selection, we should then observe that recovery to previous fitness states is impossible even after natural selection is reintroduced.
This is not merely a thought experiment, of course. Its a real experiment, carried out on a number of species.
Fitness recovers, and Sanford's hypothesis is falsified.
I agree with Sanford. Recovery of individual fitness is possible in the context of miracles and health-based lifestyle changes. Improving the fitness of an entire population isn't miraculous at all. Just prevent persons like MIDutch and KittenKoder from procreating and the gene pool will vastly improve.

Where did Dr. Sanford say that devolution is detectable (measurable) in a single generation?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#337 Feb 2, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I agree with Sanford. Recovery of individual fitness is possible in the context of miracles and health-based lifestyle changes. Improving the fitness of an entire population isn't miraculous at all. Just prevent persons like MIDutch and KittenKoder from procreating and the gene pool will vastly improve.
Where did Dr. Sanford say that devolution is detectable (measurable) in a single generation?
You don't comprehend what makes humans more fit than other complex species. It is not because we are more intelligent, that has been debunked a lot. It's because of our genetic diversity, the things you see as "flaws" are part of that diversity. We can shape and even change our gene pool, to limit procreation to only "normal" people, people that you think are "not flawed," would destroy the very diversity that makes the species capable of surviving. Because of inbreeding with the Neanderthals, we were able to increase our diversity beyond that of our competing species, you would undo all that simply so you can play Adolf Hitler.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#338 Feb 2, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>What real-world experiment would you accept that is meant to represent a test of Sanford's universal principle?
How about a scorched earth policy...or throw generous amounts of salt over farmland...or lets just shoot at crops with a bigger gun.
Just to test the basic idea his thesis rests on.

mind! What his team actually found is that small enoughdamage is self-repairing!.

And we are just bags of genes, of any kind and sort.
Not genes dedicated solely to us, but we keep entire population alive, that do nothing than exist happily in this symbiotic state.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#339 Feb 2, 2013
Everybody always harping on Darwin about not fully considering micro-evolution.
What people seem to say is that he should have anticipated that he would be compared to god.
That's an assenine assumption.

Well as far as microbiology goes, neither did g-d. He thoroughly disliked allready the creepy-crawlies for one, and did not even pry further.

But without entire invasions of bacteria we would not even life! Without ERV not even reproduce!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#340 Feb 2, 2013
According to Sanford, recovery of fitness is impossible, as genetic entropy should be a one way ratchet due to novel deleterious mutations in every generation accumulating faster than they can be "swept clean" by natural selection.

Makes one wonder if he only looked at the y genome.
...point-mutation..deleterious ...
Given that we are born with 60 per generation, you are letting us do the math.
-60 till you reach zero, is what Sandford states.
---
It's shoddy science. The rest all seem clear on that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#341 Feb 2, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I agree with Sanford. Recovery of individual fitness is possible in the context of miracles and health-based lifestyle changes. Improving the fitness of an entire population isn't miraculous at all. Just prevent persons like MIDutch and KittenKoder from procreating and the gene pool will vastly improve.
Where did Dr. Sanford say that devolution is detectable (measurable) in a single generation?

Sanford said that genetic entropy would be evident over several generations. He also said that natural selection would slow but not halt or reverse this decline.

Ergo, when natural selection is removed, the decline will occur faster. In tested lab populations, this decline was observed at 1-3% per generation as measured by fecundity and longevity, over several generations.

When natural selection was reintroduced, these markers improved back to their natural levels over a number of generations. This is impossible according to Sanford. Even eliminating the less fit from the gene pool will not halt the decline of the fittest, that was Sanford's whole argument. Without this, his whole genetic entropy paradigm collapses.

No news to you by now: by experiment, Sanford's paradigm has collapsed, along with your one derived from his.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#342 Feb 2, 2013
Add to that the creationists weird approach to considering every fossil a pointmutation, with nothing in between, we frankly should not exist.

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) 6 min Samuel Patre 165,350
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Howard 85,466
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 5 hr Dogen 4,766
What's your religion? 23 hr Paul Porter1 5
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... Mon was auch immer 8
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Mon Dogen 33,127
God hates Tennessee Sun Rev Jackson 2
More from around the web