Are You Intelligently Designed?

Oct 23, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Capital-Journal

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.

Comments (Page 18)

Showing posts 341 - 360 of409
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#343
Feb 2, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Actually humans show a very narrow range of genetic diversity compared to most species living today. That is attributed to the fact that we are a "young" species that emerged only around 200,000 years ago. And I don't think our intelligence as a driver of success has been debunked.

You are right that genetic diversity is a strength in itself, and any eugenics program that sought to reduce genetic diversity beyond strictly deleterious variants would be flawed and dangerous. I would not hesitate to eliminate something like cystic fibrosis though. Why would we willingly allow children to suffer? Its coming...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#344
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?
I don't think the nematodes and fruitflies were into praying and putting on their reeboks for a round of aerobics.

Got any more irrelevant objections?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#345
Feb 3, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I would advise Shubee to read wiki common descent page.

quote:
So far an estimated 19,000 pseudogenes have been identified in the human genome, almost equal to the total number of coding genes (21,000).[16] Humans have many pseudogenes including L-gulonolactone oxidase, which is used to synthesize vitamin C. Research reports that this gene was inactivated in the common ancestor of all simians.[17]

Pseudogenes have been identified in a wide range of organisms from bacteria to mice to humans. The total number of pseudogenes in a given genome is not predictable, but specific pseudogenes are often compared across species to elucidate complex evolutionary relationships.[16]

Pseudogenes are often difficult to parse from the large number of non-coding base pairs in the genome. Convention requires two elements to be present to label a sequence a pseudogene. The first is homology, which is the requirement that a sequence be demonstrated to descend from a functional copy of the gene. The second is non-functionality, which is the requirement that the gene not code for a protein in the organism in question.[16]

Since all pseudogenes are hypothesized to be descended from a parent functioning gene, the first step is to identify the parent gene. Computer programs to compare sequences of DNA across species are used to accomplish this.[16] Using the phylogenetic relationships between species, one can decrease the search time by looking at species that share a more recent common ancestor.[18] Once a functioning copy of a gene is detected, its sequence is compared to the pseudogene. A high correlation in base pairs is used to assign homology. Non-functionality can be demonstrated by attempting to transcribe the sequence in vitro.[16]

[edit] Pseudogenes as shared errors

end quote.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#346
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I would advise Shubee to read wiki common descent page.
quote:
So far an estimated 19,000 pseudogenes have been identified in the human genome, almost equal to the total number of coding genes (21,000).[16] Humans have many pseudogenes including L-gulonolactone oxidase, which is used to synthesize vitamin C. Research reports that this gene was inactivated in the common ancestor of all simians.[17]
Pseudogenes have been identified in a wide range of organisms from bacteria to mice to humans. The total number of pseudogenes in a given genome is not predictable, but specific pseudogenes are often compared across species to elucidate complex evolutionary relationships.[16]
Pseudogenes are often difficult to parse from the large number of non-coding base pairs in the genome. Convention requires two elements to be present to label a sequence a pseudogene. The first is homology, which is the requirement that a sequence be demonstrated to descend from a functional copy of the gene. The second is non-functionality, which is the requirement that the gene not code for a protein in the organism in question.[16]
Since all pseudogenes are hypothesized to be descended from a parent functioning gene, the first step is to identify the parent gene. Computer programs to compare sequences of DNA across species are used to accomplish this.[16] Using the phylogenetic relationships between species, one can decrease the search time by looking at species that share a more recent common ancestor.[18] Once a functioning copy of a gene is detected, its sequence is compared to the pseudogene. A high correlation in base pairs is used to assign homology. Non-functionality can be demonstrated by attempting to transcribe the sequence in vitro.[16]
[edit] Pseudogenes as shared errors
end quote.
It won't make any difference! But its interesting information for those of us with operational minds. Cheers.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#347
Feb 3, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
I would advise Shubee to read wiki common descent page.
I don't trust the religiously motivated claims of pseudo-scientific Darwinists. Frankly, I can't even think of a better example of pseudo-scientific programming than to receive from on high the dogma of 98% similarity between human and chimp DNA while not knowing the definition of percent similarity of two dissimilar chains that only consist of the letters A, T, C, and G.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#348
Feb 3, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think the nematodes and fruitflies were into praying and putting on their reeboks for a round of aerobics.
You're claiming that nematodes and fruitflies live longer (your measure of fitness) if predators and natural selection is allowed to cut their lives short. It makes sense to me that you never documented the nonsense you spew by providing a link to the nonsense research you trust.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#349
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Hmm, I am developing a hypothesis, it may be untestable. It seems that a strange substance that for the purpose of my hypothesis I am going to label "the stupid" builds up in Shubee everyday. It is poisonous to the system, so much like defecation he must find a way to void it from his system.

It seems that Shubee comes here, and to other sites too probably, to get rid of his "the stupid" by writing idiotic posts.

So, first off does my hypothesis sound reasonable? Second, does anyone have any idea of how we can test this? I was thinking if we could get access to where he is living we could strap him up in a straitjacket and see what happens to him as the stupid builds up. Would he soon become a babbling idiot, I mean even more of a babbling idiot?

You input is kindly requested.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#350
Feb 3, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually humans show a very narrow range of genetic diversity compared to most species living today. That is attributed to the fact that we are a "young" species that emerged only around 200,000 years ago. And I don't think our intelligence as a driver of success has been debunked.
You are right that genetic diversity is a strength in itself, and any eugenics program that sought to reduce genetic diversity beyond strictly deleterious variants would be flawed and dangerous. I would not hesitate to eliminate something like cystic fibrosis though. Why would we willingly allow children to suffer? Its coming...
Yes, some of the genetic diseases would be a benefit to rid ourselves of, but most people have a very bad idea of how to go about such things. It is not something I would leave in the hands of those with god delusions to even weigh in on.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#352
Feb 3, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You're claiming that nematodes and fruitflies live longer (your measure of fitness) if predators and natural selection is allowed to cut their lives short. It makes sense to me that you never documented the nonsense you spew by providing a link to the nonsense research you trust.
Hilarious. Again you twist it. Did I mention predators?

I could send you the links right now, but its been a lot more fun watching you flail about blindly demonstrating your only talents.

These are, twisting words, refuting straw man versions of my claims that you made up yourself, trying to divert the conversation into ridiculous claims that middle school students should be able to define the mathematical formula for comparing the similarity of two strings, trying to also edge the discussion onto another favorite "emotive" subject like eugenics. You also criticised the markers used, said even a school child could do better, then proposed the wooliest, most subjective and useless alternative you could think of, ignoring that evolution is based on success in procreation and that Sanford himself used lifespan as a marker for genetic entropy.

Such a prized collection of lies and avoidance I have seldom seen.
Its been fun. You have revealed yourself beautifully.

Sanford is clear and unequivocal. According to him, Genetic Entropy is a one way street and natural selection can only slow, but never reverse, the underlying, generation by generation, unstoppable deterioration of the genome due to the overwhelming buildup of novel mildly deleterious mutations.

Admit that this IS Sanford's claim (and yours) and I will post the links.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#353
Feb 3, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Hmm, I am developing a hypothesis, it may be untestable. It seems that a strange substance that for the purpose of my hypothesis I am going to label "the stupid" builds up in Shubee everyday. It is poisonous to the system, so much like defecation he must find a way to void it from his system.
It seems that Shubee comes here, and to other sites too probably, to get rid of his "the stupid" by writing idiotic posts.
So, first off does my hypothesis sound reasonable? Second, does anyone have any idea of how we can test this? I was thinking if we could get access to where he is living we could strap him up in a straitjacket and see what happens to him as the stupid builds up. Would he soon become a babbling idiot, I mean even more of a babbling idiot?
You input is kindly requested.
No, I think that when you are as far gone as Shubee, most discussion simply fuels his delusion.

You have to realise that this is a guy who thinks that a banana materialising on his desk is a real world possibility, and likewise the spontaneous materialisation of all the different lifeforms on cue in the fossil record is a result of the same process of quantum fluctuation.

In the infinite quilted quantum multiverse, it COULD HAPPEN.

Just wait!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#354
Feb 3, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, some of the genetic diseases would be a benefit to rid ourselves of, but most people have a very bad idea of how to go about such things. It is not something I would leave in the hands of those with god delusions to even weigh in on.
I think its going to happen, one way or another, by private means if not public. Its a future we had better face squarely if we want it to be done ethically!
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#355
Feb 3, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
Did I mention predators?
You didn't mention anything with intelligent content. Obviously, you are trying to get by with vapor alone.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#356
Feb 3, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I don't trust the religiously motivated claims of pseudo-scientific Darwinists.
Are you referring to the Cult of the Ancestor Monkey? Haven't heard its too popular with evolutionists, but there is always someone ready to start some stupid cult, eh Shubee? When your Cult of the Multiple Quantum Poofed Genome expires, perhaps you could try it.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#357
Feb 3, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
Genetic Entropy is a one way street and natural selection can only slow, but never reverse, the underlying, generation by generation, unstoppable deterioration of the genome due to the overwhelming buildup of novel mildly deleterious mutations.
Admit that this IS Sanford's claim (and yours) and I will post the links.
That is Sanford's claim and I agree with it. Now let's take a look at your fantasy world of animals without predators.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#358
Feb 3, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That is Sanford's claim and I agree with it. Now let's take a look at your fantasy world of animals without predators.
Thank you.

Now explain how the following can be possible if Sanford's claims are true:

RAPID FITNESS RECOVERY IN MUTATIONALLY DEGRADED LINES OF
CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS
SUZANNE ESTES
1,2
AND MICHAEL LYNCH
3
1
Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97

http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/evol...

The Action of Purifying Selection, Mutation and Drift on Fitness Epistatic Systems
1. Andrés Pérez-Figueroa *†,
2. Armando Caballero †, 1 ,
3. Aurora García-Dorado * and
4. Carlos López-Fanjul *

http://www.genetics.org/content/183/1/299.abs...
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#359
Feb 3, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
Now explain how the following can be possible if Sanford's claims are true
I don't know anything about worms but if you translate the overly strained language to the elementary level of Richard Dawkins' PhD thesis: "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks", then I think we will all have a good laugh.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#360
Feb 3, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know anything about worms but if you translate the overly strained language to the elementary level of Richard Dawkins' PhD thesis: "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks", then I think we will all have a good laugh.
Yes, we can learn from the behavior of domestic chicks, if our heads are not stuck up our backsides in a daydream of pretense that theoretical mathematics can tell us everything we need to know about the universe we live in, from the top down, rather than getting out there and learning how the world actually works through empirical research. You have never grasped the inductive dimension of science.

Empirical support is the final arbiter, and thus senior to the maths.

Dawkins has had more useful things to say about the development of life on earth in any one of his books or papers than you will manage in a lifetime.

And of course, you give no refutation of an experiment which demonstrated that fitness can recover over generations which is something even you agreed that Sanford's hypothesis ruled out.

Sanford is falsified.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#361
Feb 4, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I don't trust the religiously motivated claims of pseudo-scientific Darwinists. Frankly, I can't even think of a better example of pseudo-scientific programming than to receive from on high the dogma of 98% similarity between human and chimp DNA while not knowing the definition of percent similarity of two dissimilar chains that only consist of the letters A, T, C, and G.
sigh.
persent-percent...simply means overlap. Diversity and finding it is the bonus.

Calculating community overlap and diversity.
Nowadays people do it with computers. I've shown several methods as well as chimney1 did. But found a doc to elucidate all.
https://docs.google.com/viewer...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#362
Feb 4, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You're claiming that nematodes and fruitflies live longer (your measure of fitness) if predators and natural selection is allowed to cut their lives short. It makes sense to me that you never documented the nonsense you spew by providing a link to the nonsense research you trust.
God must have spit in y'r bathwather.

We did not label you eugene, because of your humane suggestions, but exactly for suggesting culling like Sanford did to proof his theory (did not, since it is not falsifyable. It was shown that natural selection is a better predictor for allover fitness since it restores diversity. Great extinction events do not tend to do that.)but not for restoring what evolution is about namely predation and the reaction of prey. Or symbiosis and parasitism.
So f.i. problemsolving, living longer.

You keep confusing he definitions.
Relative fitness: how healthy an individual or population is.
General fitness: how healthy this individual and population and their descendents are.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#363
Feb 4, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we can learn from the behavior of domestic chicks, if our heads are not stuck up our backsides in a daydream of pretense that theoretical mathematics can tell us everything we need to know about the universe we live in, from the top down, rather than getting out there and learning how the world actually works through empirical research. You have never grasped the inductive dimension of science.
Empirical support is the final arbiter, and thus senior to the maths.
Dawkins has had more useful things to say about the development of life on earth in any one of his books or papers than you will manage in a lifetime.
And of course, you give no refutation of an experiment which demonstrated that fitness can recover over generations which is something even you agreed that Sanford's hypothesis ruled out.
Sanford is falsified.
Indeed we start bottom up.
google f.i. IEEE

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 341 - 360 of409
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••