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 20)

Showing posts 381 - 400 of409
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#385
Feb 9, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
If there is a genome below "perfection", and just barely functional, there will be non-zero odds that a change to that genome may improve it.
That is true but it's far more likely that a barely functional genome will cross over to an absolutely nonfunctional genome that is so hopelessly decayed that even trillions of offspring coupled with natural selection will not rescue it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#386
Feb 9, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That is true but it's far more likely that a barely functional genome will cross over to an absolutely nonfunctional genome that is so hopelessly decayed that even trillions of offspring coupled with natural selection will not rescue it.
And your evidence that supports this claim is???

Surely not John Sanford. You are aware, aren't you, that his nonsense was debunked long ago.

As far as anyone has ever shown here natural selection is more than strong enough to remove harmful genes.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#387
Feb 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
And your evidence that supports this claim is???
Couple together the law of large numbers and this fact:

"The vast majority of mutations with effects on fitness are known to be deleterious in a given environment, and their accumulation results in mean population fitness decline."

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#388
Feb 9, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That is true but it's far more likely that a barely functional genome will cross over to an absolutely nonfunctional genome that is so hopelessly decayed that even trillions of offspring coupled with natural selection will not rescue it.
While waiting for your answer, let me remark you would be hardpressed to find truly non-functional DNA.
Given that ENCODE (had a too broad definition for function, so bit of a media disaster.) formulated the function of this socalled non-functional matter as still having a function:
"Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets ".

Someone remarked that you could cut it away without it making that much of a difference. Inbuild redundacy, room to encode again.

Think of Salamanders that have a 10 times bigger genome.
Loose a tail, grow a new one, came to mind.

I was frankly looking for the link to the organism that is entirely made up out of redundant apparently non-functional genetic matter.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#389
Feb 9, 2013
 
http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/SODA_chapter9...
45% we would say nowadays.

Wasn't Garjarev discussed somewhere on this forum recently? The torsion effect?

Emotions effect our DNA with blue UV light.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#390
Feb 9, 2013
 
Actually, scientists have known for some time that it's possible that organisms may use arsenic instead of phosphorous, it simply doesn't make sense to. This is not because it's impossible, it's simply because that organism has a disadvantage against phosphorous cased organisms. Lab tests has shown that phosphorous based organisms will replace the phosphorous with arsenic if subjected to an increasingly arsenic-laden environment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

Why don't DNA based organisms discard error repair?
http://www.virology.ws/2009/05/20/why-dont-dn...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#391
Feb 9, 2013
 
https://docs.google.com/viewer...

50+ pages 'spacemath'.
Also with the Mono-lake organism in Nevada.

We came upon these discussing the Atacama. Aridity.

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#392
Feb 9, 2013
 
newton physics vs quantum physics > material vs magic :)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#393
Feb 9, 2013
 
Islamic Scientist wrote:
newton physics vs quantum physics > material vs magic :)
It only seems that way if you don't understand it.

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#394
Feb 9, 2013
 
to be designed 'intelligently'..
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#395
Feb 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It only seems that way if you don't understand it.
And nobody understands it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#396
Feb 9, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>And nobody understands it.
That depends on your perspective.
But rehashing Einstein can drive me crazy. I'll admit to that.

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#397
Feb 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It only seems that way if you don't understand it.
i understand what i say exactly..
you still think partial, not holistic..still unbalance
material + quantum > balance
you only see material, but not quantum :)
Einstein can "see" quantum..so, makes quote "knowledge without religion is lame"

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#398
Feb 9, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>And nobody understands it.
o ya?:)
different "worldview":
think partial..wrong perspective
think holistic..right perspective

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#399
Feb 9, 2013
 
Islamic Scientist wrote:
<quoted text>
i understand what i say exactly..
you still think partial, not holistic..still unbalance
material + quantum > balance
you only see material, but not quantum :)
Einstein can "see" quantum..so, makes quote "knowledge without religion is lame"
It is very clear that you do not know what you are talking about. At the very east you cannot put it into English.

Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with god, nor is there any reason for it to have anything with god.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#400
Feb 9, 2013
 
Islamic Scientist wrote:
<quoted text>
i understand what i say exactly..
you still think partial, not holistic..still unbalance
material + quantum > balance
you only see material, but not quantum :)
Einstein can "see" quantum..so, makes quote "knowledge without religion is lame"
And don't anyone go and give a sneer about Is lame, it's allready undercut.

Curious where this might all go.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#401
Feb 9, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one that is practicing evasion by not answering my questions.
Sorry, you cannot play that silly game.

Sanford claims that genetic entropy is inevitable given the structure of the genome, mutation rates, etc, and natural selection cannot reverse entropy.

An experiment with one species sharing the same basic genome structure of all other complex organisms, recovers fitness over 80 generations, when natural selection is re-introduced, after being subjected to accelerated entropy caused by lack of natural selection.

All you can claim is that a healthy lifestyle and prayer can improve health.

You are flailing.

Accept the obvious and irrefutable conclusion. Sanford is falsified. And you know it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#402
Feb 9, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That is true but it's far more likely that a barely functional genome will cross over to an absolutely nonfunctional genome that is so hopelessly decayed that even trillions of offspring coupled with natural selection will not rescue it.
It is possible that such at such a marginal point, the species will slip into a point of no return. After all, 99% of species are extinct today.

However, that is not the issue, as you know.

The salient point is that the further a genome parts from "optimal", the greater the odds are that random change will improve it.

Likewise the closer to "perfection" a genome is, the greater the odds that a mutation will be deleterious.

Therefore, a stable equilibrium or attractor point may be reached whereby the genome is stable. As we see with the nematodes returning to their previous level of fitness with the re-introduction of natural selection.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#403
Feb 9, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Couple together the law of large numbers and this fact:
"The vast majority of mutations with effects on fitness are known to be deleterious in a given environment, and their accumulation results in mean population fitness decline."
Their accumulation, of course, being possible in the absence of natural selection. Where natural selection operates, as we have seen with the nematodes, the counteracting effects of beneficial mutations is clearly high enough to restore population fitness.

Sanford loses - evidence, not elegance, is the judge.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404
Feb 9, 2013
 
Islamic Scientist wrote:
<quoted text>
i understand what i say exactly..
you still think partial, not holistic..still unbalance
material + quantum > balance
you only see material, but not quantum :)
Einstein can "see" quantum..so, makes quote "knowledge without religion is lame"
Einstein laughed at your childish human scripture based approach to God as much as he laughed at the Jewish and Christian versions of it, as he made perfectly clear numerous times. Now go and stick your backside in the air again, and the Lord and Creator of the Universe will smile upon you.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 381 - 400 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.

28 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 min KAB 134,032
Big Bang? 25 min Morrat 133
Modern YEC is Not An Aberration of Traditional ... 38 min Gillette 116
British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... 41 min wondering 117
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 51 min One way or another 171,380
Chicken or the egg. Lets settle this 1 hr TurkanaBoy 49
The Universe is fine-tuned for life 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 35
•••
•••