Are You Intelligently Designed?

Oct 23, 2012 Full story: The Capital-Journal 409

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.

Full Story

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#102 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It's difficult for me to even imagine that you read Sanford's book.
Yes, I read it. Some parts more than once.

I was especially interested in the subtle twisting of Kimura's research ans assumptions. Also the part where Sanford equates all mutations to point mutations, and where he tries to dismiss gene duplication as an addition of information by a thoroughly bogus method that confuses such duplications with point mutations.

I did actually find it interesting, in that its possible that if the mildly deleterious mutation rate were high enough, his hypothesis would hold! However another researcher in the 70's tackled the same problem and determined that it meant the maximum number of genes had to be around 30,000 or GE would kick in....and what do we find? Virtually all organisms today have less than 30,000 genes!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#103 Jan 25, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I just don't fit the profile of intellectual cowards, as summarized by Noam Chomsky.
Oh, that must be why you run away all the time then.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104 Jan 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
His theory goes into the dustbin, and your theory which is derivative of his in its core mechanisms, goes the same way.
Not to mention the fact that invoking a YEC is incompatible with biological evidence that contradicts a young Earth, meaning Shoob is being dishonest by using Sanford as a reference or dishonest whenever he talks about genetics. Like many a fundie he likes it both ways, but he can't have it.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#105 Jan 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Sanford equates all mutations to point mutations, and ... he tries to dismiss gene duplication as an addition of information
According to Sanford's third axiom: The DNA copying process is imperfect; there are random, frequently occurring single-character misspellings, deletions, insertions, duplications, translocations and inversions.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

Random gene duplication is no more an addition of information than duplicated paragraphs in a book. You obviously didn't read Sanford's book with a willingness to understand it.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#106 Jan 25, 2013
Correction:

According to Sanford's third axiom: The DNA copying process is imperfect; there are random, frequently occurring single-character misspellings, deletions, insertions, duplications, translocations and inversions. Dr. J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (Classroom Edition), pp. 6-8, 19, 34-37.

Random gene duplication is no more an addition of information than duplicated paragraphs in a book. You obviously didn't read Sanford's book with a willingness to understand it.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#107 Jan 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have thought you would be capable of more logical discussion than this.
GE makes a specific prediction - loss of fitness is a one way street that cannot be recovered.
The experiment is not about the whole of evolution, its about the specific prediction above.
The experiments show fitness can be recovered in a population that has lost fitness rapidly (through the removal of natural selection fro several generations, then its reintroduction).
Thus the SPECIFIC prediction of GE which is at the foundation of Sanford's whole hypothesis is falsified. We do not need to prove all of evolution to falsify Sanford's view that genetic entropy is inevitable and irreversible.
His theory goes into the dustbin, and your theory which is derivative of his in its core mechanisms, goes the same way.
Are you able to illustrate the meaning of your experiment in terms of the human population? I didn't think so. Whatever you believe, I suppose it's related to previous claims by you that, in effect, natural selection prevents evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108 Jan 25, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>According to Sanford's third axiom: The DNA copying process is imperfect; there are random, frequently occurring single-character misspellings, deletions, insertions, duplications, translocations and inversions.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Random gene duplication is no more an addition of information than duplicated paragraphs in a book. You obviously didn't read Sanford's book with a willingness to understand it.
Yes, I did and unlike you, read it with a critical mind as I read all science and lame attempts at science.

When a gene is duplicated, there is of course new information immediately. Even duplication of the same sequence is, statistically, an increase in total order. But that is not the core issue.

The issue is, that with gene duplication, when one of the new copies mutates again and starts producing a slightly DIFFERENT protein, while the other member of the pair continues to produce the original protein thereby preserving cellular function, you now have:

original protein PLUS
altered protein (with potentially new function).

There are whole families of proteins that are closely related structurally which would have emerged this way.

Sanford MISSES this whole point and certainly does not address it directly or refute it in his book. He even devoted an appendix to the issue without ever addressing it squarely.

And you still have not refuted the fact that fitness recovery experiments falsify Sanford's core hypothesis and your own to boot.

You cannot, so you merely try to divert attention into another direction. I read Sanford's book and I have read a good deal of your hypothesising and neither of you are going to have the slightest impact on science because you are demonstrably wrong.

Yes, I read his book with a perfect willingness to understand it and I did understand it. I even understood that under some conditions such as an elevated mutation rate, what he said might be true. However, its experimentally clear that the mutation rate is not high enough to overcome natural selection and furthermore gene duplication clearly does add information.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109 Jan 25, 2013
Shubee wrote:
Random gene duplication is no more an addition of information than duplicated paragraphs in a book. You obviously didn't read Sanford's book with a willingness to understand it.
But since DNA isn't a book the analogy fails. And also duplication IS extra DNA, hence an addition of information.

Shoob, we've debunked this childish creationist bollox from you and many other creationists a thousand times over. You continually beating up your caricatures won't change anything. That is why you always fail.

Cue "You'll find out when you're DEAD!" routine.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110 Jan 25, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Are you able to illustrate the meaning of your experiment in terms of the human population? I didn't think so. Whatever you believe, I suppose it's related to previous claims by you that, in effect, natural selection prevents evolution.
Last things first...I have made no claim that natural selection prevents evolution. Restoring fitness is not preventing evolution, once beneficial mutations are taken into account. And Kimura left these out of his analysis for simplicity. Sanford twisted that into the claim that beneficial mutations were so rare and so minor that they could not possibly overcome the effects of slightly deleterious mutations....and he did so with NO DATA as to the actual frequency or magnitude of beneficial mutations.

On the human question, Sanford claimed that GE applies to all life. So your question is not all that important.

In addition, we all know that humans in recent centuries have through many means managed to minimise natural selection in a number of ways. We have developed medicines, social welfare systems, and food availability allowing us to survive more easily and causing a population explosion even while birthrates fell.

Sanford ignores all this. Whereas the "natural state" of humans is to have say 10 offspring per pair and only 20% survive, we now have a situation where 2-3 children are born and 95% survive.

In those circumstances we would expect some drop in fitness over the recent period but it would be arrant stupidity to extrapolate that back to our entire 200,000 year tenure on this planet.

Looking forward, the obvious solution will be direct intervention in the genome. Its happening already and in spite of the fears of some, its a far more humane way forward than reverting to the brutal methods of nature.

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

#111 Jan 25, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't say that mechanical code is DNA. And when I used the word design, I simply meant the blueprint of life.
:)
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#112 Jan 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
I did actually find it interesting, in that its possible that if the mildly deleterious mutation rate were high enough, his hypothesis would hold! However another researcher in the 70's tackled the same problem and determined that it meant the maximum number of genes had to be around 30,000 or GE would kick in....and what do we find? Virtually all organisms today have less than 30,000 genes!
Yes, I'm sure that someone in the 70's actually waved his arms about this but if you look closer I'm also sure that no measurements from actual experiments were recorded.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#113 Jan 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
And you still have not refuted the fact that fitness recovery experiments falsify Sanford's core hypothesis and your own to boot.
If you can't cease with the arm-waving and interpret the experiments in the context of the human population, then there's nothing to refute. Sanford's thought experiment clearly shows that the extinction of all naturally mutating genomes is inevitable. What middle school student has a problem seeing that?
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

However, I do grant you that life on planet earth abounds with a fantastic number of increasingly unintelligent designs.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#114 Jan 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But since DNA isn't a book the analogy fails.
"The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work." -- John von Neumann.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/SeanPitman...

The book/DNA model is obviously very reasonable because it reflects Darwinian thinking.

To illustrate, I propose that you study the grand library of all the conspicuous books and journals currently in print. Yes, great similarities, adaptations, spin-offs and plagiarisms will be easy to recognize. However, work as hard as you can, you will be unable to rationalize the history of the grand library by imagining its highly ordered present-day existence to have come about according to the following empirically unverified procedure for building a library and acquiring knowledge:

Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters, and rearrange subsequences in the string of letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1967, p. 110.
http://everythingimportant.org/devolution
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115 Jan 26, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>"The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work." -- John von Neumann.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/SeanPitman...
The book/DNA model is obviously very reasonable because it reflects Darwinian thinking.
To illustrate, I propose that you study the grand library of all the conspicuous books and journals currently in print. Yes, great similarities, adaptations, spin-offs and plagiarisms will be easy to recognize. However, work as hard as you can, you will be unable to rationalize the history of the grand library by imagining its highly ordered present-day existence to have come about according to the following empirically unverified procedure for building a library and acquiring knowledge:
Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters, and rearrange subsequences in the string of letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1967, p. 110.
http://everythingimportant.org/devolution
Since books are not self-replicating organisms the analogy fails. Since DNA represents common ancestry, the analogy fails. For instance we have chimps at 98% DNA similarity to humans and they get along just fine. Gorillas at 97% and so do they. Orangutans at 95-96 and so do they. Of course other organisms have DNA which differ even more, yet they also do fine. Yet you claim that an organism at 99% DNA similarity to humans will NOT be fine. This is an arbitrary judgement on your part. You also STILL have the problem that the human race is currently successfully INCREASING its population size, and that you STILL have not been able to calculate based on mutation rates the date of genetic critical mass from which humanity will be unable to recover. And you STILL also have the problem with internal inconsistency, whereby you use both old Earth and young Earth axioms at the same time despite the fact they are incompatible. And, like Sanford, you STILL COMPLETELY ignore natural selection and its ability to stabilize populations - another reason why the book analogy fails.

Of course all of this is moot when your "scientific alternative" is nothing more than GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC. Making any scientific references you make superfluous.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#116 Jan 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
we have chimps at 98% DNA similarity to humans and they get along just fine.
Similarity in what way?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#117 Jan 26, 2013
The human body is roughly 70% water. And many meals are roughly 70% water. So with a limited understanding of structure, superficial minds may conclude that there's a great similarity between humans and what they eat.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#118 Jan 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
your "scientific alternative" is nothing more than GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC.
Your "unscientific alternative" is based on the fantasy of magic molecular machines. Clearly, complex machines are magical if randomly changing their design blueprints yet equally robust machines.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#119 Jan 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Yet you claim that an organism at 99% DNA similarity to humans will NOT be fine.
I have never made that claim. However, I do expect that randomly changing 1% DNA of any living thing will obviously result in something not viable (excluding sets of measure zero).
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#120 Jan 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Kimura left these out of his analysis for simplicity. Sanford twisted that into the claim that beneficial mutations were so rare and so minor that they could not possibly overcome the effects of slightly deleterious mutations....and he did so with NO DATA as to the actual frequency or magnitude of beneficial mutations.
Then I suppose that the data doesn't exist. Consequently, there is no fact to exclude the possibility that Sanford's intuition might be correct.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#121 Jan 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
On the human question, Sanford claimed that GE applies to all life. So your question is not all that important.
Testing your understanding of the claims you have made is important.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min Chimney1 133,698
How would creationists explain... 36 min DanFromSmithville 397
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 5 hr Kong_ 650
Science News (Sep '13) 21 hr positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web