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: Nov 08

Location hidden

#122 Jan 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
duplication IS extra DNA, hence an addition of information.
I retract the use of the word "information." Note also that I don't refer to the information content of a genome in my synthesis of devolution theory. everythingimportant.org/devolution
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#123 Jan 26, 2013
It would be unreasonable to say that persons suffering from down syndrome have greater information in their DNA. Gibberish has no information content.

"Down syndrome is a genetic condition in which a person has 47 chromosomes instead of the usual 46."
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#124 Jan 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Since books are not self-replicating organisms the analogy fails.
The analogy is obviously a good one. Books are like blueprints. They contain information.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125 Jan 26, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>The analogy is obviously a good one. Books are like blueprints. They contain information.
Yes, but they still don't self reproduce, DNA, as part of an organism, does.

Your analogy still fails.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#126 Jan 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but they still don't self reproduce,
You're kidding me, right? I assure you, you rather believe in magical machines.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#127 Jan 26, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You're kidding me, right? I assure you, you rather believe in magical machines.
No that would be you Shoob. You know, Genesis, that whole story book is filled with tales of magic.

So one more time, wrong, try again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#128 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
Hilarious - and here is why.

Sanford based his claims on a twisted version of a theoretical construct - not an experimental result - created by Kimura in order to consider some ideas in population genetics related to genetic drift.

There is absolutely no experimental basis to Sanford's conclusions, with the single exception that if you batter seeds with high doses of radiation, they do not thrive.

What the researcher in the 70's did was, on the basis of Kimura's thinking, estimate the maximum number of genetic loci that could exist before deterioration > beneficial mutation + natural selection. He came to about 30,000 genes - far less than the number that researchers expected to find at the time and hence a PREDICTION.

That PREDICTION turned out to be empirically supported, later, by the discovery that all living creatures so far have had less than 30,000 genes!

And, ANOTHER series of experiments have found that cumulative loss of fitness occurring over multiple generations in the absence of natural selection, at a rate of 1-3% per generation, IS REVERSED and full fitness returns, over sevaral more, when natural selection is reintroduced.

This is an experimental result that unambiguously REFUTES the predictions of Sanford. Genetic entropy as an inevitability is falsified, and Sanford is finished. Not to mention you and your superficial and unoriginal twist on Sanford that you like to call "devolution".

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I retract the use of the word "information." Note also that I don't refer to the information content of a genome in my synthesis of devolution theory. everythingimportant.org/devolution
So you are another person here just trying to garner hits on your failed website. Your notions are a failure because you are a failure.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>The analogy is obviously a good one. Books are like blueprints. They contain information.
Do you ever read a book? None of my books have self replicated, ever. None of them change. None of them even move on their own. The analogy is a failure, end of story, find one that is not.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#131 Jan 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
There is absolutely no experimental basis to Sanford's conclusions, with the single exception that if you batter seeds with high doses of radiation, they do not thrive.
There's no doubt in my mind as to the outcome of Sanford's thought experiment. If you have a doubt, then do the experiment. http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Chimney1 wrote:
What the researcher in the 70's did was, on the basis of Kimura's thinking, estimate the maximum number of genetic loci that could exist before deterioration > beneficial mutation + natural selection. He came to about 30,000 genes - far less than the number that researchers expected to find at the time and hence a PREDICTION.
I have no idea what you're saying.
Chimney1 wrote:
And, ANOTHER series of experiments have found that cumulative loss of fitness occurring over multiple generations in the absence of natural selection, at a rate of 1-3% per generation, IS REVERSED and full fitness returns, over sevaral more, when natural selection is reintroduced.
Didn't you say that with modern medicine and health care that natural selection is no longer functioning in the United States? So Americans are degenerating, right?
Chimney1 wrote:
This is an experimental result that unambiguously REFUTES the predictions of Sanford. Genetic entropy as an inevitability is falsified, and Sanford is finished. Not to mention you and your superficial and unoriginal twist on Sanford that you like to call "devolution".
Your claim that Americans aren't degenerating is laughable.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#132 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you ever read a book? None of my books have self replicated, ever. None of them change. None of them even move on their own. The analogy is a failure, end of story, find one that is not.
You are a proof of Sanford's Genomic Degeneration Theorem. By all appearances you seem incapable of understanding that a mathematical model only has to duplicate essential features. Clearly, self-replicating machines must carry instructions on how to execute self-replication. Point me to any complex machine that is just as robust after random modifications to its manufacturing blueprint.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#133 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
....
<quoted text> Your claim that Americans aren't degenerating is laughable.
Where is your evidence of this?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#134 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> You are a proof of Sanford's Genomic Degeneration Theorem. By all appearances you seem incapable of understanding that a mathematical model only has to duplicate essential features. Clearly, self-replicating machines must carry instructions on how to execute self-replication. Point me to any complex machine that is just as robust after random modifications to its manufacturing blueprint.
Living organisms are not machines. Living organisms are the results of chemical reactions, chemicals will react and some of them replicate as a result of that reaction. No "guidance" or "command" required, it's just the result. Your analogy is a failure, nothing more.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#135 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your evidence of this?
Can you hold two separate thoughts in your mind at the same time and extrapolate to inevitable implications?
Chimney1 wrote:
Take a population and breed it with no natural selection (be randomly selecting pairs regardless of fitness and breeding them to create the next generation). Fitness is found to drop 1-3% per generation, exactly as per genetic entropy would predict.
Chimney1 wrote:
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.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#136 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Living organisms are not machines.
Play dumb if you like. I have already posted the authoritative links. You are free to disbelieve the axioms of science.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#137 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Can you hold two separate thoughts in your mind at the same time and extrapolate to inevitable implications?
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Still waiting for your evidence.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#138 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Play dumb if you like. I have already posted the authoritative links. You are free to disbelieve the axioms of science.
You have not posted anything that demonstrates living organisms are machines. Your own personal website is not considered "authoritative" either.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#139 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
You have not posted anything that demonstrates living organisms are machines.
I posted authoritative links (other than everythingimportant.org ) that asserts (as an axiom) that living organisms are complex machines.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#140 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for your evidence.
Thanks for confirming my claim that you are living proof of Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem as evidenced by your incapacity to hold two separate thoughts in your mind at the same time and extrapolate to inevitable implications.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#141 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I posted authoritative links (other than everythingimportant.org ) that asserts (as an axiom) that living organisms are complex machines.
Calling organisms a "machine" in the manner they did is not at all how you are using it.

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) 3 min DanFromSmithville 149,248
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 59 min Zog Has-fallen 10
Human Activity Has Accelerated Climate Change 1 hr paul porter 0
Science Under Siege 1 hr DanFromSmithville 7
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr paul porter 16,601
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Denisova 140,932
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 4 hr Dogen 579
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 4 hr Dogen 1,343
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 12 hr The Dude 176,787
More from around the web