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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#162 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
Similarity in what way?
Already explained: DNA comparison, specifically base by base comparison.
Shubee wrote:
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.
Nice diversion.
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
No design has been demonstrated, hence your criticism based on your own baseless assertions fail.
Shubee wrote:
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).
Actually you did. Chimps share 98% of our DNA and are fine. Gorillas share 97, Orangs around 96. They're fine too. Genetic entropy that the genome is changing, deteriorating from the "perfect" ideal of what humanity used to be when they were Adam and Eve. Therefore by the time our DNA has changed by 1% or more? Less? It will no longer be viable as we will have eventually reached genetic critical mass and will no longer be viable, leading to an inevitable unrecoverable decline of the human population. But you are unable to provide a date based on observable mutation rates, nor can you explain why DNA can be 98, 97, and 96% different but not 99%. The reason being it's totally arbitrary and unsupported on your part.

Whereas we on the other hand can note that the human population is currently increasing, and those who suffer mutations that are a severe detriment to procreation are the exception, not the rule.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#163 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Sure there is. He's referring to genetics which has been around longer than he thinks the Earth has existed. Both you and he will continue to ignore your own hypocrisy for theological convenience. We on the other hand will continue to point out that you're both dishonest anti-science hypocrites who couldn't give a frak about the 9th Commandment.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#164 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.
Your hypothesis ignores demonstrated common ancestry and natural selection.
Shubee wrote:
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."
So now you retract your retraction about the usage of the word "information". Got it. Of course this ain't a big deal for evolution, which already gets along just fine with the fact that mutations can be detrimental, beneficial or neutral. This has been taken into account by the theory for a LONG time.

Simply pointing out a detrimental mutation doesn't change the fact that other mutations won't cause a problem. For example the DNA for blue eyes could be duplicated elsewhere in the genome and have no effect at all on the organism. This would be additional DNA. Or additional "information" if you like. It would also be neutral as the function of the original blue eyes sequence is still preserved while the new DNA doesn't do anything.
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>The analogy is obviously a good one. Books are like blueprints. They contain information.
DNA containing "information" is still a mere analogy. It does not operate like the English language but based on chemical processes. So while a book contains information, grammar, spelling and sentence structure, DNA does not. The only "grammar" (analogy there btw) is function, no function, or functional interference. Another reason why the book analogy fails is that the English language is arbitrary. We could just as easily swap the words for "car" and "apple" the other way around as long as everyone agreed to it. Chemistry on the other hand is NOT arbitrary. And whereas a book can be ruined by randomly throwing letters across written pages, well, humans have random pieces of DNA thrown across the genome every day with each new birth, and usually they don't suffer any problems.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#165 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.
What machines? Biological organisms are not machines.

If you dispute this you can explain the manufacturing methods and provide evidence of both them and the existence of the manufacturer.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#166 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Search all you want, liar. You are a lying hypocrite.
Go boom. Irony meter duz it.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#167 Jan 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Already explained: DNA comparison, specifically base by base comparison.
So one brick house is a derivative of another if we look at brick by brick comparisons.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#168 Jan 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
No design has been demonstrated, hence your criticism based on your own baseless assertions fail.
I presented a definition but obviously, you're too intensely programmed to think outside your programming.

Definition: Complex machines are magical if randomly changing their design blueprints yet equally robust machines.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#169 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I presented a definition but obviously, you're too intensely programmed to think outside your programming.
Definition: Complex machines are magical if randomly changing their design blueprints yet equally robust machines.
So what use is your definition? Evolution is not a random process.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#170 Jan 27, 2013
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...
should frankly show that to markman II, but he would not read it anyway, let alone comment.

Duplication drives the change.
Even caused Y to appear on the scene.
Duplication again is caused by oncogenic methylation working on the female side of the species.
And than we have to also look into what Koonin writes.
And shubee might also look up: epistasis of bacteria erv's leading to better fittness in humans.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#171 Jan 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
What machines? Biological organisms are not machines.
If you dispute this you can explain the manufacturing methods and provide evidence of both them and the existence of the manufacturer.
I frankly gave up trying to follow their logic.
But let's have another go.
God is everywhere, so if all that evolved contains god, than what do we do when god breaks down? He must be somewhere too...right?

I never read anywhere that god stepped down after a round of claying.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#172 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I presented a definition but obviously, you're too intensely programmed to think outside your programming.
Definition: Complex machines are magical if randomly changing their design blueprints yet equally robust machines.
If randomly changing their designs in tiny increments usually produced improvements, I would say either you were right or the machines were way below optimal in the first place. However, evolution assumes that far more random changes are neutral or deleterious than beneficial, while natural selection tips the odds in favour of the few beneficial changes.

We can see this process in action in real time with genetic algorithms in advanced engineering design, used to create superior complex machines by exactly that process of random trial and error. I would hardly call that magical, but I can see why such a thing would be an anathema to your ethereal, overly Platonic approach to reality.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#173 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So one brick house is a derivative of another if we look at brick by brick comparisons.
Another failed analogy. A house is not a self replicating living organism.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#174 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So one brick house is a derivative of another if we look at brick by brick comparisons.
No, since houses are not self-replicating biological organisms. DNA on the other hand is used to measure how closely related organisms are. Hence common ancestry.
Shubee wrote:
I presented a definition but obviously, you're too intensely programmed to think outside your programming.

Definition: Complex machines are magical if randomly changing their design blueprints yet equally robust machines.
Again, no design demonstrated. Your definition is irrelevant. So far there is no evidence that biological organisms were created by an intelligent desiger. That's why you're still unable to provide us with any mechanisms, evidence of them, or even evidence that this 'creator' of yours even exists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#175 Jan 28, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I frankly gave up trying to follow their logic.
But let's have another go.
God is everywhere, so if all that evolved contains god, than what do we do when god breaks down? He must be somewhere too...right?
I never read anywhere that god stepped down after a round of claying.
On rare occasions some fundies have said God is dead, which is why we don't see it no more.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#176 Jan 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
DNA ... is used to measure how closely related organisms are.
You'll have to specify the formula and I seriously doubt that you are capable of doing so, since you can't answer elementary questions. Are all LEGO toy creations so similar that each is a derivative of one common design?
http://www.amazon.com/LEGO-4568231-Creationar...
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#177 Jan 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Your definition is irrelevant.
It's irrelevant to you because you refuse to understand that I'm asking you to build a self-replicating life form and to then randomly fiddle with the manufacturing blueprint.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#178 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It's irrelevant to you because you refuse to understand that I'm asking you to build a self-replicating life form and to then randomly fiddle with the manufacturing blueprint.
You don't "build" life forms, and if it's manufactured it is not natural and thereby not bound to the natural laws and states.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#179 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> You'll have to specify the formula and I seriously doubt that you are capable of doing so, since you can't answer elementary questions. Are all LEGO toy creations so similar that each is a derivative of one common design?
http://www.amazon.com/LEGO-4568231-Creationar...
The earliest method was simply to pair DNA strands from different organisms and find the separation temperature. The more closely matched, the higher the temperature before the strands separated.

Today we can do a point by point. For example, in the ubiquitous protein Cytochrome-c, we can compare the amino acid sequence which of course mirrors the DNA base sequence.

We find that chimp Cyt-c is identical to human Cyt-c, gorilla has as I recall, only 1 base difference, and the number of differences increases depending on the evolutionary distance throughout the animal kingdom. Arguments that this reflects different functional requirements are debunked easily as follows:

1. The differences are almost entirely confined to the 70% non-functional portion of the protein which has very LOW specificity requirements adding little more than ballast.

2. Human cyt-c works just fine when implanted into yeast cells.

3. If similarities were related to function, then we would expect creatures with similar metabolisms to have more similar cyt-c. For example bat cyt-c should be more similar to other high metabolic flying creature's like a bird's. Yet bat cyt-c is more similar to a human's or a sloth's than it is to any bird.

Or, of there is no functional reason then we would expect differences to be randomly distributed in the animal kingdom yet we find that the nested hierarchy of cyt-c similarity matches the same nested hierarchy revealed in the fossil record.

And of course, the differences in cyt-c correspond to degrees of difference in the underlying DNA.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#180 Jan 28, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It's irrelevant to you because you refuse to understand that I'm asking you to build a self-replicating life form and to then randomly fiddle with the manufacturing blueprint.
Granting that its a recipe rather than a blueprint - with the very important difference that repeated sequences DO add information to recipes...

OK. Take a self replicating life-form, and produce a million copies of it. Allow minor random fiddles. Keep the ones that worked best, and repeat the process a billion times...

Exactly what they do (successfully) in genetic algorithms to improve advanced engineering design. Nothing strange or magical about it...its the time honoured method of trial and error which is of course an anathema to a mathematical purist like you.

However, note how robust and resilient such a method is in the REAL WORLD, where we cannot have full information or foresight, where unexpected circumstances arise as a matter of course...completely unlike the rarefied universe of mathematics where every effect is deductively predictable from prior causes.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#181 Jan 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The earliest method was simply to pair DNA strands from different organisms and find the separation temperature. The more closely matched, the higher the temperature before the strands separated.
Today we can do a point by point.
I doubt that you could defend what is claimed. What's the mathematical formula for comparing the similarity of two strings of letters?

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Blitzking 168,978
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr ChromiuMan 141,854
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr Brian_G 19,796
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 16 hr thetruth 6,221
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Fri Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Jul 2 Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web