A simple refutation of "design".
The ID crowd claims that life is evidence of design and that DNA is the method in which this design is carried out. Alright, let's look into that. If that's the case, "Design" leads "DNA". Therefore, something which is designed a certain way will have DNA representing that design. Here's an example: A snake is shaped a certain way by design, therefore its DNA was put in place to achieve that shape. If this is true, then the DNA of ALL snakes should be more similar to each other than it is to, say, an alligator. And it is. However, that's not the end of that discussion. If DNA follows design, then EVERYTHING which is "snake"- shaped should be have similar DNA. After all, the designer "designed " it a certain way and used the DNA to achieve that "design" . If ID were correct then a snake-like amphibian would be more closely related to snakes than to salamanders. http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Caecili an Or the legless lizards would be more closely related to snakes than to skinks. http://www.kaweaho aks.com/html/lizar d_legless.htm However, that isn't true. Looking at the DNA, clearly these three different groups of animals (snakes, legless lizards and legless amphibians) spawn from different founding populations. And what about eels - a snake-like fish. A 4th group, though not terrestrial, which is clearly more closely related to fish than to any of the other three. Any response from the cDesign Proponentists? Other than "God works in mysterious ways"? (21 hrs ago | post #1)
You haven't answered that question. You've merely said "Is not!". If "design" is done by forces which can not be described, detected, observed or tested in any way - those forces are, BY DEFINITION SUPER-NATURAL in that they are NOT-NATURALAnother example of you merely claiming this. HOW does science "detect" design? Compared against WHAT as a contrast? By YOUR claim - EVERY SINGLE THING THAT EXISTS MUST BE DESIGNED. If EVERYTHING is the same, then you can't detect designAnd thus, like every other Christian Fundamentalist who came before you, you've followed the exact same steps. Appear MAke a false claim Get called on it. Lie. Try to change the subject. Claim that you already answered the question. Run away. It's a pretty damn predictable patternIn China, rubbing powdered tiger penis on your foot grants you "long life and much potency". Apparently they use your same criteria for their evidenceOnce again, for the 100000x. Intelligent Design was CREATED BY and MARKETED BY Creationists for the purpose of pushing through Creationism. The founders have ADMITTED AS MUCH. HOw is it that you think you can lie to us? Don't you realize you are dealing with people who are smarter AND better informed than yourself? (Yesterday | post #164)
What Hypocracy? Evolution states that speciation occurs as a result of mutation, natural selection and time. I can present you with definitions of each of these things. I can lay out the mechanisms. I can demonstrate these mechanisms in the lab. ID claims that there is a magical designer. Can you present evidence of this designer? No. Can you present evidence of this magic? No. ALL you have is your own ignorance. You see something you don't understand and because you don't understand it it MUST be magic. Remote Controls aren't magic. They work with electricity and UV light. But to a person from the rainforest, I'm sure they look magical. Do we then teach magic at MIT simply because this one guy from the rainforest didn't know what he was talking about? No. Likewise, you are in your rainforest (The Bible) and have no understanding of remote controls (Biology). As a result, things which are easily understood by those of us in the real world are mystical and magical to you. That's not a bad thing, it just means that you didn't get an education. Good news though - this information is FREE and online. (Yesterday | post #163)
Another falsehood. There is evidence to support this claim. Clearly you didn't read the article in Discover that I refered you to. Start with the basics then work your way upOnce again, you are profoundly confused. You are STILL mistaking the theory of abiogenesis with the theory of evolutionBullshit. You are making a claim. YOU need to provide evidence which supports it. You have not presented a SINGLE experiment we can do which allows us to evaluate this "design" . ANYONE can make a claim. I claim magic elves cause gravity. It is not YOUR responsibility to DISPROVE elves. It's MY responsibility to show that ELVES and ONLY ELVES are the cause of gravityAgain, bullshit. You have not shown any relationship between DNA and cells - much less one requiring design. Let's sum up your position, shall we. "I see things I don't know anything about. I don't try to find the answers - I just claim it's magic." That's THE ENTIRE ID argument. That's not science. It's just willful ignorance. (Yesterday | post #159)
This is how you know when you are debating with someone who is dishonest. When you present them with EVIDENCE which confronts their claim - rather than respond to the evidence they ask try and change the argument. This is not a debate about astrophysics. It's a debate about biology. Don't change the topic. You've been asked to support your claims with evidence. You have failed to do so. Is this because you KNOW you don't have any evidence? OF course it is. (Yesterday | post #154)
This is absolutely correct. No burials of any homonids until Cro-Mag (Sapiens) and Neanderthal (Yesterday | post #151)
FALSE. Let's use your computer code example. (YEs, we BOTH agree computers are created by people) A computer program is, at the most basic level, a string on 1s and 0s. It's a VERY long string of 1s and 0s. A very complex computer program is an extremely LONG string of 1s or 0s. Within that string there are sections which do specific things (sub routines). So, for example, in the program we are both using to write, there is a subroutine which takes input from the keyboard and produces a letter "X" on the screen. The string which produces this X is, let's say, 5000 1s and 0s long. Are you telling me that if we just RANDOMLY put together 1s and 0s we could NEVER come up with the "X" string of 5000 1s and 0s in the right order? NEVER EVER EVER? NO MATTER HOW LONG WE TRIED? NEVER? NOT EVER? Now consider that there lots of other letters and numbers. We start putting together random strings of 1s and 0s and find the "F" not the "X". That's still a success. We get the "G". Success. Each subroutine which comes up with ANYTHING which is successful gets saved, and combined, and added on, etc etc etc. How long before we have a basic hypertext program? How long after that do we have font manipulation? And on and on. Your claim that these numbers can NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be combined randomly to produce ANYTHING which is a positive result is not only profoundly stupid - it's downright dishonest. (Wednesday | post #140)
The computer I'm typing on is not a biological organism. Care to offer a confirmable example of a biological organism which is designed. Contrast it against something that isn't designed. Explain HOW it was designed. Explain HOW you KNOW it was designed. Explain HOW to falsify your claim through experimentation. Can you do ANY of thatIf no experiment is needed to confirm your claim - you have a faith based religion NOT a scientific theory. We both agree. ID is religion, not scienceThen perhaps you shouldn't have claimed that it was. Were you being dishonest or just uneducated and stupidFalse. Here are three letters. E T A You can combine them in a number of ways. ETA, EAT, ATE, AET, TEA, TAE. Some of these combinations spell words. There is not ONLY one way to combine these letters and produce a word, just like there is not ONLY one way to combine DNA to produce something. You are claiming that because you look at DNA which is CURRENTLY in a certain configuration then that is the ONLY configuration that that DNA could have EVER been in. This is wrongOrganic compounds are not strictly formed through biology. They are, in fact, more commonly formed through chemistry. There are several places OUTSIDE of Earth where we have detected organic compounds - clearly they were not generated biologically ON A COMETFalse. Viruses have genetic code and NO cells. You lose _AGAIN_False. There have been a number of experiments run demonstrating that protein chains can result from various chemical processes at differing temperatures. Check out Discover Magazines "life in ice" article for an opening primerEAT TEA ATEFalse. You absolutely can have proteins without DNA. They can be generated through chemical processesGreat. Viruses exist. They don't have cells. Therefore, by your OWN claim, ID has been falsifiedThere have been repeated experiments using nothing but chemistry to produce amino acids. Doubly falsifiedNo, what we say is that the mechanism for ID (ie The CHRISTIAN GOD USED MAGIC) is NOT falsifiable because it's an imaginary being using an imaginary force. If you disagree, provide we with an experiment I can use to disprove the existence of God powered Magic. (Wednesday | post #139)
Except that you don't. you question ONLY what contradicts your personal relationship with Jesus. If you HONESTLY questioned what you read, you would ask questions like -- Why is it that the different copies of the "ID" textbook simply replace the word "Creationist " with "Design Proponents" and what does that imply about the theory? Or Why is it that the DI has had YEARS and MILLIONS OF DOLLARS and has not produced a SINGLE experiment to test ID? Or Why is it that the founders of the DI have come out and said publicly that "The designer is the Christian God" Or Why is it that every claimed IC has been proven to be NOT IC? Why didn't the claimants do some research before making the claim? Or How do we measure "design" ? Or What mechanism is used to create, maintain, control or distribute "design" ? Or Why is it that morphology is not reflected in the genetics if it is all designed? Or Why are there so many mistakes if it's all designed? Or Why is it that descending groups have the same combination amino acid proteins while non-related groups will have a different combination amino acid protein even though BOTH combinations produce the exact same result? Or Why does the retroviral evidence fly in the face of ID? etc, etc, etc, etc, EVER asked yourself ANY of these question? Care to answer them? No of course not, because these questions actually destroy your arguement and therefore make Baby Jesus cryOnce again, in order for IC to be scientifically valid then ALL components must be individually falsifiable. Describe an experiment I can run which would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a MAGIC! designer DOES NOT exist. Can't do it? It's not scienceEVERY biologist is ALWAYS doing experiments - any one of which COULD disprove evolution. None have. NO cDESIGN PROPONENTists have EVER done a SINGLE EXPERIMENT which COULD disprove ID. Who's not questioning whatThat's like saying the NBA doesn't have a player that can beat a nuclear submarine. You aren't even in the right field, let alone on the right court. We don't need to answer "against ID". ID is a religious philosophy. It provides no scientific theory, no data, no mechanisms. There's nothing to answer. How about you present some data THEN we'll bother to deal with it. Right now, we can't exact argue with your "I have an imaginary friend who uses magic" claimGreat, present one. We're WAITING. (Wednesday | post #138)
Well, you are uneducated in the field. This is obvious from the fact that you are making claims which have been refuted thousands of times already. If you were educated, you would have known this. As for stupid/dishonest - it's one of the two. Either you are stupid and honestly believe the crap you are saying, or you aren't stupid and are being dishonest in order to "win one for Jesus". Either way, doesn't look good for youHere's a perfect example of your lack of education and or stupid dishonesty. Haeckel has been debated on this very forum on now less than 50 threads. Read ANY of them? No. Ergo - uneducated and dishonest. OR Yes and therefore uneducated and stupidFirst of all, it's not "my" theory. Second of all, no one gives a crap what you "dare" to do. You've made a claim. We've asked you to provide evidence to support your claim. Instead of doing so, you've demanded that WE provide evidence to refute your claim. That's NOT how science works. That's NOT how debate works. Until you can produce data which SUPPORTS your claim, it's nothing more than that - YOUR claim. I can claim that gravity is caused by invisible elves pulling magic string. PRove me wrongAnother example of your being uneducated, stupid and dishonest. I wrote ON THIS VERY THREAD that if you duplicated genes it allows for FURTHER MUTATION. You are now claiming that further mutation what? Doesn't change what's thereFalseAnd here's another profound example of your lack of education about evolutionRight. NOT the "Origin of life". Life exists. If you have evidence to the contrary present it. If not, I'll just go ahead and chalk up yet another mark in the win column. (Wednesday | post #137)
Fail. ID doesn't offer any explanations about the origins of life. Like evolution, it ASSUMES that life exists. Further, ID also fails in its attempt to explain complexity because it provides: NO confirmable data NO results from obeservation NO results from experimentation NO measurable findings NO explanation as to mechanismFalse. There is NO evidence for ANY "observed origins of specified complexity involving foresight" in nature. Not a single one. Just to be clear ZERO is LESS THAN "allAnd yet you still fail to offer a SINGLE EXPERIMENT TO TEST ID. Why is thatRNA is less complex than DNA, therefore DNA is NOT IC. Proteins are themselves made up of other materials, therefore proteins are NOT IC. So the ONLY part of your statement that's correct is the word "neverDefine information and then proceed to prove that it is "NEVER" the outcome of natural processes. Start with tree rings and explain how the natural process of tree growth doesn't create information about the age of the treeDishonest? Religion attributes magical powers to non-existent beings. ID attributes magical powers to a non-existent being. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and worships a giant golden statue of a duck - it's a religionScience REQUIRES falsifiability. If ID is science, then the "Designer " MUST be falsifiable. Design an experiment which would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there couldn't possibly be a magical designerDentists aren't scientistsTHAT'S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. You don't conclude what you want. You don't conclude what is "suggested ". You rule out EVERYTHING ELSE through experimentation. What experiments have the ID dentists done to rule out the designer? Any? Even one? They've had years and years and millions and millions of dollars - what's the hold upFalse in all aspects. Not an explanation for origin. Not natural. Not observableOnly because you are profoundly ignorant and your personal relationship with Jesus doesn't allow you to learn. Religion and alcoholism stimulate the exact same area of the brain. (Tuesday | post #70)
False and wildly illogical. Take a scrabble bag and randomly withdraw letter tiles. Chances are EXTREMELY good you will spell a 2-3 letter word. Repeat the process a few times, you'll have gotten a few 4-5 letter words. Maybe even a 6+ That's RANDOM selection from a MUCH LARGER data set and yet there's still positive outcomes. Positive mutation is not only possible, it has been DEMONSTRATED IN THE LAB. You know, the "LAB" that place where you've done NO EXPERIMENTSLife is complicated. It is possible that in a changing high stress environment mutations are more favored and change occurs more quickly. It is also possible that isolated groups escape isolation and spread rapidly across a larger area. Both answers would provide for a "quick" replacement of one organism by another in the fossil recordPre-Cambrian life lacked shells and teeth. As those developed over HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, the animals with those hard body parts left MORE, BETTER fossils than their ancestors. No "explosion " in life, just an increase in evidenceBlatantly false. Again, you are either deliberately lying or woefully uneducatedGoogleIt just happens with NO OBSERVABLE MECHANISM using powers OUTSIDE THE NATURAL UNIVERSE. Um, that's MAGIC3,6,9,12,15 you lose againFalse. There is no assumption of natural origin because the assumption is "LIFE EXISTS". No need to specify origin, we don't care. If you have evidence that life DOESN'T exist, feel free to present itYou won't bother to go look it up, because you've already demonstrated a lack of desire to find information for yourself. (Tuesday | post #65)
Your thinking here is fundamentally(ist) flawed. Firstly, with gene duplication it's possible for an organism to have a double set of genes which code for the exact same thing (protein, limb, whatever). When this happens, you have an organism which is functions just as well as its neighbor. If there is a mutation in one of the dupd genes, it doesn't lose the original function because that gene is STILL THERE AND FUNCTIONING. Meanwhile the OTHER copy, the one which changed, can be better, worse or neutral. If better or neutral - there is no force selecting AGAINST it. Natural selection doesn't select FOR the best, it selects AGAINST the worst. No selective force AGAINST something, it's going to stick around. So, your claim that no new mutations can occur without causing a lose of function is absolutely flawed. And, seeing as I have already explained that about 1000X, either you KNOW that you were lying or you just haven't bothered to do any research whatsoever. Secondly, you claim that nothing has "parts" which don't already serve a purpose. Again - false. I know a girl with double sets of tear ducts. I know a girl who lost her baby teeth twice. etc etc etc. There are MILLIONS of examples of people who have double sets or extra "junk" hanging around which doesn't provide them with any advantage or disadvantage compared to others. Third, you are implying that all functions are selected for - ALSO incorrect. Humans have good manual dexterity, it is a handy adaptation which help with obtaining food and creating tools. We also have good tonal differentiation, a good tool for communication. These tools arose COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of one another. Some animals have one and not the other. The result of BOTH these tool is that we can play music. Music, in and of itself, was never SELECTED FOR. I know that it hurts when I point out that your aren't special just because Jesus said so, but claiming that you are anything but a Fundamentalist 6 day Creationist is really just a bunch of bullcrap. We saw you coming a mile away. (Tuesday | post #64)
I don't need to. If you (or anyone supporting Creationism) had ACTUAL evidence you could present, you would have done so in a fashion that would leave no ambiguity. But that's not what happens, is it? You've never presented any serious data. You go out and claim some random thing is IC, then tell us it's our job to prove you wrong - as though you had the presumption of authenticity. But you don't. You've offered no evidence, no reason to believe that ID is correct other than your claims that it is so. So, either start providing us with REAL data from REPEATABLE experiments and REAL mechanism, REAL causal forces, etc. OR- just admit that you are nothing but the latest weaksauce attempt by Creationists to force feed people their religious agendaNo, the picture can't. But the screw CAN. You are claiming that screws in and of themselves serve no purpose. That they ONLY exist for the purpose of a combustion engine. THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF IC. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that something is IC, but that it is also reducable. You need to go back and learn your side of the "debate" before you try and coach me on mineOr apparently anythingThen "Elf pull rope theory" will only be debunked when EVERY object with mass is proven individually to cause gravitational pull. Bull crap. You don't get to claim IC is correct until you offer evidence FOR it. So far, you've only CLAIMED a great number of things are IC - and the claims have all been WRONG. (Tuesday | post #63)
You have to be more clear, what do you want links for? By the way, it is not our job to explain away IC. You must FIRST PROVE IC exists. You have not done so. You list things you believe are IC (wings, eyes, ears, etc) But EVERY TIME you guys trot one of these things out it gets shown to be reducable. So, after 100+ failures, you are up to bat again. What are you claiming _this time_. Oh, and by the way, what experiment can we run to confirm that this is IC? What mechanism was used to produce this IC item? What force used that mechanism? So far, you guys have NO answers. (Tuesday Aug 5 | post #60)
Like what you see?
Create your own Topix Profile
Olympics