A Simple Arguement Against INTELLIGENT Design

[Foster Zygote]

Have you ever taken courses in organic chemistry and biochemistry?

Joobz isn't one to blow his own horn, but I think what he does is pretty cool so I'll blow it for him. Joobz is a Ph.D. professor working in organic and biochem. What are your credentials? What courses in organic and biochemistry have you taken? Knowing this would help me to evaluate your claims.

You are proposing a series of chemical reactions that are extremely difficult in the controlled environment of a laboratory. You now want these chemical reactions to occur randomly in an uncontrolled environment in something you call a soup. I don’t have to ask very many questions before you would say “I don’t know”.

You're just claiming a God-of-the-gaps victory. Biologists are not afraid to say "we don't know, but we're working on it". What you're trying to do is look for gaps in scientific knowledge, imply that the unknown is unknowable, and say "Goddidit!" Physicists are yet baffled by the mechanism of gravity. Do you think they will never find a functional, testable theory of gravity? Or should we assume that God does gravity as well?

I am not posting here to try to prove ID, I am doing the much easier task of disproving the theory of evolution.

So what do you propose to replace the theory of evolution with? A 6000 year old Earth? Is it turtles all the way down?

The science behind these techniques is called pattern recognition. If you want to learn about these techniques, google the terms archeology & “pattern recognition” or seti & “pattern recognition”. You can even involve yourself in the SETI@home project and analyze some radio signals yourself for signs of intelligence.

I fail to see what SETI and pattern recognition have to do with your claim to be able to prove abiogenesis impossible. Please explain.

 

[joobz]

I’d love to hear an explanation from an evolutionist with rather in depth knowledge of organic and biochemistry why some bacteria use d-amino acids.

I was purely challenging your "only l-lactic acid" presumption. I can't answer where d-amino acids were being used and when it started.

While you are at it, why don’t you explain what you mean by these reactions occurred in a cooperative manner.

Envision a system of millions of forming and destructive chemical reactions. Now, envision that intermediates of there reactions associate through non-covalent means and that this complex becomes protected against the destructive reactive pathway, perhaps by a reversible precipitation. These new complexes result in a localized increased of new chemical species. These chemical species then progress in a new series of reaction... that is what I mean through cooperative means. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of chemical possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these reaction to occur.

Consider combustion chemistry. It's an oxidative process which predominately oxidizes fuels into smaller MW products, CO and CO2. Yet, larger mw products can and typically do form during this process due to the excess energy present. And during the mapping of it's pathways, intermediates have been shown to combine to form new compounds. Granted these are transient and thermodynamically unstable, but highlight the shear complexity of something as benignly simple as burning. If you wish to know more, look into Phil Westmoreland and combustion.

You still owe an explanation of how the first prions formed and the first DNA, but I’m sure you will say that these chemicals “cooperated”.

See above description. If you are not satisfied with it, that isn't my failing.

 

[fishbob]

I'm saying no such thing. There can certainly be a research program to find the direct evidence for intelligent design, just as biologists are finding direct evidence for evolution. Is there such a research program?

~~ Paul

Of course there is no such research program, and Kleinman must know that. There is no substance in the ID organizations.

No research, no experimentation, no observation, no testing. Nothing.

 

[fishbob]

. . . Paul, there are research programs to identify intelligent design.

Really?
Please name some.
One, even.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here's Dembski's description of a research program:

http://www.meta-library.net/id-wd/intel-frame.html

So who is one of the preeminent researchers in the ID field? Michael Behe. Let's find out how his contributions to the research program are going:

http://www.home.duq.edu/~lampe/BeheCV2.html

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

Not even close. Why don't you try again?

What do you think an intelligently designed program shows?

 

[T'ai Chi]

You mean you think it's possible that mutation and natural selection in nature can't increase the Shannon information in a genome?

I'm saying the obvious; that you're attempting to argue against intelligent design by employing a program that was intelligently designed.

 

[zizzybaluba]

What do you think an intelligently designed program shows?

a simulation of natural phenomena.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Before one can ask why there is something rather than nothing, one must ask whether there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing and receive a positive answer.

So you believe inquiring into orgins is only meaningful if there is "a reason" why things exist? Since we all do inquire into orgins, it seems you obviously do believe there is a reason.

 

[articulett]

Why is god so wasteful and cruel if he's designing stuff. Why would men make 2000 billion sperm in a lifetime if only one or two was going to be utilized (and the product is not always the fine specimen such odds might lead you to imagine they'd be.) Why are sentient animals made to suffer by non-sentient life forms like parasites, bacteria, and those scary little jelly fish, etc. Does god like them more? Is it part of his grand design? Is the internet "intelligently designed" or is it just sort of made up as we go along with no master plan? Complexity evolving from simplicity seems to be very common in our universe--

 

[fishbob]

What do you think an intelligently designed program shows?

You knew your first response was bogus, so is this one supposed to divert attention or what?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not having followed this thread, I was amazed to see three pages.

The argument against ID is simple. None of the rest of this stuff matters. You can't find something in the design that disproves ID for two reasons. One, no matter what the flaws, that doesn't disprove a designer, and two, natural selection mimics a designer.

It's the wrong path, period, end of thread.

HOWEVER, the whole ID argument is based on the premise that certain organs such as the eye could not have evolved bit by bit because there is no precursor organ an eye evolved from.

AND THAT ARGUMENT IS FALSE AND EASILY REFUTED. Not only is there clear evidence how an eye evolved bit by bit, there are also examples of all the precursor eyes still in living organisms today. There are cells which merely react to light all the way to the two eye organs all seeing creatures have, mammal and insect eyes. And genetic science shows the details quite nicely.

So quit looking for some design flaw that disproves ID, and start using the actual argument, ID is based on the premise of irreducible complexity and IR has been thoroughly refuted.

 

[Mr. Scott]

"interesting" news about sea urchins

Mate.

Escape! Well, I can win too by changing the rules in the middle of the game. I'm so happy chess is easy for you, but I haven't seen your name on any championship circuit (evidence?).

There is no intellectual honesty in your argument style, Justin, and that is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy (trying to win by cheating). Why do IDers feel they have to cheat to win?

BTW, there is "interesting" recent news that scientists, after completely transcribing the DNA of the purple sea urchin, found its immune system to be in some ways much more complex than human's (10-20 times more genes encoding immunity than humans). It also shares 70% of its genes with humans because of a common ancestor from 540 million years ago. Why would a creator build a perfectly consistent DNA family tree structured to look exactly as if no creator existed?

So why, Justin, does god have an inordinate fondness for beetles and purple sea urchins?

Check!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm saying the obvious; that you're attempting to argue against intelligent design by employing a program that was intelligently designed.

I'm not using Ev as an argument against intelligent design. I'm using it as an argument in support of evolution. The fact that it is a computer program has nothing to do with whether it demonstrates increase in information by mutation and selection.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So you believe inquiring into orgins is only meaningful if there is "a reason" why things exist? Since we all do inquire into orgins, it seems you obviously do believe there is a reason.

Note that I was talking about whether there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing. If there is, then one can ask why there is something rather than nothing. Once there is something, which there obviously is, then many additional origin questions don't have the "is there a reason" problem.

Do I think there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing? I have no idea.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So quit looking for some design flaw that disproves ID, and start using the actual argument, ID is based on the premise of irreducible complexity and IR has been thoroughly refuted.

There you have it, my friends. Next argument for ID, please.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

There is no intellectual honesty in your argument style, Justin, and that is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy (trying to win by cheating).

Please try and attempt to focus on the issue rather than personalities.

Why would a creator build a perfectly consistent DNA family tree structured to look exactly as if no creator existed?

If you're building buildings, wouldn't it make sense to use similar blueprints?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm not using Ev as an argument against intelligent design. I'm using it as an argument in support of evolution.

Is it an intelligently designed program?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Note that I was talking about whether there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing.

Yes, orgins. Orgins of everything.

If there is, then one can ask why there is something rather than nothing.

No. One can ask why there is something rather than nothing even if there is no "reason".

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why is god so wasteful and cruel if he's designing stuff.

A designer might be god(s) or aliens, and maybe some other choices.

The fact that there is waste, pain, etc... why do you believe such things would be evidence against a designer? Take any design... one can always find improvements in it.

Why are sentient animals made to suffer by non-sentient life forms like parasites, bacteria, and those scary little jelly fish, etc.

And extra-drippy ice-cream cones, don't forget those!

Cuz we all gotta eat? A better question is why sentience in the first place?

Complexity evolving from simplicity seems to be very common in our universe--

Complexity is a human term that is relative to intelligence. Chess might be complex for you, not for me. Math might be complex for me, but not for you.

But let's look at you're belief system: ccording to you, the orgin of the universe is the simplest thing ever (I'm thinking it is pretty complex myself). Fine. It should be a piece of cake for you to explain, in detail, not in the form of a creative short story, the orgin.