A Simple Arguement Against INTELLIGENT Design

[T'ai Chi]

What do you mean "something from nothing"? It's not from nothing, it's from chemicals, mutations, selection,

You must believe in spontaneous generation then? The chemicals et al just appeared from nowhere, out of nothing.

 

[Mojo]

I smell straw.

 

[Mojo]

And/or a false dilemma.

 

[Mr. Scott]

What banged the big bang? What banged the banger of the big bangs? Naturalistic turtles all the way down? The answer that there must have been a naturalistic reason explains nothing.

The difference in the theistic and naturalistic hypotheses is that the theistic ones escalate complexity indefinitely and the naturalistic one reduce it. The preponderance of evidence, in accord with Occam's Razor, indicates that the simplest hypotheses is most likely the correct one.

Check...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You must believe in spontaneous generation then? The chemicals et al just appeared from nowhere, out of nothing.

Huh? First you mention spontaneous generation, which is life from chemicals, then you say the chemicals just appeared from nowhere. Are you talking about the appearance of life or chemicals?

The chemicals came from whatever started the universe. If you want to believe that was miraculous, fine. Life came from the chemicals. If you want to call that "spontaneous generation,"* fine.

~~ Paul

* Note the scare quotes around "spontaneous generation."

 

[Foster Zygote]

Huh? First you mention spontaneous generation, which is life from chemicals, then you say the chemicals just appeared from nowhere. Are you talking about the appearance of life or chemicals?

The chemicals came from whatever started the universe. If you want to believe that was miraculous, fine. Life came from the chemicals. If you want to call that "spontaneous generation,"* fine.

~~ Paul

* Note the scare quotes around "spontaneous generation."

I think Justin is attacking the big bang theory based on his misconception of space/time. He seems to think that there was a "before" the big bang, not realizing that time itself begins at the big bang. He's trying to compare the big bang to the problem of "what created God then?" by using a definition of universal origins that no cosmologist would. Hence, his "what banged the big bang?" silliness.

 

[kleinman]

IDers have two choices:

1. Demonstrate that the intelligent designer has an ongoing interaction with the world. You can do this by gathering direct evidence to that effect or by showing mathematically that naturalistic evolution cannot produce life as we know it.

2. Admit that he does not interact with the world and so must have designed everything prior to creation. In this case, evolution is doing the work one way or the other, so stop arguing with evolution.

Most IDers are not opting for (2), so where is the research program?

1. Paul, I will demonstrate to you that the intelligent designer has an ongoing interaction with the world right after you demonstrate that every event in your life occurs by some random process and natural selection. Dr Schneider’s ev program shows that naturalistic evolution cannot produce life as we know it.
2. God does interact with the world all the time; you just don’t like the way God is doing it.

Evolutionists take more than enough taxpayer money for this type of research. All they have to do is look at the details of their research and they can figure this one out.

Since we are talking about simple arguments, Professor Behe has raised the hypothesis of irreducible complexity and used the example of the flagellum to support his theory. Professor Kenneth Miller countered this theory with his “Flagellum Unspun” argument. Professor Miller’s argument states that the components of the flagellum had other biological uses before the flagellum came into being and therefore the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

I asked Professor Miller whether he thought the DNA replicase system was irreducibly complex. If not, what were the biologic purposes of helicase and gyrase before DNA could be replicated? He was not able to answer this question. Perhaps one of you evolutionary scientists can answer that question.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

1. Paul, I will demonstrate to you that the intelligent designer has an ongoing interaction with the world right after you demonstrate that every event in your life occurs by some random process and natural selection. Dr Schneider’s ev program shows that naturalistic evolution cannot produce life as we know it.

I cannot demonstrate what you ask, but what does that have to do with anything? If you want to show that the designer has an ongoing interaction, you have to (a) produce direct evidence for this; or (b) demonstrate mathematically that no natural process could produce the world as we know it.

2. God does interact with the world all the time; you just don’t like the way God is doing it.

I don't have any idea what this means.

Since we are talking about simple arguments, Professor Behe has raised the hypothesis of irreducible complexity and used the example of the flagellum to support his theory. Professor Kenneth Miller countered this theory with his “Flagellum Unspun” argument. Professor Miller’s argument states that the components of the flagellum had other biological uses before the flagellum came into being and therefore the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

After Behe brought up the flagellum, Dembski wrote an entire book about it (No Free Lunch). In it he tried to calculate the probability of the flagellum arising as a discrete combinatorial object. Unfortunately, no biologist is claiming that it arose that way. So at this point there is no mathematical argument about the improbability of the flagellum at all. Meanwhile, the work to determine the evolutionary path of the flagellum is ongoing, as it is for the eye, blood clotting cascade, and all the other poster children of ID.

I asked Professor Miller whether he thought the DNA replicase system was irreducibly complex. If not, what were the biologic purposes of helicase and gyrase before DNA could be replicated? He was not able to answer this question. Perhaps one of you evolutionary scientists can answer that question.

And perhaps they cannot yet. So what?

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

I asked Professor Miller whether he thought the DNA replicase system was irreducibly complex. If not, what were the biologic purposes of helicase and gyrase before DNA could be replicated? He was not able to answer this question. Perhaps one of you evolutionary scientists can answer that question.

And perhaps they cannot yet. So what?

~~ Paul

the notion of one enzyme=one function has been fairly well discounted. Many enzymes can serve multiple rolls and these rolls wouldn't have been demonstrated unless the conditions for thier activity has been discovered.

For instance when in neutral pH, peroxyredoxin 6(PrDX6) can directly reduce oxidized phospholipid when the phosopholipid is still in the bilayer and the enzyme.
However, when the pH drops to below 5, the enzyme converts into a phospholipase (with phospholipase A2 activity). this was not known until someone tested the enzyme under the right conditions.

So, even if an enzyme's function is seemingly single minded, it might not be the case.

 

[kleinman]

1. Paul, I will demonstrate to you that the intelligent designer has an ongoing interaction with the world right after you demonstrate that every event in your life occurs by some random process and natural selection. Dr Schneider’s ev program shows that naturalistic evolution cannot produce life as we know it.

I cannot demonstrate what you ask, but what does that have to do with anything? If you want to show that the designer has an ongoing interaction, you have to (a) produce direct evidence for this; or (b) demonstrate mathematically that no natural process could produce the world as we know it.

Paul, what you are saying is that IDers have to produce scientific proof in a way that you can’t produce for your own theory of evolution.

With respects demonstrating mathematically that no natural process could produce the world as we know it, I refer the readers to Paul’s Annoying Creationists thread.

2. God does interact with the world all the time; you just don’t like the way God is doing it.

I don't have any idea what this means.

Keep seeking the truth, you will find out what this means.

Since we are talking about simple arguments, Professor Behe has raised the hypothesis of irreducible complexity and used the example of the flagellum to support his theory. Professor Kenneth Miller countered this theory with his “Flagellum Unspun” argument. Professor Miller’s argument states that the components of the flagellum had other biological uses before the flagellum came into being and therefore the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

After Behe brought up the flagellum, Dembski wrote an entire book about it (No Free Lunch). In it he tried to calculate the probability of the flagellum arising as a discrete combinatorial object. Unfortunately, no biologist is claiming that it arose that way. So at this point there is no mathematical argument about the improbability of the flagellum at all. Meanwhile, the work to determine the evolutionary path of the flagellum is ongoing, as it is for the eye, blood clotting cascade, and all the other poster children of ID.

I haven’t read Dembski’s book however so I won’t try to defend his work. I have read Professor Miller’s argument against irreducible complexity.

I asked Professor Miller whether he thought the DNA replicase system was irreducibly complex. If not, what were the biologic purposes of helicase and gyrase before DNA could be replicated? He was not able to answer this question. Perhaps one of you evolutionary scientists can answer that question.

And perhaps they cannot yet. So what?

Think about for a while, maybe it will come to you.

the notion of one enzyme=one function has been fairly well discounted. Many enzymes can serve multiple rolls and these rolls wouldn't have been demonstrated unless the conditions for thier activity has been discovered.

For instance when in neutral pH, peroxyredoxin 6(PrDX6) can directly reduce oxidized phospholipid when the phosopholipid is still in the bilayer and the enzyme.
However, when the pH drops to below 5, the enzyme converts into a phospholipase (with phospholipase A2 activity). this was not known until someone tested the enzyme under the right conditions.

So, even if an enzyme's function is seemingly single minded, it might not be the case.

joobz, would you like to speculate on the function helicase and gyrase before DNA could be replicated. Perhaps you would like to tell us how helicase and gyrase were produced without DNA.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, what you are saying is that IDers have to produce scientific proof in a way that you can’t produce for your own theory of evolution.

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

 

[kleinman]

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?

Then, what did you mean when you said:

I cannot demonstrate what you ask, but what does that have to do with anything?

Do you believe that Dr Schneider’s ev computer model is an example of direct evidence for evolution?

Paul, there are research programs to identify intelligent design. Archeologists are trained to recognize whether a particular artifact is something man made or the result of weathering or erosion. Radio astronomers are trained to recognize whether a radio signal is from a natural source or from an intelligent source. For some reason evolutionists feel they are exempt from these principles.

 

[joobz]

joobz, would you like to speculate on the function helicase and gyrase before DNA could be replicated. Perhaps you would like to tell us how helicase and gyrase were produced without DNA.

I'd be happy to. Perhaps early versions of helicase and gyrase were produced through a prion type mechanism along in the same soup as DNAs were forming and interacting. I wouldn't discount the notion that they actually did evolve together. ie, that short chain DNAs assembled randomly with types of transcriptases and these produced molecular offspring. I think it would be wholly folly to assume that each protein/DNA/lipid...evolved to some preassumed higher level state seperately and then mixed together.

 

[Yahzi]

The intelligent designer likes sharks more than humans, obviously.

"If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles."

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then, what did you mean when you said:

I cannot demonstrate what you ask, but what does that have to do with anything?

I meant that I, Paul C. Anagnostopoulos, cannot demonstrate that particular thing at this particular time.

Do you believe that Dr Schneider’s ev computer model is an example of direct evidence for evolution?

Not per se. It is evidence that mutation and selection can generate Shannon information from randomness.

Paul, there are research programs to identify intelligent design. Archeologists are trained to recognize whether a particular artifact is something man made or the result of weathering or erosion. Radio astronomers are trained to recognize whether a radio signal is from a natural source or from an intelligent source. For some reason evolutionists feel they are exempt from these principles.

Hang on. Are you saying that God had a hand in evolution, so biologists are fooling themselves, whereas he had no hand in weathering, erosion, crystallization, quasars, pulsars, and binary stars? All scientists except biologists can safely assume purely naturalistic factors? I did not know that.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

joobz, would you like to speculate on the function helicase and gyrase before DNA could be replicated. Perhaps you would like to tell us how helicase and gyrase were produced without DNA.

I'd be happy to. Perhaps early versions of helicase and gyrase were produced through a prion type mechanism along in the same soup as DNAs were forming and interacting. I wouldn't discount the notion that they actually did evolve together. ie, that short chain DNAs assembled randomly with types of transcriptases and these produced molecular offspring. I think it would be wholly folly to assume that each protein/DNA/lipid...evolved to some preassumed higher level state seperately and then mixed together.

Give us some details, how did these prions in the soup come about? How did the first base come about? How did the first short chain DNAs assemble?

I meant that I, Paul C. Anagnostopoulos, cannot demonstrate that particular thing at this particular time.

Paul, do you know of any evolutionist who can demonstrate that every event in your life occurs by some random process and natural selection?

Do you believe that Dr Schneider’s ev computer model is an example of direct evidence for evolution?

Not per se. It is evidence that mutation and selection can generate Shannon information from randomness.

What do you believe is/are the limitations of ev computer model to be direct evidence of the theory of evolution?

Paul, there are research programs to identify intelligent design. Archeologists are trained to recognize whether a particular artifact is something man made or the result of weathering or erosion. Radio astronomers are trained to recognize whether a radio signal is from a natural source or from an intelligent source. For some reason evolutionists feel they are exempt from these principles.

Hang on. Are you saying that God had a hand in evolution, so biologists are fooling themselves, whereas he had no hand in weathering, erosion, crystallization, quasars, pulsars, and binary stars? All scientists except biologists can safely assume purely naturalistic factors? I did not know that.

What I am saying is that there are scientific disciplines which have techniques for identifying observations as being of intelligent origin or from random processes. Evolutionists completely ignore these principles.

 

[joobz]

Give us some details, how did these prions in the soup come about? How did the first base come about? How did the first short chain DNAs assemble?

To your fair question, I gave a logical, chemically consistent hypothesis for how helicase and gyrase could have been generated as such they are not irreducibly complex. Mainly because I thought it an interesting issue.

I could continue down that track all the way if you wish, and answer all of your "tell me more" questions, these speculations are of interest to me and wouldn't really change much from the process I've already supposed. But I get the sense that you will continue this until I grow tired and you say "Ah Ha!, that's the irreducible point." But this doesn't make sense. Because of my own inability to know it all doesn't prove ID, it just proves where I don't know.

What I am saying is that there are scientific disciplines which have techniques for identifying observations as being of intelligent origin or from random processes. Evolutionists completely ignore these principles.

Can you give an example of these techniques? I'm curious as to what you mean.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The difference in the theistic and naturalistic hypotheses is that the theistic ones escalate complexity indefinitely and the naturalistic one reduce it.

"complex" is a human term which is also relative to intelligence. You might find chess complex, I find it easy.

The preponderance of evidence, in accord with Occam's Razor, indicates that the simplest hypotheses is most likely the correct one.

Check...

Of course, this just shows misunderstanding of what Occam's Razor actually says. It doesn't say anything about what is most likely correct.

All it says is if H1(m) and H2 are hypotheses with m and n assumptions respectively, that both explain event E equally well, go with H1(m) iff m is less than n as your candidate hypothesis.

In fact, what you've really done by resorting to OR is claim that both hypotheses explain the orgin of the universe equally well.

Mate.

 

[zizzybaluba]

Mate.

Not tonight honey, I have a headache.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, do you know of any evolutionist who can demonstrate that every event in your life occurs by some random process and natural selection?

No, but so what? I know of no one who can demonstrate that every elephant has a terrestrial origin. This is not evidence in favor of an alternative source of elephants.

What do you believe is/are the limitations of ev computer model to be direct evidence of the theory of evolution?

Ev shows that Shannon information can evolve via mutation and selection. Didn't I already say that?

What I am saying is that there are scientific disciplines which have techniques for identifying observations as being of intelligent origin or from random processes. Evolutionists completely ignore these principles.

We have techniques for identifying the human hand in the origin of an artifact.

~~ Paul