A Simple Arguement Against INTELLIGENT Design

[kleinman]

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.

Have you ever taken courses in organic chemistry and biochemistry? If you have, you would know that my questions are not leading you to the irreducibly complex issue. What I am trying to lead you to is what would be required for these chemical reactions to occur nonezymatically. Let’s start with some simple facts from biochemistry. Living things only use L-amino acids and R-sugars. This means that even if you can form amino acids as described in the original Miller experiment, ½ of the amino acids will be R-amino acids. If somehow you could form the sugar D-ribose, D-ribose is an unstable sugar which at best has a half life of less than 50 years. 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”.

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

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 thsee techniques? I'm curious as to what you mean.

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.

 

[zizzybaluba]

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

Lofty goal...
Are you in the running for a Nobel Prize, or having delusions of grandeur?

 

[T'ai Chi]

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?

Pick any thing. Where did that thing ultimately come from? Your naturalistic answer:

The chemicals came from whatever started the universe.

So you believe it started itself? Something that previously didn't exist decided to get energy and start itself?

 

[kleinman]

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.

The so what is that you want to hold ID to a level of proof that evolutionist can’t achieve either.

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?

You didn’t answer my question but I will follow the evasive response you gave by asking whether you believe that ev gives an accurate simulation of the rate of Shannon information that can evolve via mutation and selection?

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.

If that be the case, how will the SETI experiments identify radio signals from an intelligent form that is not human?

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

Lofty goal...Are you in the running for a Nobel Prize, or having delusions of grandeur?

I doubt I’d be in the running for a Nobel Prize for something like this, I expect that Nobel prize committee is dominated by devout evolutionists, as far as having delusions of grandeur, I’m not the one who thinks that the most complex molecules known came into being by random processes (let’s not forget natural selection).

 

[T'ai Chi]

"Ev shows that Shannon information can evolve via mutation and selection."

An intelligently designed computer program hints what can (ie may, ie could, ie possibly) happen in real life: news at 11.

 

[zizzybaluba]

I doubt I’d be in the running for a Nobel Prize for something like this, I expect that Nobel prize committee is dominated by devout evolutionists, as far as having delusions of grandeur, I’m not the one who thinks that the most complex molecules known came into being by random processes (let’s not forget natural selection).

If you think evolution by natural selection is a random process, then you understand nothing of evolution or natural selection.

 

[dakotajudo]

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.

Nonsense.

Scratch any research into the domestication of crop species (or livestock, but I'm most familiar with crops) and you'll find scientists with techniques for identifying observations as being of "intelligent origin" or from "random processes".

I used quotes for a reason - the more precise terms in this case would be "artificial selection" and "natural selection".

A good example of this is the relationship between teosinte and maize. We can be pretty certain that maize is an artificial crop species - it simply can not survive, in the wild as a species, without human intervention.

Teosinte is the wild grass most like maize, and is most generally considered the ancestor of maize. However, there is some debate on this point; the path from teosinte to maize is not clear.

Determining this relationship requires, in part, some research to identify the marks of artificial selection.

see, for example,
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=122905
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=29389
www.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/033/1502/0331502.pdf
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/262/5131/233

or, more simply
http://teosinte.wisc.edu/questions.html

The general concept is true for pretty much any domesticated crop, to varying degrees. Maize is one of the cultivars most dependent on intelligent management; others less so (forage crops can hang around a while). There are themes that appear over and over again, the can be used to readily identify species whose evolution has been directed by humans for ease of culitivation and harvest.

Consider, for example, the domesticated and wild-type soybean species. Note how the differences between the two are comparable to difference between maize and teosinte. See www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/poster/3/3/2/392_saitohk.htm for a simple example.

Of course, the principle of dependence on human cultivation leads to thoughts about those species that do not need human intervention, but take advantage of human (semi-intelligent) dispersal.

Intelligent, in that some thought goes into selecting species for to transport from their natural range to a similar environment, often far away; semi-, in that little thought is given to the impact of a species when taken away from its natural competition.

For example, kudzu.

For more examples, see www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/ .
Note that most of these represent species that are cultivated by humans, but not domesticated (or selected) by humans. An important distinction, if you want to understand evolution.



I can't understand why anyone who would attempt to argue against evolution would not understand the importance of domestication to the debate, and ignore the principles of selection, artificial or otherwise.

NB: I had to monkey with the URLs; I don't have enough posts to include them verbatim.

[Edited to activate URLs, Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

 

[joobz]

Have you ever taken courses in organic chemistry and biochemistry? If you have, you would know that my questions are not leading you to the irreducibly complex issue. What I am trying to lead you to is what would be required for these chemical reactions to occur nonezymatically. Let’s start with some simple facts from biochemistry. Living things only use L-amino acids and R-sugars. This means that even if you can form amino acids as described in the original Miller experiment, ½ of the amino acids will be R-amino acids. If somehow you could form the sugar D-ribose, D-ribose is an unstable sugar which at best has a half life of less than 50 years. 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”.

It is actually my rather in depth knowledge of the disciplines you state that leads me to the conclusions I make. i've stated rather clearly that these reactions most likely occured in a cooperative manner. In that fashion it is easy to understand how mostly only the L-amino acids were used. chirality is crucial for affinity based associations. You switch the chiral center and you can easily remove affinity. This would just compound itself over time. And it isn't true that only L-amino acids are used. some bacteria have been found to use d-amino acids. For instance lactococcus lactis uses d-Asp.

 

[kleinman]

Ev shows that Shannon information can evolve via mutation and selection.

An intelligently designed computer program hints what can (ie may, ie could, ie possibly) happen in real life: news at 11.

T’ai Chi, I am one of the very few creationists/IDers who believes that Dr Schneider produced a plausible computer model for random point mutations and natural selection. What Dr Schneider and other evolutionists failed to do is a systematic parametric study of his model. Dr Schneider published a single case from his computer model using an unrealistic genome length (256 bases) and an unrealistically high mutation rate (1 mutation per 256 bases per generation). This case evolved 96 loci in less than 1,000 generations. If you increase the genome length (to 100,000 bases) and use a realistic mutation rate (1 mutation per 1,000,000 bases per generation), Paul obtain the number of generations to evolve the same 96 loci at about 200,000,000 generations. His model shows that macroevolution is impossible when realistic parameters are used. This is why Paul is doing all this back peddling about his statement that ev models reality. Dr Schneider is in a much more difficult position. He has posted numerous quotes stating that ev models reality. He even wants to do experiments verifying his results from ev making requests of people with a microbiology lab to contact him.

If you think evolution by natural selection is a random process, then you understand nothing of evolution or natural selection.

I have a very good understanding what random point mutations and natural selection is all about. I understand the distinction you are trying to make. Dr Schneider’s ev computer model is the simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. I have been discussing this issue for months with Paul and Dr Schneider. My suggestion to you is go to Dr Schneider’s (google “Schneider” & “ev”) web site and find his ev java program. (I would post the URL but I am still too new a member for this site to allow me to do this). Paul wrote the java version of the program. Start with Dr Schneider’s baseline case and then start doubling the genome length and watch what happens to the generations for convergence (evolution).

 

[kleinman]

It is actually my rather in depth knowledge of the disciplines you state that leads me to the conclusions I make. i've stated rather clearly that these reactions most likely occured in a cooperative manner. In that fashion it is easy to understand how mostly only the L-amino acids were used. chirality is crucial for affinity based associations. You switch the chiral center and you can easily remove affinity. This would just compound itself over time. And it isn't true that only L-amino acids are used. some bacteria have been found to use d-amino acids. For instance lactococcus lactis uses d-Asp.

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

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Pick any thing. Where did that thing ultimately come from? Your naturalistic answer:

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. I don't have answers to either question.

So you believe it started itself? Something that previously didn't exist decided to get energy and start itself?

See above.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The so what is that you want to hold ID to a level of proof that evolutionist can’t achieve either.

Biologists are doing a fine job of gathering evidence for evolution. I await the Intelligent Design Research Program.

You didn’t answer my question but I will follow the evasive response you gave by asking whether you believe that ev gives an accurate simulation of the rate of Shannon information that can evolve via mutation and selection?

An accurate simulation of the rate in the real world? The one rate? The rate?

If that be the case, how will the SETI experiments identify radio signals from an intelligent form that is not human?

They will start by assuming that aliens leave similar traces. They will not start by making assumptions about what sort a traces a magical god would leave. Even so, they may make mistakes.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

An intelligently designed computer program hints what can (ie may, ie could, ie possibly) happen in real life: news at 11.

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

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.

However, I have to admit that the revelation did appear to come as a surprise to Dembski, who spent some time trying to find the place in the code that snuck in the information:

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/claimtest.html

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you increase the genome length (to 100,000 bases) and use a realistic mutation rate (1 mutation per 1,000,000 bases per generation), Paul obtain the number of generations to evolve the same 96 loci at about 200,000,000 generations. [Poof!] His model shows that macroevolution is impossible when realistic parameters are used. [Poof! mine]

I'm missing the poof part. At 1 generation per day, that's 548,000 years. Is there some problem with that length of time?

~~ Paul

 

[dakotajudo]

I have a very good understanding what random point mutations and natural selection is all about.

This may be true, but that it does not appear you understand evolution or natural selection.

When you say

His model shows that macroevolution is impossible when realistic parameters are used.

,
what you mean to say is that macroevolution is impossible when realistic parameters for random point mutations are used.

Duh?

This confirms a bias of my own - that random point mutations are not very important in generating the diversity needed for useful selection.

Recombinations and resortments and the like are much more important, in generating diversity.


I dunno, ev doesn't strike me as a very useful model for understanding evolution, when compared to simulations based on population genetics.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I dunno, ev doesn't strike me as a very useful model for understanding evolution, when compared to simulations based on population genetics.

The purpose of Ev was to show that mutation and natural selection could increase the Shannon information in a genome. In particular, it would increase to a predictable value and then level off. I agree that one should beware of thinking that Ev models anything like the entire richness of the evolutionary landscape.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

The so what is that you want to hold ID to a level of proof that evolutionist can’t achieve either.

Biologists are doing a fine job of gathering evidence for evolution. I await the Intelligent Design Research Program.

I guess Dr Schneider’s ev model no longer falls into the fine job category. What’s the matter with the research that I’ve done on ev. At the very least you will stop saying that his program models reality. That is so unfortunate, IDers have been saying for years that ev doesn’t model reality, now evolutionists are saying that ev doesn’t model reality, I feel all alone, I’m the only one who agrees with Dr Schneider that ev models reality. Do you think that ev models punctuated equilibrium like Dr Schneider published in his paper?

You didn’t answer my question but I will follow the evasive response you gave by asking whether you believe that ev gives an accurate simulation of the rate of Shannon information that can evolve via mutation and selection?

An accurate simulation of the rate in the real world? The one rate? The rate?

Paul, this is not Law and Order. You will not be arrested for your answer, I will only quote you at some later date for the purpose of annoying you when you contradict yourself.

If that be the case, how will the SETI experiments identify radio signals from an intelligent form that is not human?

They will start by assuming that aliens leave similar traces. They will not start by making assumptions about what sort a traces a magical god would leave. Even so, they may make mistakes.

Of course aliens leave similar traces as humans, I’ve seen it on Star Trek, aliens all speak English.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, this is not Law and Order. You will not be arrested for your answer, I will only quote you at some later date for the purpose of annoying you when you contradict yourself.

Then I think Ev gives the precise rate at which Shannon information will evolve. No matter what biological mechanism is evolving, no matter the population, mutation rate, environmental pressure(s), genome sizes, previous evolution of those genomes, no matter what factor whatsoever, no matter even random events, real life will evolve at exactly the rate Ev shows.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

This confirms a bias of my own - that random point mutations are not very important in generating the diversity needed for useful selection. Recombinations and resortments and the like are much more important, in generating diversity.

How does recombination increase information in the gene pool? Recombination does allow for diversity in a population but recombination (without errors) and natural selection can only cause loss of information in the gene pool you can never create a new gene by this mechanism.

 

[fishbob]

Let's me get this straight, you're basically baffled by the definition of "design" and the definition of "intelligence" ?

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