The whole point of this thread is to prove that there is legitimate research being performed. You have yet to show this.Wall-dog wrote:BGood,That's bunk. Hundreds of scientists are currently performing legitimate scientific research on ID. It is a strong, flexible theory that is rapidly growing in following both in and outside the scientific community. You make it sound like I'm the only guy on the planet who thinks ID is credible.You seem to be disputing her but all you did was repeat what she said in a long winded manor. Your use of theory is the same as the scientific use of hypothesis.
As for the bunk comment, I didn't mean to be condescending or dismissive.
Why can't we include tornadoes they don't reproduce and they appear fairly complex.Wall-dog wrote:I wouldn't include tornadosTake a look at how life reproduces and tell me again how this shows irreducible complexity in life? What you are saying is that because inanimate peices of a mouse trap don't self assemble, that the self assembly of complex systems in cells is explained by intelligence? Does this also explain the complex physics involved in tornadoes?
The point is answering the mouse trap question does not answer the former.Wall-dog wrote:, but certainly nano technology illustrates intelligence directing micro mechanisms that are both designed and that replicate themselves. Besides that, while most ID proponents do not believe in evolution, ID does not in and of itself refute evolution. Nothing in ID theory claims that organisms cannot evolve after they are designed.
Did the parts of a cell all appear together spontaneously, or did they all already exist for quite some time before they randomly fell into place to create the first living cell? At least with the mousetrap we can answer that.
I agree.Wall-dog wrote:Not if you use your short sighted criteria that the function must remain. If you notice B changes the function of A. As the spring in a mousetrap serves a different function than in a pen.
I didn't say that the function must remain. I said that a function must remain. For something to evolve it must evolve from something. You can't reduce without preserving something. Keep in mind that with a living cell, no function means no life. Also keep in mind that while a pen might not serve the same function as a mousetrap, it does serve a function.
No because could is a hypothesis, demonstrating it could makes it closer to a theory.Wall-dog wrote:It's a theory. I only claim that it shows itAgain how does this show that something was designed? What is design?have been designed. And that's semantics...could
Please remind me again what this math is?Wall-dog wrote:That the mousetrap isn't going to be assembled without intelligence. I was using a common illustration used by ID proponents. See my previous post with all the quotes - there is hard math behind my contention that some things are better explained by intelligence than by chance.What are you testing then, by tossing mousetraps in the air?
Again with the suppositions, where is the empirical data?Wall-dog wrote:So RNA is intelligent? You do understand that the chemistry of life is no different than other chemical processes? So who is assembling a yeast cell when it duplicates?
RNA and DNA may not be intelligent themselves, but the one who designed them may well have been.
Again assumptions.Wall-dog wrote:Who assembled the first yeast cell is a better question.
I didn't accuse you of making it up, I am only pointing out that it is conjecture, you have yet to show any experiments dealing with any mechanism of ID.Wall-dog wrote:Evidence? Would you like more quotes or will you take my word for it that legitimate scientists claim DNA was probably designed? If you want quotes I'll be happy to provide them. Just tell me how many you need before you stop accusing me of making it up.What is the evidence which supports this idea? Otherwise it seems to be a story of some sort.
You stated DNA is proof of a designer. Don't we need proof of a designer to prove a designer?Wall-dog wrote:Now you are the one jabbing.How is it scientific proof? I am beginning to think you don't understand what science is.
I just did but for your benefit I'll create a new one.Wall-dog wrote:That would be a very short-lived hypothosis. Please reduce the single-celled organism to a similar absurdity.Worms make holes in the earth. So all holes in the earth are from worms.
You claim that because you remove a part from a cell it no longer lives and that proves that it is irreducibly complex.
If I remove a stone from an arch and it crumbles, does this prove that the arch is irreducibly complex?
I don't recall arches being built all at once.
You are saying because people are involved that there was intelligence involved. Don't you think you are blurring the picture? In other words the process is iterative any sort of test will do.Wall-dog wrote:Are you pointing out flaws in my argument, or helping me prove it? It was an iterative process inherently involving intelligence and design.And finally you seem to be missing a fundamental flaw to your argument. The machines being built today are built on a design. This design did not just appear, it was created through an iterative process. Beleive me when I say that it took alot of trial an error to "design" your microwave oven.
For example I need a device that will hit balls very far. I take a design and keep modifying and testing etc... until I have a good bat. Where does the intelligence come in? In making the judgement that the bat is good? So when the same process is used in nature where is the intelligence?
No it wouldn't have occurred without elimination by trial. Think about it.Wall-dog wrote:I don't care how much trial and error it took. It would never have happened without a form of intelligent design. Man is imperfect so we need trial and error.
Again with the suppositions, when will we get to actual experimentation and empirical evidence?Wall-dog wrote:The same may not be true of the designer of the single cell organism.
FalseWall-dog wrote:If you'd like a quick play on words, replace 'evolution' and 'common descent' with 'ID'. All statements are still accurate.The mechanisms of evolution are still at work today.
The process of evolution still continues to this day.
Once we understand the mechanisms of evolution we can examine living forms and identify where these changes occurred.
Comparative analysis morphological and genetic lend credence to the idea of common descent.
You have yet to explain how the mechanisms of ID are testable, let alone that they are still at work to this day.
ID has yet to show any processes.
Without experimentally confirming any of the mechanisms of ID any examination of the data is pure speculation.
It is like seeing a lamppost bent in your driveway and saying that bigfoot did it. Look no man is strong enough and there are stories of bigfoot. Do you have evidence of bigfoot?
Now let me be clear on this point, notice I am not stating there is no bigfoot.
But to claim that the lamppost is evidence of bigfoot is not scientific.
Noone stated this. Is this the problem you have with science? Science cannot say either way, as there is no evidence. Nobody stated it was not God. You are stating that it must be because we don't have the answers. See the difference?Wall-dog wrote:'We don't know what it is but it sure wasn't God' is a statement of faith - not a statement of science.Exactly my point! For evolution the moments of diversion are all speculation and best guesses based on fossil record and mutation rates. However for IC the status rest on the fact that we do not know how it could have come about gradually. Irreducible complexity is identified by our present lack of knowledge. It basically fills in the gaps in our knowledge, certainly not advised and definately not scientific.
There is a thread on the Cambrian explosion. You can post info there. You're assertion that it has been disproven is false.Wall-dog wrote:Evolution based on fossil record and mutation rates has pretty much been disproven by such things as the Cambrian Explosion.
???Huh???Wall-dog wrote:I really want to pull out one statement:
How do you know it came about gradually? That is a theory - not a fact.However for IC the status rest on the fact that we do not know how it could have come about gradually.
The statement is that IC is based on the fact that evolution cannot account for something. Not that IC came about gradually.
"Exactly my point! For evolution the moments of diversion are all speculation and best guesses based on fossil record and mutation rates. However for IC the status(of a phenomenon as being charachterized as ID) rest on the fact that we do not know how it could have come about gradually. Irreducible complexity is identified by our present lack of knowledge. It basically fills in the gaps in our knowledge, certainly not advised and definately not scientific. "
Wall-dog wrote:I'm spending enough time on this thread.There is a thread on it feel free to post there.
No, I accept both possibilities.Wall-dog wrote:And you assume the converse...Again you are assuming that function came before form.
For example for the antennae on your cell phone function came before form.
No it shows that it is reducible. It shows that life can exist without the mitochondria. And it does. And it points to a possibility that the mitochondria is a result of Endosymbiosis. Perhaps we should start a thread on this topic, it appears you are missing the point, or may not understand the concept. This is not an ad hominum attack. Just want to make sure I am using ideas you understand.Wall-dog wrote:That it may be irreducible.It is irreducible now because the mitochondria is now required for all anaerobic life. But the mitochondria has it's own genome, and behaves and reacts much like a bacteria. What does this show you?
Here is the information again so that you can review.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... iosis.html
Let me know if you have any questions.
You're assuming this without evidence. If you attack the questions this way you will be guilty of circular reasoning. It will be better to say you think that it may be designed this way.Wall-dog wrote:So the cell was designed to be able to reproduce. What's your point?How come with the mouse trap it's the person who assembles it who has the intelligence yet with the mold its not the mold cell which assembles the daughter cell that possesses intelligence? What kind of analogy is this? Please stop rationalizing and use real data and real science.
Again this is not scientific.Wall-dog wrote:The intelligence would still rest with the designer of the first cell. Nano technology has shown that mankind can also produce micro-mechanisms that reproduce.
Not quite as this program indirectly runs in the environment. And does not encode any actual operating instructions. It's more like a blueprint for interactive animated components. And the instruction for operation are the laws of nature itself.Wall-dog wrote:The Bible does say we are created in God's image, but no - I wasn't saying anything as arrogant as that. I was simply saying that DNA resembles a computer program in many ways.You think because you can program that you are like God? Don't you see how evolution is much more flexible,complex and intricate than the most complex of human inventions?
I'll give you this, but what theory isn't? That is why biologists are still at work, because of the unanswered questions.Wall-dog wrote:And no - what I see about evolution is that it is a flawed theory.
Or better yet they should acknowledge that they do not know yet.Wall-dog wrote:Theories get disproven. Saying that we know something is not true today does not mean we should have known that 500 years ago - and if they did not know that, they should have acknowledged that it was possible.And because we don't know the exact mechanisms you say it must be a higher intelligence?
What about 500 years ago when we didn't know why lightning struck some houses burning them down, it was a higher intelligence?
Not if you understand that evolution as a process appears to have taken place, but the mechanism which accounts for it is still under debate. The only alternative would be multiple creation events or alien seeding, which science cannot address at this time.Wall-dog wrote:Your point?
Isn't overnight a little too short for evolutionary theory??
Tell me then how is microevolution restricted? Is there a definition of a mouse encoded in the DNA preventing it from growing to large sizes and adapting new features? Have there been experiments conducted to show that microevolution cannot proceed beyond a certain point?Wall-dog wrote:You really call that a better explanation? That the elephant is decended from the mouse?So can microevolution account for the evolution from a mouse to an elephant? Its only a longer nose, greater body mass, longer teeth etc...
Assembly of a mousetrap? No.Wall-dog wrote:Throwing around mousetraps does not show that assembly requires an intelligent force. It only shows that mousetraps require assembly.
Are you disputing that assembly requires intelligence?
How is this not a hypothesis, and how does one test this?Wall-dog wrote:ID says that an intelligent creature may have designed and created it.Then show how it does so.
So are we now talking about intelligent assembly?Wall-dog wrote:They did assemble it, and I think the designers of the Ford Ranger probably qualify as intelligent also.These UAW workers designed the Ranger?
Now I feel you are insulting me, as I have posted countless possible experiments during the course of this discussion. Is it not your goal to show how ID is a scientific discipline?Wall-dog wrote:Ditto.Simply because you state the scientific method, then you proceed to rationalize, instead of actually applying the scientific method. You are appealing to peoples sence of what should be or what must be and neglect any actual data or experimental results. Your post was devoid of any empirical data or anything else which would resemble the scientific method. Thus I stated that you were able to define the scientific method but were unable to show that you understood it.
Exactly.Wall-dog wrote:Since when did lack of knowledge become a proof under the scientific method? When we don't know, we theorize. ID is a theory...I am not disprooving IC to prove evolution! I am disproving IC to show that IC is a result of our lack of knowledge not because it actually exists.
Lack of knowledge is not a proof.
I am simply stating that you have failed to show how we can identify IC other than stating that evolution cannot account for it.
IC is a concept not a scientific theory, you have failed to show how it can be identified.