Pittsburgh Professor questions evolutionary assumptions

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

Pittsburgh Professor questions evolutionary assumptions

#1

Post by August » Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:02 am

At last a biologist who does not presuppose gradual descent with modification in the face of contrary evidence. He proposes sudden changes, which explains away the gaps in fossil record, and accounts for inconsistencies in the "molecular assumption". He personally remains committed to some sort of naturalistic evolutionary hypothesis, to be clear.

However, his findings can also be congruent with the front-loading hypothesis of ID:
"However, Schwartz notes, a mutation also can be recessive in an organism for many generations before it is displayed in its offspring. Whether or not the offspring survives is another matter. If it does in fact live, the presence of this genetically modified organism is not the product of gradual molecular change but a sudden display of the genetic mutation, which may have occurred myriad years prior."

The question then is for how many generations was it recessive? Or could it have been inherent in the design of life from the beginning, to manifest when needed, as the front-loading hypothesis in ID predicts?

He also say that the ToE is anything but a valid theory, it will always remain hypothesis:
“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else,” says Schwartz."

http://mac10.umc.pitt.edu/m/FMPro?-db=m ... 2807&-Find
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."

//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com

User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Pittsburgh Professor questions evolutionary assumptions

#2

Post by Gman » Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:51 pm

August wrote:He also say that the ToE is anything but a valid theory, it will always remain hypothesis:
“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else,” says Schwartz."

http://mac10.umc.pitt.edu/m/FMPro?-db=m ... 2807&-Find
Finally the truth comes out... Thanks August... Most educated scientists I've seen will admit that the ToE is not completely factual.. These are from very liberal colleges too.

My belief is that both ID and the ToE it will always remain a hypothesis unless we get some divine intervention saying otherwise in the future... There is no reason to get nervous or worried about it. That is why both ID and the ToE should be taught in our public systems...
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8

sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Pittsburgh Professor questions evolutionary assumptions

#3

Post by sandy_mcd » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:05 pm

Could somebody explain how Schwartz' ideas fit in with current thinking on the different flavors of evolution and the front-loading concept of ID?

It seems to me that the novelty of Schwartz' proposal is not in sudden changes replacing gradual descent but in the mechanism of how sudden changes occur. The concept of sudden changes (e.g punctuated equilibrium) has been around since the late 1800's (see e.g. Schwartz http://www.pitt.edu/~jhs/articles/darwi ... o_devo.pdf) and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium wrote:proposed and specifically identified by Mayr in 1954, most historians of science recognize Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's 1972 paper as the principal source of its acceptance (by both paleontologists and evolutionary biologists).
Schwartz seems to advocate an effective increase in mutation rate due to stress
Reduced synthesis of molecular chaperones will also stochastically affect the folding both of regulatory proteins responsible for the proper expression of developmentally regulated genes and of proteins involved, e.g., in chromosome rearrangement and DNA repair. This would further increase the number of retained, but normally suppressed or corrected, mutational events (again, increasing the effective mutation rate), without changing the actual rate of mutation (Fig. 3B).
which may not be expressed morphologically for a number of generations (again, an old idea, see references from 1913 and 1916):
But since, as pointed out by Bateson ([1913]) and demonstrated by Morgan ([1916]), it is likely that the mutation (i.e., the availability of new signaling pathways) will arise in the recessive state (i.e., be inactive), the potential for change will have no effect on its bearer or those descendants that inherit it (Haldane,[1932]; Wright,[1932], 1940; Fisher,[1958]; Schwartz,[1999a], 1999b). ...

If extreme stress-induced major mutational events are brought together in the zygote in a homozygous state, the organism will probably die because the new condition will most likely interfere with genetic and consequent developmental and epigenetic constraints. Nonetheless, the fortuitous combination of mutational events affecting the regulation of development (including, for example, signaling pathways or morphogenetic gradients, as well as the physical consequences of cell size and packaging and other potential epigenetic factors) may on (rare) occasions result in morphological novelty that does not interfere with an organism's survival. Thus, while it may take some number of generations for the recessive state to spread from the initial bearer of it, the novelty itself, whether lethal or viable, will emerge suddenly and in more than one individual (Schwartz,[1999a], 1999b). The number of individuals with novelties will increase as heterozygotic parents continue to produce homozygous offspring and as homozygotes mate with each other (Schwartz,[1999a], 1999b). Thus, the degree of genetic novelty that could occur in one individual would spread silently across a succession of generations in a relatively short period of time, eventually leading to a seemingly instantaneous appearance of morphological novelty in a number of individuals.
So in the case of front-loading, would these recessive traits be always present, rather than produced as a result of stress as Schwartz proposes? Is there a way to test which of these ideas for the source of recessive traits is more likely?
Furthermore, I suspect that his quote
The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis.
refers more to the details of how evolution occurred rather than to whether or not it did. As
August wrote:He personally remains committed to some sort of naturalistic evolutionary hypothesis
So Schwartz doesn't seem to think his work is a threat to evolution.
http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/19991212review395.asp wrote:“Evolution is not a theory,” argues Schwartz. “It is a phenomenon. What evolutionists … strive to understand are the processes that make evolution tick. ..."

RoyLennigan
Recognized Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:13 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#4

Post by RoyLennigan » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:42 pm

I agree with Schwartz's thinking. The way that genetics works allows for a lot of unused information to be stored in the genes, seperated on each end with a gene that marks whether it is 'on' or 'off'. It is definately more likely that evolution occurs with puncuated change, though not entirely drastic.

Evidence shows that most large changes occur due to an environmental change, or the need for the organism to relocate to a new environment. This means that breeding will select for different genes within the already present sets. Most evolutionary change occurs without mutation, as mutations generally are detrimental to survival, though nonetheless crucial in the whole process. Even the genes themselves, unchanged in a group of organisms, can lead to drastic changes--with the ability to change one species to another. Throw in the random beneficial mutation and we have just about enough variables to allow for a wide variety of gene sets.

What you are thinking--that it is possible for the original organisms to have gene sets embedded in them for the entire population of earth's living things--seems to me only partially plausible. To me, this postulation would mean that the original blueprint of dna would be like a single, unchanging equation that sorts through the sets of data coming into it (the energy and matter that the organism requires) and fits this into itself, making itself ever-more complex. That this process was inevitable with the first strand of DNA, or proto-DNA as it may be.

The information in genes, afterall, is only a very very complex pattern of protein strands made of the same stuff. Its only following the blueprint in its DNA as it applies to the environment around it. That is truly why there are different animals. At its basics, the DNA is the same, but different environments call for different parts of it to be used.

sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#5

Post by sandy_mcd » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:24 pm

RoyLennigan wrote:What you are thinking--that it is possible for the original organisms to have gene sets embedded in them for the entire population of earth's living things--seems to me only partially plausible.
Good point. I reread Schwartz and he means the mutations are recent ones building up over a relatively few generations. If the recessive traits had always been present (not increased in frequency), then there would be no increased chance of their expression as a novel morphology.
RoyLennigan wrote:To me, this postulation would mean that the original blueprint of dna would be like a single, unchanging equation that sorts through the sets of data coming into it (the energy and matter that the organism requires) and fits this into itself, making itself ever-more complex. That this process was inevitable with the first strand of DNA, or proto-DNA as it may be.
That seems to be sort of the meaning of frontloading. http://www.researchintelligentdesign.or ... nt-loading http://telicthoughts.com/misconceptions ... t-loading/

User avatar
godslanguage
Senior Member
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:16 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#6

Post by godslanguage » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:56 am

Evidence shows that most large changes occur due to an environmental change, or the need for the organism to relocate to a new environment. This means that breeding will select for different genes within the already present sets. Most evolutionary change occurs without mutation, as mutations generally are detrimental to survival, though nonetheless crucial in the whole process. Even the genes themselves, unchanged in a group of organisms, can lead to drastic changes--with the ability to change one species to another. Throw in the random beneficial mutation and we have just about enough variables to allow for a wide variety of gene sets.
So mutations are not really part of the process, what are you saying here exactly Roy?
It seems that beneficial mutations with no goal directed or no goal intended process are at best theoretical. An increased amount of DNA means what exactly, nothing, because it doesn't result in an increase in function.
"Is it possible that God is not just an Engineer, but also a divine Artist who creates at times solely for His enjoyment? Maybe the Creator really does like beetles." RTB

sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#7

Post by sandy_mcd » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:13 pm

Here's another reference showing how old some of this argument is:
News and Views, Nature 446, 147-149 (8 March 2007) Evolutionary biology: The Elvis paradox Andrew Hendry[1] wrote:Much of the challenge can be distilled down to what has been called the 'paradox of stasis'[2]. For me, the most obvious manifestation of this paradox is that neo-darwinian theory, with its emphasis on the power of selection, predicts the potential for rapid adaptation, whereas most lineages of organisms instead show long-term stasis: that is, very little cumulative change over long periods of time[3, 4]. Several hypotheses have been advanced in the hope of resolving this seeming discontinuity between short- and long-term evolution[2, 4, 5], but none has been convincing enough to resonate across the various camps. ...
Whatever the model, it will have to generate rapid changes on short timescales, and yet still be constrained by boundaries on long timescales[4]. It is also possible that the paradox is a phantom, against which swords are of no use. Indeed, it may have been dead on arrival: way back in 1944, George Gaylord Simpson[8] suggested that evolutionary stasis might be explained by 'adaptive zones', where fitness peaks move back and forth within constrained bounds.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#8

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:35 pm

godslanguage wrote:
Evidence shows that most large changes occur due to an environmental change, or the need for the organism to relocate to a new environment. This means that breeding will select for different genes within the already present sets. Most evolutionary change occurs without mutation, as mutations generally are detrimental to survival, though nonetheless crucial in the whole process. Even the genes themselves, unchanged in a group of organisms, can lead to drastic changes--with the ability to change one species to another. Throw in the random beneficial mutation and we have just about enough variables to allow for a wide variety of gene sets.
So mutations are not really part of the process, what are you saying here exactly Roy?
It seems that beneficial mutations with no goal directed or no goal intended process are at best theoretical. An increased amount of DNA means what exactly, nothing, because it doesn't result in an increase in function.
No mutations are clearly part of the process. What is being stated here is that major changes do not occur, simply as a result of random mutations themselves, but due to environmental pressures.

Because...

A long span of time can go by where various mutations collect and the diversity of a population increases. By the time a stressor (selective force) appears, the population will have some diversity to work with.

For instance from a single ancestral dog we are able to combine existing genes through breeding, into novel forms never found in the wild such as a dalmation. Perhaps a few mutations occurred somewhere along the line of breeding, but many of the traits existed in the parent population. Only in a combination which did not result in the desired look.

Now you might want to equate genes to computer programs as you seem to like to do at times. The problem is that genes are not like computer code. You can take the genes from a Chihuahua and that of a Great Dane and you get a viable puppy, albeit a mutt...

If you recombine the code for Windows 95 with the code for Windows 98 in a similar manor, you get a run time error.
lol
Not a great analogy right? :wink:

Similar to electronics, you can combine the components of an industrial strength microwave with that of one in a college dorm room, and you get a public health hazard.
heh

As for new information, if I take an image file and duplicate it in size, it is new information. Even if, the result is the same picture one on top of the other. The picture occurring twice is different from the single picture. If I make modification to random point in the image, it is even more different.

Same with lets say, memory chips, I simply add more flipflops and we have more memory. Now we have more information as well, even though it's not new information, it is new in the fact that it is a new combination of information. In electronics the new combination of information is relatively simple, die to the simplicity of the mechanics. These components are rigid and do not serve multiple purposes in the product.

In biology however the components are flexible, and serve indeterminate functions, governed by the laws which are the subject of organic chemistry. In other words the complexities of the platform on which these components are expected to run are drastically different.

Now let's go back to how recombination and selection can lead to drastic changes in a population. Let us say a population has accumulated several hundred mutations over two generations. Now this of course would mean that the new genes are relatively rare and only exists in but a few perhaps even a single individual.

Now normally the mutation will not have any impact on the population. But let's say that several more generations go by and there happens to be a sudden change in the environment. Perhaps a disease goes through the population. There will be a selection process as a result. The distribution of genes will be different than it was before. And as a result the individuals, who result from this population, will be distinct from that of its parent population.

It will be a subset.

For simplicities sake, here's an example with numbers. Let's say we have a bag with 1's 2's 3's and 4's. The bag has 100 of each. Now the numbers in the bag is equally distribution between odd and even numbers.

Now to simulate the disease. Three will represent the number which is susceptible to this disease. We remove 90% of the 3's. The bag is no longer equally distributed between odd and even numbers.

User avatar
godslanguage
Senior Member
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:16 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#9

Post by godslanguage » Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:35 pm

No mutations are clearly part of the process. What is being stated here is that major changes do not occur, simply as a result of random mutations themselves, but due to environmental pressures.
So wait, you are saying random mutations are part of the process but that large macro changes occur based on environmental pressures as well, gee well hasn't this already been covered? Have you seen one of these massive changes occur through the scientific process of experiment and the observable? Has there been one example where a single genetic mutation has produced new information for new beneficial structure in the genome of the organism? I understand that this was a “long” process but the resources and technology is available. So far, evolutionists have done a bunch of misleading simulations through computer programs, which have been proven to be a predictive, pre-programmed environment where the conclusion will lead to the obvious of the one who programmed it. They overlook nearly all the intelligence, in fact some seem to have trouble swallowing this word “intelligence” as though it doesn't belong in science or more generally, it doesn't belong in the dictionary. It looks like many seem to be on complete opposite sides of the triangle here.
Myselft, I'm having trouble defining this word evolution depending on the context and form its used, especially when its used to refer to how the space shuttle came about? The term Evolution (as defined by modern Darwinists) to me, is a lazy way of saying a long process of change instead of a long process of intelligent input to produce a very specific, complex and purposeful structure (the output).

Because...

A long span of time can go by where various mutations collect and the diversity of a population increases. By the time a stressor (selective force) appears, the population will have some diversity to work with.

For instance from a single ancestral dog we are able to combine existing genes through breeding, into novel forms never found in the wild such as a dalmation. Perhaps a few mutations occurred somewhere along the line of breeding, but many of the traits existed in the parent population. Only in a combination which did not result in the desired look.


Now you might want to equate genes to computer programs as you seem to like to do at times. The problem is that genes are not like computer code. You can take the genes from a Chihuahua and that of a Great Dane and you get a viable puppy, albeit a mutt...
Bgood, I am sure you probably had no problem before in saying DNA is a code, but now when I compare computer code embedded in software, you say… no its not a code anymore (perhaps this implies too much of the IDT theory for you?). Richard Dawkins for some very odd reason (since you don't agree with him on this) believes that DNA resembles computer code and it can be defined as a type of digitally encoded computer language. What have you of this?..what is the point of going circular about this? You believe this code generated from the unguided, its a biological code, but nevertheless its still a code, that abides by a set of conditions of input variables and output variables. The input variables can be energy and the output can be a motion, what is the problem you are seeing here that I don't seem to understand?

Another thread I showed an example to how not, or, xor, xnor, and gates, and how 1-bit storage units based on latches, d-latches (made out of flip-flops built from gates) ALU's (arithmetic logic units) etc...the basis of computer engineering for circuitry applications, the basis for building CPU processors, memory storage (NVRAM, RAM, ROM, FLASH) and the basis for mostly all of modern switching technologies, all its foundation of the transistor (NPN,PNP types). What do you think about this implementation of the biological to the technological, why is there such similarities in function and structure in DNA/RNA (the transcriptional logic) to the function of these simple silicone semi-conductor based transistors that take the simple function of reacting (opening or closing) according to the polarity of the electrical current (electrons) flowing through it, more technically, flowing accross conjunction point of the transisitor. You do see the reasons for why and how there to be explicit similarities right, which should be compared too, you do see benefits in this right, apart from transcribing it to the IDT's???

The minute ID is introduced, it is a molecular machine. The minute Darwinists start defining it, its a blob of goo that looks like a machine????

If you recombine the code for Windows 95 with the code for Windows 98 in a similar manor, you get a run time error.
lol
Not a great analogy right? :wink:

Similar to electronics, you can combine the components of an industrial strength microwave with that of one in a college dorm room, and you get a public health hazard.
heh

As for new information, if I take an image file and duplicate it in size, it is new information. Even if, the result is the same picture one on top of the other. The picture occurring twice is different from the single picture. If I make modification to random point in the image, it is even more different.

Same with lets say, memory chips, I simply add more flipflops and we have more memory. Now we have more information as well, even though it's not new information, it is new in the fact that it is a new combination of information. In electronics the new combination of information is relatively simple, die to the simplicity of the mechanics. These components are rigid and do not serve multiple purposes in the product.

In biology however the components are flexible, and serve indeterminate functions, governed by the laws which are the subject of organic chemistry. In other words the complexities of the platform on which these components are expected to run are drastically different.

Well, the "systems" themseleves aren't all that differant, you are looking at the software still from the view point of the entire system itself (entire operating system).

Depending on if you are referring to combining code through genetic engineering or simply reproduction, obviously, through natural reproduction, you cannot combine genes of a horse with a cockroache and expect to get a horseroache. Essentially, that is the same way it works with computer code, windows 95 and 98 aren't all that differant, the language involved programming for the system architecture itself including the kernel of the OS's has not changed. C programming for example, which came after assembly language was the programming language of choice for building OS's, software and now implemenations of it or extended versions of it such as C++, Java are more widely used, nevertheless the syntax has changed a bit, but writing the code itself has not really changed at all. A for loop is still a for loop, a pointer is still a pointer, an if statement is still an if statement etc... The point is, that all it takes is some sort of compiler that an OS can then use to execute the code. So the answer is, yes, it is possible to recombine the code with Windows 95 with 98, given that ---> You have something else (other code) that makes this possible and flexible enough that would allow you to do such a thing. The purpose of this example I'm assuming is that you can read and write and essentially have a fully functional operating system, based on both versions. Since DNA is designed to be recombined with other DNA within the same species, and since Windows 95 code and 98 code was not designed for this task but it could be, the logic here of DNA code and computer code being incomparable is inconsistent, because DNA contains the code to have the ability to be combined, essentially when there is this type of advanced code, in my belief, it is part of the act of purpose. (sort of like that assembly line example I stated to you previously)
"Is it possible that God is not just an Engineer, but also a divine Artist who creates at times solely for His enjoyment? Maybe the Creator really does like beetles." RTB

sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#10

Post by sandy_mcd » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:40 am

godslanguage wrote:The term Evolution (as defined by modern Darwinists) to me, is a lazy way of saying a long process of change instead of a long process of intelligent input to produce a very specific, complex and purposeful structure (the output).
Since there seems to be one side of the triangle still open, let me ask two questions of people who observe intelligent input. [My abstract thinking is awful.]
1) What are some specific examples of intelligent input in this long process? How often do these events occur? [For example: At one time there were no flowering plants. How did flowering plants arise? Did intelligent input alter the DNA of one or more plants? Or were flowering plants just created from nothing, but using a similar model and common features? I'm serious - my thinking is so different from this that I have no idea of what is meant. Do events like this happen every day or every few centuries? I have a broad idea of what is meant by evolution, but no image of what the proposed alternative is.]
2) Bah, I'll pass on this one for now.

User avatar
godslanguage
Senior Member
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:16 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#11

Post by godslanguage » Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:41 am

sandy_mcd wrote:
godslanguage wrote:The term Evolution (as defined by modern Darwinists) to me, is a lazy way of saying a long process of change instead of a long process of intelligent input to produce a very specific, complex and purposeful structure (the output).
Since there seems to be one side of the triangle still open, let me ask two questions of people who observe intelligent input. [My abstract thinking is awful.]
1) What are some specific examples of intelligent input in this long process? How often do these events occur? [For example: At one time there were no flowering plants. How did flowering plants arise? Did intelligent input alter the DNA of one or more plants? Or were flowering plants just created from nothing, but using a similar model and common features? I'm serious - my thinking is so different from this that I have no idea of what is meant. Do events like this happen every day or every few centuries? I have a broad idea of what is meant by evolution, but no image of what the proposed alternative is.]
2) Bah, I'll pass on this one for now.

Intelligent input is probably the most vague way I can think of for saying to produce complex purposeful structures. How does this apply to God, well, this is not really the point, the point is what IDT is insisting on, that some features are best explained by an intelligent cause, so therefore there must be some sort of intelligent guided process and not just some random chaotic one. Whether from God's point of view this was determined from the beginning or during the process of creation, I'm really not entitled to answer that, God is beyond the scope of my imagination at least, in terms of His creative process.

A scientific approach for ID would be to explain those features through an intelligent perspective, this includes how everything works but with the idea that these were designed, so therefore they should express elements and principles of pattern in real-time design. The bacterial flagallum is one example since it can be compared with a rotary engine, therefore it deserves to have a better explanation.
"Is it possible that God is not just an Engineer, but also a divine Artist who creates at times solely for His enjoyment? Maybe the Creator really does like beetles." RTB

User avatar
bizzt
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:11 pm
Christian: No
Location: Calgary
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#12

Post by bizzt » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:46 am

godslanguage wrote:
sandy_mcd wrote:
godslanguage wrote:The term Evolution (as defined by modern Darwinists) to me, is a lazy way of saying a long process of change instead of a long process of intelligent input to produce a very specific, complex and purposeful structure (the output).
Since there seems to be one side of the triangle still open, let me ask two questions of people who observe intelligent input. [My abstract thinking is awful.]
1) What are some specific examples of intelligent input in this long process? How often do these events occur? [For example: At one time there were no flowering plants. How did flowering plants arise? Did intelligent input alter the DNA of one or more plants? Or were flowering plants just created from nothing, but using a similar model and common features? I'm serious - my thinking is so different from this that I have no idea of what is meant. Do events like this happen every day or every few centuries? I have a broad idea of what is meant by evolution, but no image of what the proposed alternative is.]
2) Bah, I'll pass on this one for now.

Intelligent input is probably the most vague way I can think of for saying to produce complex purposeful structures. How does this apply to God, well, this is not really the point, the point is what IDT is insisting on, that some features are best explained by an intelligent cause, so therefore there must be some sort of intelligent guided process and not just some random chaotic one. Whether from God's point of view this was determined from the beginning or during the process of creation, I'm really not entitled to answer that, God is beyond the scope of my imagination at least, in terms of His creative process.

A scientific approach for ID would be to explain those features through an intelligent perspective, this includes how everything works but with the idea that these were designed, so therefore they should express elements and principles of pattern in real-time design. The bacterial flagallum is one example since it can be compared with a rotary engine, therefore it deserves to have a better explanation.
Just a quick question here. How can one explain the features through an intelligent perspective if we are unsure how that intelligent perspective designs? If for example ID is to remain that a Designer created the Universe then who was the Designer. How do we explain said Designers Process if we are unsure who the Designer is? We then jump into the Belief or our own perspective of who that Designer could be. Unfortunately we are unable to put that under Scientific analysis. Right? In the end I see a problem with us filling the Gap per se with God yet Evolutionists Fill the Gap with Hypothesis's that have no real application in Science. Anyways Continue ;) :)

User avatar
zoegirl
Old School
Posts: 3927
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:59 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: east coast
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#13

Post by zoegirl » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:49 pm

My one problem with ID as both a philosophy and a science regards our interpreting God's intentions.

For example...ID claims that Design can be a testable phenomenon. THen came along "junk" DNA. Accordning to ID....

Do we assume that God makes junk...that assumes that we know it is junk and that we know God can't make something with no purpose.

Do we predict that it does have a function? In the case of non-coding DNA, they have found some regulatory finctions, however, if they hadn't?

Can we test God's intentions?

AS soon as we claim that we know how God designs and his intent, then I think we are falling into a huge pit that we cannot dif ourselve out of.

User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

#14

Post by Gman » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:40 pm

zoegirl wrote:For example...ID claims that Design can be a testable phenomenon. THen came along "junk" DNA. Accordning to ID....

Do we assume that God makes junk...that assumes that we know it is junk and that we know God can't make something with no purpose.
That's not necessarily true.. Please read Rich Deem's article on "When "Junk" DNA Isn't Junk."

"The roles of non-coding DNA are so numerous and pervasive that evolutionary studies are now looking at these sequences for patterns of "concerted evolution." In summary, the non-coding DNA, contrary to statements by evolutionists, is not useless, but is, in fact, required for genomic functionality, therefore actually providing evidence of intelligent design. The "junk" DNA is really some rather amazing "junk."

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8

User avatar
zoegirl
Old School
Posts: 3927
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:59 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: east coast
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#15

Post by zoegirl » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:46 am

I knew that :oops: I honestly meant to put it in my previous post...simply was left out

I acknowledge that there is now a function fo junk DNA....
But what if we hadn't found one? That was my point

Post Reply