Evolution and Intelligent Design

[KBCid]

Have done so but it will take them time to do their part and until they can implement it I will do my part to spread the understanding which so far has not been touched on by any appreciable debate. If that is any indicator I would think you should be worried about the future of your beliefs.

As a scientist in training, I am not "worried" about the future of my beliefs. I will get behind what the evidence supports. Good luck on revolutionizing the human race's understanding of biology. Could you give us any more insight as to the type of research/experiments being performed by you and your colleagues?

I have referenced a ton of papers that show a huge variety of the aspects of the system which I am discussing.

Have you thought about this;
What cause have you seen that can form an irreducibly complex precision system that spatiotemporally controls the arrangement of matter to allow for replication of 3 dimensional form? Remember... no replication, no evolution.

Evolution by natural selection is a pretty well established cause.

Alright then you will have no problem citing the evidence for Evolution by natural selection being able to form;

"an irreducibly complex precision system that spatiotemporally controls the arrangement of matter to allow for replication of 3 dimensional form"

I haven't heard anyone use irreducible complexity in a while. From what I have seen, the Discovery Institute doesn't use that one anymore.

You have obviously not been listening then;

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/840/

About Irreducible Complexity
Responding to Darwinists Claiming to Have Explained Away the Challenge of Irreducible Complexity
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
September 2, 2010

Modern biology has discovered that cells are like miniaturized factories that function using micromolecular machines. In Darwin’s Black Box (1996), Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe proposed that many of these molecular machines exhibit irreducible complexity and therefore could not have been produced by an undirected Darwinian process. Instead, they appear to be the product of intelligent design. Behe’s book initiated a firestorm of controversy both inside and outside of the scientific community, and the debate continues to rage. As the responses below demonstrate, Behe’s arguments have not been refuted. Indeed, the case for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum and other molecular machines has continued to grow.
http://www.discovery.org/a/3408

Access Research Network
An Introduction to
Molecular Machines and Irreducible Complexity
http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm


IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
Dr. Robert Macnab of Yale University concluded a major 50 page review of the sensory and motor mechanism of the bacterium, E. coli, with these remarks:
As a final comment, one can only marvel at the intricacy in a simple bacterium, of the total motor and sensory system which has been the subject of this review and remark that our concept of evolution by selective advantage must surely be an oversimplification. What advantage could derive, for example, from a "preflagellum" (meaning a subset of its components), and yet what is the probability of "simultaneous" development of the organelle at a level where it becomes advantageous (Macnab, 1978)?
Macnab, R. (1978)
"Bacterial Mobility and Chemotaxis: The Molecular Biology of a Behavioral System"
CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry, vol. 5, issue 4, Dec., pp. 291-341
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/ori ... cible.html


Irreducible Complexity
Irreducible complexity is a term coined by Michael Behe, who defines it as follows.
Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. (Behe, 1996, speech delivered to the Discovery Institute)
It is widely used, by modern proponents of the intelligent design movement, to argue that evolution cannot account for the intricate engineering found in all organisms.
This is not a new idea, so before discussing the modern literature, it will be useful to review its history.
History of the idea
The idea of irreducible complexity can be traced back to the 1st century AD. The early authors used it as support for the reality of God. The argument was first used to attack evolution by Gustave Cuvier in the early 19th century. As Cuvier put it,
The entirety of an organic being forms a coordinated whole, a unique and closed system, in which the parts mutually correspond and work together in the same specific action through a reciprocal relationship. None of these parts can change without the others changing as well. (Cuvier, 1831, p 59)
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/ev ... index.html

[KBCid]

K, You've done an admirable job, but you are dealing with people who are religiously committed to their worldview.

Thankyou sir. I do try and unfortunately I knew that there is no convincing religious fanatics. However, what I am here to convey is more tools for use against the idiocity by those who can comprehend it. There are those with a veil and those who know the masters voice. In some small way I am hoping my mechanical understanding will see further use and those who may be on the fence based on previous argument will hear it and also understand.

I've read through the last few pages of the thread and all I've seen it boil back down to is ad populum fallacy and ignoring their own fallacious reasoning. For exampl,e one mocked that we shouldn't point out that loss of information doesn't account for arrival information. I guess repeating the sames fallacies over and over gives them merit?? Evolution may account for variation but not origination. You've pointed out the challenge and I've yet to see it answered, just more red herrings. "But if so, why hasn't the science world caught on?" Ad populum. Mocking. They supress the truth in unrighteousness..

This is actually good for us. The more incoherent their argument becomes the easier it will be for those less fanatical about it will see through the deception. I have found in the past that allowing people to hang themselves is an easy way to convince observers of the failure in the argument.

For what it is worth, the creationist side allows for material causes and intelligent causes. Pierson, Sandy and CB and the other mockers will ONLY consider material causes, and have NO room for intelligent cause. Which is utterly hypocritical since the very discussion requires immaterial thought to do so, and a material world can't account for immaterial information. They expect ID scientist to be able to present their info, when they have fully demonstrated in this thread that they are 100% religiously committed to making sure that never happens in their own minds.

Lol. indeed this is very apparent to the casual observer who is not religiously commited. Of note here is what you have perceived "they have fully demonstrated in this thread that they are 100% religiously committed". They are making a demonstrating to an observer. I actually love this aspect as it makes my job that much easier to perform. The unintentional aid from the opposition in supporting our POV.

[bippy123]

KBCI, thanks again for the wealth of information on this subject, I have bookmarked both thread you are posting on but im way behind on getting back to them. As a former theistic evolutionist this has really strengthened my belief in ID.

[Pierson5]

Also, be careful using statements like "creationist side." The discovery institute tries to be as coy as they can about keeping the identity of the designer a mystery . As I have stated before, there is room for intelligent cause. You CAN test for these things, the problem is with the lack of evidence. Go back to this post:

Spare me the rhetoric. I am not a banner waver for the DI.
Lack of evidence? Please give us an example of material causes originating information and code. I can give you millions of examples of intelligent causes giving rise to such.

I can link you to plenty of arguments about homology. It is question begging and conflating. You simply approach the evidence looking to find what you already are religiously committed to.

Well, at least you are honest about what you support.

Let's not move the goal post here. Please explain to me why you accept paternity testing as a legitimate scientific method for determining relatedness, but when applied to other living organisms it is not. I'm sure you can provide plenty of "arguments" about homology. I can provide plenty of "arguments" for why 9/11 was an inside job or why homeopathy is a legitimate discipline in medicine. These arguments fail because they are not backed by evidence. When you apply the same reasoning used by evolution deniers to other areas of science, the absurdities are obvious (e.g. rejecting paternity testing).

Have done so but it will take them time to do their part and until they can implement it I will do my part to spread the understanding which so far has not been touched on by any appreciable debate. If that is any indicator I would think you should be worried about the future of your beliefs.

As a scientist in training, I am not "worried" about the future of my beliefs. I will get behind what the evidence supports. Good luck on revolutionizing the human race's understanding of biology. Could you give us any more insight as to the type of research/experiments being performed by you and your colleagues?

I have referenced a ton of papers that show a huge variety of the aspects of the system which I am discussing.

As others have pointed out, the papers you cited are either of people building things or of authors whose conclusion is completely different than the one you are suggesting. The question I asked was specifically about the so called research you and your colleagues are currently doing. As you said above, you have presented your ideas to your colleagues and they are implementing it. Why not give us a run down of the type of experiments they are doing to test your hypothesis?

I haven't heard anyone use irreducible complexity in a while. From what I have seen, the Discovery Institute doesn't use that one anymore.

You have obviously not been listening then; ....

Cheese and Rice! Did you even look at the criticisms in the exact same wiki article you linked to me? I highly suggest you watch the Dover trial, or at least read the transcripts.
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket ... cripts.htm

Here is what the scientific consensus is on "IC" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibl ... _community

By definition a stone archway is "irreducibly complex."

Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/840/

The mouse trap and flagellum, yeah, those are new... You say I haven't been listening, these arguments were brought up and destroyed at the Dover trial. That was 7 years ago! You haven't been listening if you aren't familiar with the literature against it. I gave you VERY lengthy publications explaining the evolution of the eye and flagellum, to which you didn't have much to say. Your argument for intelligent design is fallacious. You can provide as many citations as you'd like of people building lenses (eyes) or motors (flagellum) or 3 dimensional forms. This is not evidence for design in biology!

In Darwin’s Black Box (1996),

As mentioned above, a book is not considered scientific evidence. There are plenty of books written about astrology (and reviewed by astrologists), but I think you would agree we would not lend this scientific credence or teach it in school...

Access Research Network
An Introduction to
Molecular Machines and Irreducible Complexity
http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm

Collection of articles and excerpts from Behe and his book. The most interesting link would be: http://www.discovery.org/a/14791 "Molecular Machines in the Cell" By: Casey Luskin

An article written by a lawyer... Which can be summarized as so: biology is complex. This is not scientific evidence. You can call the flagellum a molecular machine, it doesn't mean it has a designer.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
Dr. Robert Macnab ... CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry, vol. 5, issue 4, Dec., pp. 291-341
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/ori ... cible.html

For a second I thought you might have cited an actual paper, unfortunately it's just another review/article. Yes, the flagellum is complex. Seeing as this was written 34 years ago, the author might not have been aware of the research done since then.

I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and do some more research. A simple search on PubMed for Irreducible Complexity yields a whopping 13 results!!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term ... plexity%22

A couple were reviews of Irreducible Complexity and creationism. So I was left with only a handful of publications. Sadly, I could not find any (maybe you could double check, I could have missed one) that actually referenced IC and ID within the scope of our current discussion. If IC is such a well established scientific hypothesis, why are there no publications? Strange, considering evolution has over 300,000...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=evolution

Of note here is what you have perceived "they have fully demonstrated in this thread that they are 100% religiously committed". They are making a demonstrating to an observer.

If irony was made out of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now...

Good Morning to All, (Eastern Standard time All)
Very fascinating topic and very impressive points of view from the posts I've read. I have a question however regarding aspects of reality not seen in these discussions.
Has anyone taken into account the Quantum aspects of Evolution and Creative Design and the origin of conscious awareness and cognition?
TIA.
Sincerely,
TR

Welcome to the boards! The evolution of consciousness is a pretty complicated issue, even within the scientific community. We are just addressing the issues of biological evolution and intelligent design. Consciousness is a different issue and, I believe, outside the scope of this thread. Scientists are barely beginning to understand what consciousness is, it is not surprising that we would not have its origin worked out yet. If you are interested, Dennett wrote an interesting piece on the subject: http://sciwrite.org/glj/reviews.dennett.html

[KBCid]

KBCI, thanks again for the wealth of information on this subject, I have bookmarked both thread you are posting on but im way behind on getting back to them. As a former theistic evolutionist this has really strengthened my belief in ID.

Glad I could be of service.

[KBCid]

I have referenced a ton of papers that show a huge variety of the aspects of the system which I am discussing.

As others have pointed out, the papers you cited are either of people building things or of authors whose conclusion is completely different than the one you are suggesting.

Others and you do not see what is plainly being shown then. Since my assertion is;

That everything in a living organism is controlled including precise 3 dimensional spatial positioning and timing of all the components that make up all the structures which provide function to the organism. This precise spatiotemporal control system must exist prior to replication since cellular components and cells themselves have no inherent natural form of organisation. Such a system of spatiotemporal control is irreducibly complex as it requires a multitude of interacting components prior to being functional.

Do you understand what 3 dimensional spatial positioning is? Do you understand what temporal control is? Do you understand what a system is? Now read this reference I gave in the other thread;

Remaining Mysteries of the Cytoplasm
Timothy J. Mitchison+ Affiliations
Department of Systems Biology, Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115

Nothing epitomizes the mystery of life more than the spatial organization and dynamics of the cytoplasm. How can a bunch of molecules, no matter how sophisticated, generate spatially complex behavior on a scale that is much larger than the molecules themselves? In my view, we will be done as cell biologists when we can predict the structure and dynamics of cells from DNA sequence. That goal is still some way off; indeed it is not yet clear if it is conceptually feasible.
COLLECTIVE PROTEIN BEHAVIOR
Understanding how molecules work together to orchestrate cellular processes is the new frontier in basic cell biology.
...Lécuyer et al., 2007) ...suggests spatial control by local synthesis is much more prevalent than previously thought.
SIZE SCALING AND SIZE SENSING
Eukaryotic cells vary at least three orders of magnitude in linear dimension (Figure 1), yet the proteins they use for spatial organization are broadly conserved. How can conserved mechanisms accommodate such a large range of length scales? Are special mechanisms required in unusually large cells, where cell size and division rates are large compared with the length and time scales of macromolecule diffusion?
http://www.molbiolcell.org/content/21/22/3811.full

Note that these researchers are just beginning to look at the system of spatial organisation that controls the spatially complex behavior of cellular components. It is quite a coincidence that an engineer such as myself who has been specifically dealing with spatial control of matter should be studying this very subject of lifes spatial control systems which at this point in time for most researhers is a great mystery to them.

The question I asked was specifically about the so called research you and your colleagues are currently doing. As you said above, you have presented your ideas to your colleagues and they are implementing it. Why not give us a run down of the type of experiments they are doing to test your hypothesis?

As I already said I am locating the existing 'so called' research that has already been done and my engineering colleagues are looking at possible ways to test and define all the various links that temporally and spatially control the replication of organisms.
Here is one of those reference I gave that you choose to overlook because someone else said it isn't relevant;

Engineering the cell: Mechanical engineering goes biological
Department of Mechanical Engineering
The Department of Mechanical Engineering (ME), long the cradle of the automotive industry's leading engineers, is joining the life sciences revolution in a big way.
Nearly half of its 54 faculty members have a significant interest in biological systems, and two of the newest hires, associate Prof. Edgar Meyhöfer and assistant Prof. Robert Dennis, are leading the charge in something they call "bio-systems."
This term generally refers to a broad area of life from the molecular and cellular level to that of tissues and organisms that are either inherently mechanical in nature, or that may be addressed by classical mechanical engineering disciplines, such as thermal and fluid sciences, dynamics, and controls or materials.
"Look at a cell," Meyhöfer says. "It's actually a very complex nano-machine. It has about 10,000 different proteins, its size is of a few micrometers, yet it's capable of organizing all reactions, and having everything happen at the same time.
"Anything that can't be done by diffusion, which basically only works efficiently over a micrometer distance or so or anything where you need some asymmetric distribution of things, where you need to get something to a specific location needs to be done by the cell expending energy; by having the molecular machinery actually transport things around," Meyhöfer says. http://ur.umich.edu/0102/Oct28_02/13.shtml

Do you see any reference to spatial control? here is a hint "where you need to get something to a specific location needs to be done by the cell expending energy;" You see a specific location is a 3 dimensional spatial reference and the control system is composed in part by the "molecular machinery actually transport things around". Without a system of spatial control of matter then life cannot replicate.
Replication is that simple little thing most everyone understands as the reproduction of material form. You do understand that in order to replicate material form it requires both spatial and temporal control of matter right?

Back on track - on the role of the microtubule for kinesin motility and cellular function.
This ability to control cellular transport processes and structures allowed for the development of such complex cellular organelles like cilia or flagella in single-cell organisms and made possible the development and differentiation of multi-cellular organisms with highly specialized, polarized cells. Also, the faithful segregation of large amounts of genetic information during cell division relies crucially on the reorganization and control of the cytoskeleton, making the cytoskeleton a key prerequisite for the development of highly complex genomes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16453157

These same researchers mentioned above are looking at cause and effect and making determinations based on mechanical understandings. They also make the same conclusion that I have provided "This ability to control cellular transport processes and structures...made possible the development and differentiation of multi-cellular organisms" They further point out that "the faithful segregation of large amounts of genetic information during cell division relies crucially on the reorganization and control of the cytoskeleton, making the cytoskeleton a key prerequisite for the development of highly complex genomes"
You do understand what control of cellular transport processes and structures involves right? It requires a system that controls the 3 dimensional spatiotemporal organisation of matter.

I haven't heard anyone use irreducible complexity in a while. From what I have seen, the Discovery Institute doesn't use that one anymore.

You have obviously not been listening then; ....

Cheese and Rice! Did you even look at the criticisms in the exact same wiki article you linked to me? I highly suggest you watch the Dover trial, or at least read the transcripts.

And what does the Dover trial have to do with the irreducible complexity of the 3 dimensional spatiotemporal control system?

By definition a stone archway is "irreducibly complex."

Really? So you think a stone archway is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional spatiotemporal control system? Have you ever seen a stone archway replicate itself?

The mouse trap and flagellum, yeah, those are new... You say I haven't been listening, these arguments were brought up and destroyed at the Dover trial. That was 7 years ago! You haven't been listening if you aren't familiar with the literature against it. I gave you VERY lengthy publications explaining the evolution of the eye and flagellum, to which you didn't have much to say. Your argument for intelligent design is fallacious. You can provide as many citations as you'd like of people building lenses (eyes) or motors (flagellum) or 3 dimensional forms. This is not evidence for design in biology!

The mouse trap and the flagellum which have volumes of arguments from both sides are not what I am promoting. Even if you had or have in actuality refuted those particular systems they have nothing to do with the irreducibly complex spatiotemporal control system I'm discussing. Your argument shows how little you really understand both the arguement for irreducible complexity and how little you understand about 'how' your critics believe they have rebutted it.

You see Pearson if you had payed attention to my assertion you would have discerned the difference between Behe's proposed systems and the system that I am discussing. Behe's proposed irreducibly complex systems are supposedly debunked by the believed possibility of the evolutionary mechanism to evolve them. My system on the other hand has to occur before evolution can operate.

Let me repeat that so you don't accidently miss it "My system on the other hand has to occur before evolution can operate." I gave you this information along the way in this thread when I stated "no replication, no evolution".
I will reword this another way in case you may have a faulty understanding of what I just said. In order for irreducible complexity to even theoretically be rebutted it requires the assertion of an operating evolutionary system and that system requires some very specific things in order to operate... here is a reference to these 'things';

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Do you see the 'things' that are required for evolution to occur? I would say that alleles are a prerequisite to evolutionary operation.
I would further state that another important prerequisite is generation (replication), Definitely can't have generations without replication.
Remember what I said "no replication, no evolution" So, since an irreducibly complex 3 dimensional spatiotemporal control system is required for replication of 3 dimensional form and evolution doesn't exist until the system of replication is operational you have no imaginable mechanism to overcome the irreducible complexity point of my assertion.
Note that I even spoke at some point to Sandy that chance alone would have to be the arguement for how such a system came to exist.

It is going to be interesting to see how you try and argue your way out of the corner you just painted yourself into.

Remember... no replication... no evolution...

[Ivellious]

So basically, what you are saying is that the origin of life is irreducibly complex? Good for you, but how do you know that at the start of life these constructs were in place and evolution took over from there? Even if irreducibly complex beginnings of life could be shown, would it have any impact on how the variety of species came about? Not really, as far as I can tell.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems odd to me that you have the grand authority to take research done by other people and reviewed by experts in their fields and draw totally different and radical conclusions from this, and that somehow this qualifies as researching ID. I find it especially amusing that you simply write off everyone else by saying that everyone else is incompetent because they can't see your points. For the record, your assertion includes practically all scientists who accept evolution, and considering no ID proponents have come to your stunning conclusions either, you appear to be breaking new ground entirely.

Basically, the way you "research" ID is by reading other people's work, and draw your own conclusions. What new and paradigm-altering research is being done by other ID scientists?

[jlay]

I gave you VERY lengthy publications explaining the evolution of the eye and flagellum, to which you didn't have much to say.

This only shows how blinded by you are.
An explanation is not proof. It is a hypothesis. And simply offering an explanation does not make it true. This is the problem that is lost on evolution. I am not one for arguing IC, although I see where ID proponents are going. I am more interested in function and function does not depend on the complexity of a thing.
The human eye has a function that coordinates with hundreds if not thousands of other independent functions in the human body. If I ask you what is the function of an eye, you can explain it. Yet, evolution and NS are not thinking entities that would know the need of an eye in the human body. It can't look forward and predict that an eye will be necessary.

Further There are millions of things that are irreducably complex, and things that function. Not just the flagellum. In fact, when we speak of say the appendix, we speak of it regarding its original function. Yet some how Darwinist can't see the forrest for the trees. Go ahead, account for function. You can't. Function can only be seen as an accident of mindless, undirected processes. And if you can't see how utterly ludicrous that proposition is, then you are only demonstrating that you suppress the truth to embrace the absurd.

The trial proves nothing, unless you really want to propose that the court of law is where science should be regulated. Oh what tangled webs we weave. Remember OJ was found innocent in criminal court. To hear someone, who on one hand says, "Science, blah, blah, blah, science!!" And then on the other actually proposes that the courts can "prove" something scientifically. Crazy. Repent of this nonsense.

[KBCid]

So basically, what you are saying is that the origin of life is irreducibly complex?

This is basically what I'm saying;
That everything in a living organism is controlled including precise 3 dimensional spatial positioning and timing of all the components that make up all the structures which provide function to the organism. This precise spatiotemporal control system must exist prior to replication since cellular components and cells themselves have no inherent natural form of organisation. Such a system of spatiotemporal control is irreducibly complex as it requires a multitude of interacting components prior to being functional.

Good for you, but how do you know that at the start of life these constructs were in place and evolution took over from there?

I don't 'know' these constructs were in place. What I do know is that there is no logical way to assume that such an irreducibly complex system just popped into existence.

Even if irreducibly complex beginnings of life could be shown, would it have any impact on how the variety of species came about? Not really, as far as I can tell.

Of course it would since a variety of species must by logic and reason begin with the first one or the first assortment. You know how the first few explosions of life just seem to appear fully formed in the fossil record?... that is best explained by seeding events. Speaking of which look at what intelligent designers are planning to do...

Professor: We have a 'moral obligation' to seed universe with life
“We have a moral obligation to plan for the propagation of life, and even the transfer of human life to other solar systems which can be transformed via microbial activity, thereby preparing these worlds to develop and sustain complex life,” Mautner explained to PhysOrg.com. “Securing that future for life can give our human existence a cosmic purpose.”
As Mautner explains in his study published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Cosmology, the strategy is to deposit an array of primitive organisms on potentially fertile planets and protoplanets throughout the universe. Like the earliest life on Earth, organisms such as cyanobacteria could seed other planets, digest toxic gases (such as ammonia and carbon dioxide on early Earth) and release products such as oxygen...
...To increase their chances of success, the microbial payloads should contain a variety of organisms with various environmental tolerances, and hardy multicellular organisms...
To transport the microorganisms, Mautner proposes using sail-ships. These ships offer a low-cost transportation method with solar sails, which can achieve high velocities using the radiation pressure from light. The microorganisms could be bundled in tiny capsules, each containing about 100,000 microorganisms and weighing 0.1 micrograms. Mautner predicts that the most challenging part of the process would be the precise aiming required in order for a mission to arrive at its target destination after hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years of travel.
As Mautner notes, several scientists have previously proposed ways to seed planets (notably, Venus and Mars) in our own solar system with microorganisms in order to alter the atmosphere and possibly make them habitable for humans. Also, some theories suggest that, on Earth, life-supporting nutrients and materials - or even life itself - may have come from somewhere else in the universe, arriving here on meteors, asteroids, and comets. In a sense, Mautner’s proposal would simply be helping life’s planet-hopping journey continue.
http://phys.org/news184915200.html

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems odd to me that you have the grand authority to take research done by other people and reviewed by experts in their fields and draw totally different and radical conclusions from this, and that somehow this qualifies as researching ID. I find it especially amusing that you simply write off everyone else by saying that everyone else is incompetent because they can't see your points. For the record, your assertion includes practically all scientists who accept evolution, and considering no ID proponents have come to your stunning conclusions either, you appear to be breaking new ground entirely.

Your wrong. I have not drawn different or radical conclusions since the researchers haven't got a clue as to how 3d spatiotemporal positioning is occuring. They simply observe and understand that it is occuring and necessary;

Location, Location, Location
Stella Hurtley
When buying a house, only three things matter: location, location, location. In cell biology, a similar adage can be applied to the regulation of cellular and organismal physiology. The location of a cell within an organism and the location within the cell of its constituent parts will affect all it does, including the functions it is capable of performing, its signaling partners, and whether and how it grows and divides. Even in single-celled bacteria, spatial organization regulates cell division and other key developmental processes. In this special issue of Science we address a variety of topics that contribute to our understanding of spatial cell biology.
Chang (p. 1206) describes how position within the body affects a cell's differentiation and functional characteristics and how cells use specific gene expression programs to encode location. Pollard and Cooper (p. 1208) describe how a cell's internal actin cytoskeleton affects nearly all aspects of its biology, defining the cell's shape, controlling its movements, and contributing to cell motility and division. Holt and Bullock (p. 1212) go on to remind us that animal cells also regulate the intracellular localization of messenger RNAs, leading to localized translation of their encoded proteins. In metazoans, most cell types are housed within an extracellular matrix. Hynes (p. 1216) describes how the extracellular matrix and its constituent proteins do not simply act as passive supports but also actively influence their resident cells' physiology, integrating complex signals in space and time. Scott and Pawson (p. 1220) expand on this theme of regulation of signaling in space and time by examining the physical responses of intracellular signaling proteins as they transduce extracellular cues into intracellular effects. Finally, Shapiro, McAdams, and Losick (p. 1225) bring our attention to bacteria that also need to regulate their cellular anatomy by controlling the intracellular location of individual proteins and protein complexes during growth and division and in response to stress or other external cues.
Spatial cell biology affects all aspects of physiology in health and disease. For example, during limb development, the position of cells along a developmental axis regulates their differentiation to generate the appropriate appendage in the appropriate location.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5957/1205.short

Seems that these researchers are essentially saying the same thing I am. Life require precise spatiotemporal positioning in order to function.

On emerging nuclear order
Although mechanisms governing spatial positioning and how specific nuclear subcompartments at the periphery influence transcriptional state are not well understood, they appear to be important regulatory events in development.

A notable inversion of the predominant pattern of nuclear organization is found in retinal rod cells of nocturnal mammals, where, though the same high level of order is present, heterochromatin is internal and euchromatin is peripheral, an arrangement that minimizes light scattering (Solovei et al., 2009). Therefore, rod cells exemplify the broad flexibility of biological systems and also illustrate that the functional requirements of a specific cell type may closely guide nuclear architecture.

Central dynamics
Many other nuclear subcompartments participate in the dynamic regulation of the genome and likely impose a particular spatial configuration inside the interphase nucleus. For example, nucleoli, the most prominent nuclear bodies, emerge from the congregation of multiple tandem repeats of ribosomal DNA from several chromosomes. They are the sites of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) transcription by RNA polymerase I, posttranscriptional processing of the rRNA, and assembly of ribosomal subunits. Spatial clustering of these distant genomic loci is critical for their function, making nucleoli a prominent example of specialized nuclear compartmentalization (Boisvert et al., 2007).

). tRNA genes are enriched in nucleolar-associated domains, suggesting a possible common mechanism for the spatial positioning of the many genomic regions carrying tRNA genes (Németh et al., 2010). This positioning is dependent on RNA polymerase III occupancy and transcriptional activity, as promoter point mutations eliminate association with the nucleolus (Thompson et al., 2003). The close spatial proximity of tRNA and rRNA synthesis could be important for the coordinated expression of translational machinery.

...spatial organization appears to be an important feature related to nuclear function that has a potential diagnostic utility for identifying cancerous tissue.

For characterizing nuclear function, both gene regulation and spatial configuration can be defined in terms of networks (Rajapakse et al., 2010). The configuration of a gene relative to the host chromosome as well as to genes on other chromosomes will be referred to as the spatial network...

Within the context of these recent results, the major question of how the structural organization of the nucleus relates to its function remains unanswered.
http://jcb.rupress.org/content/192/5/711.full

It should be clear that the research papers I have cited all include researchers recognising that 3D spatiotemporal control is necessary for life to exist. It should also be noted that none of the researchers has a clue as to how such a system is actually operating or how it came about. So, my hypothesis is not contradictory to the evidence presented.

Basically, the way you "research" ID is by reading other people's work, and draw your own conclusions. What new and paradigm-altering research is being done by other ID scientists?

Basically the way you 'understand' my research is by avoiding the reading of the papers cited and drawing your own conclusion as to what it means.

[Gman]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion... The similarities in the lines of reasoning are very easy to see, which I was trying to point out. Apply your line of reasoning to other aspects not accepted by the scientific community. For example:

You could post all the scientific information in the world for Ancient Alien Theory and it will never be accepted into certain so called "scientific communities." Why? Becuase they think it's just another form of pseudo science. Therefore it will never be accepted. Ever. Automatically it has to be rejected.... By default.

Or, here is an idea, it's not accepted because the "evidence" has no merit?

Like I said it doesn't matter about the evidence. Let me show you through the logic of Modus tollens.

1. Science can only be observed through naturalism or naturalistic means.
2. ID views science through the lens of an external intelligent designer.
3. Therefore ID is not science.

As you can see... It just doesn't work...

The discovery institute has 10s of millions of dollars at their disposal (http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2 ... f104-9.pdf and http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2 ... 4043-9.pdf), and have churned out, 3? peer reviewed articles over 16 years. 2006 - 2009 they receive >$4 million dollars a year. Let's suppose this trend continued in the previous years and years to come. It would equate to >60 million dollars. All that money and only a few publications? Let's put this in perspective.

Let's take a look at the Biological, Geological, and Environmental Sciences (BGES) of Cleveland State University. At an average budget of about 2.2 million dollars a year (http://library.csuohio.edu/csu/budget/09budgetpt1.pdf), HALF of the discovery institute. Not to mention, not all of which is going to the biology department. It's a university, much of the budget is spent on education. From 2004 - 2009 they published 88 papers, all of which are in the field of BIOLOGY, spending 13.5 million dollars in the process. We also aren't counting proceedings, publications in geology or environmental studies. This doesn't seem strange to you at all!?

I gave you a link to a test you yourself could perform. Its simple, find a gene without an evolutionary heritage. The genomes of about 180 life forms have been sequenced containing maybe a million genes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkED8cWRu4Q). I'll wait...

Pound for pound the advocates for Darwinism have way more money at their disposal than the ID advocates. So your point is moot... Also you are assuming that only universities can produce papers on biology, so your point is also biased..

I will try to state my point again. You will find bias AND philosophy in both the Darwin and ID camps... BOTH are guilty of it.. It cannot be escaped.

[KBCid]

Either you accept paternity testing as a legitimate method of determining relatedness

Please explain to me why you accept paternity testing as a legitimate scientific method for determining relatedness, but when applied to other living organisms it is not. I'm sure you can provide plenty of "arguments" about homology.

This argument wasn't direct at me but I do have something to say about it. I will first make sure everyone understands what a paternity test involves;

Paternity testing
Special locations (called loci) in human DNA display predictable inheritance patterns that could be used to determine biological relationships. These locations contain specific DNA sequences, called markers, that forensic and DNA scientists use as identifying marks for individuals. In a routine DNA paternity test, the markers used are Short Tandem Repeats (STRs), short pieces of DNA that occur in different repeat patterns among individuals.
Each person’s DNA contains two copies of these markers—one copy inherited from the father and one from the mother. Within a population, the markers at each person’s DNA location could differ in length and sometimes sequence, depending on the markers inherited from the parents.
The combination of marker sizes found in each person represents his/her genetic profile. DDC examines a minimum of 16 STR markers to create a genetic profile for each tested person in a paternity, identity, or family relationship test.
In a paternity test, the genetic profiles are compared to see if the child’s profile has pieces matching the tested father and mother A paternity test report lists the genetic profiles of each tested party, noting the allele sizes of the different markers tested. It also lists the Paternity Index (PI) for each marker—a statistical measure of how strongly a match at a particular locus signifies paternity.
The paternity index (PI) is zero if none of the child’s markers at a specific locus matches the alleged father’s markers. The PI is 1.0 or greater if there is a match, and the actual value depends on the frequency of the marker in the population. For example, CSF1PO in line 3 of the table above shows that there is a 1 in 17.75 chance that another random, untested person (instead of the tested alleged father) could have passed on the same marker to the tested child. This PI is stronger than the other two, probably because those two markers are more commonly found in the population.
The PI’s for each marker are multiplied with each other to produce the Combined Paternity Index (CPI), which represents the overall odds that another random, untested male would have the same results if his genetic profile were compared with the child’s. The CPI is then converted into a Probability of Paternity value, which specifies the probability that the tested man is the father.
Our laboratory often achieves a Probability of Paternity of at least 99.999%—indicating that there is only a minute, 0.001% probability that another random individual in the population could have the same paternity test results and be the child’s biological father.
http://www.dnacenter.com/science-techno ... ience.html

Do you understand why Paternity testing uses 16 STR markers to form a legitimate method of determining relatedness? why not just use 1 STR marker? Legitimacy of this method of determining relatedness is not as straight forward as some assume;

Evaluating forensic DNA evidence: Essential elements of a competent defense review
Promoters of forensic DNA testing have done a good job selling the public, and even many criminal defense lawyers, on the idea that DNA tests provide a unique and infallible identification.
It is easy to assume that any past problems with DNA evidence have been worked out and that the tests are now unassailable.
The problem with this assumption is that it ignores case-to-case variations in the nature and quality of DNA evidence. Although DNA technology has indeed improved since it was first used just 15 years ago, and the tests have the potential to produce powerful and convincing results, that potential is not realized in every case. Even when the reliability and admissibility of the underlying test is well established, there is no guarantee that a test will produce reliable results every time it is used. In our experience there often are case-specific issues and problems that greatly affect the quality and relevance of DNA test results. In those situations, DNA evidence is far less probative than it might initially appear.
http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/ch ... pion1.html

The bottom line for an assumption of relatedness is considered logically and rationally realistic when you can show enough separate genetic points (STR's) from two people that are the same.

thus homology = relatedness. OR, homology =/= relatedness,

homology
1. The quality or condition of being homologous.
2. A homologous relationship or correspondence.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homology

homologous
1. having the same or a similar relation; corresponding, as in relative position or structure.
2. corresponding in structure and in origin, but not necessarily in function: The wing of a bird and the foreleg of a horse are homologous.
3. having the same alleles or genes in the same order of arrangement: homologous chromosomes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homologous

Homology which describes the condition of being homologous or the similarity of position or structure is not defined by 16 separate genetic markers to provide a reasonable assumption of relatedness. Homology therefore is not the equivalent of a paternity test. It does not have the same logical or rational power that a paternity test gives based on 16 genetic markers.

What you are in fact doing is making the fallacy of False Analogy;

Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

in which case, here is a scientific test you can do to support ID: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkED8cWRu4Q

The challenge of this video to the DI is to "find a gene without an evolutionary heritage" that can be tested by the homology rationale and specific or unique function. This is a red herring attack since all current life did come from an ancestor. Therefore all their genes come from a replication event.

The Discovery Institute does not deny that there is inheritance.

About Discovery Institute
Study and Activity Areas:
Science and Culture.
...Our Center for Science and Culture works to defend free inquiry. It also seeks to counter the materialistic interpretation of science by demonstrating that life and the universe are the products of intelligent design and by challenging the materialistic conception of a self-existent, self-organizing universe and the Darwinian view that life developed through a blind and purposeless process.
http://www.discovery.org/about.php

If life is the product of intelligent design then each of the various types of life will exhibit the same basic toolset that makes life continue to exist since it has the same basic form of coding. This is why we find so many cases of what evo's consider 'convergent evolution';

Convergent evolution describes the acquisition of the same biological trait in unrelated lineages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

We know from experience with intelligent designers that they use the same things in different ways and in different structures for various reasons so it is not beyond reason to infer that similarities found among a variety of life forms could have a common designer.

[sandy_mcd]

Um, question. It seems that Sandy and KCB are arguing from different definitions of "nature." Is it okay for me to ask that both of you define nature?
Or has this already been done?

That is a very good question (it occurs to me i owe someone an answer to a similar question).

There are two sets of distinctions:
1) between natural (something or its effect detectable by physical methods) and supernatural (not detectable)
2) between natural (not manmade) and manmade. This is an artificial difference as it separates man from nature.
A building is not natural, but what about a bird's nest or beehive?

I suppose the more important categories are:
1) required consequence of fundamental laws (positions of the planets)
2) accidental happenstance (the number of planets in our solar system)
3) outside influence (the presence of a rover on Mars)

that's not very clear but i am kind of busy now
[edit to add forgotten sentence from earlier mishap]

[KBCid]

There are two sets of distinctions:
1) between natural (something or its effect detectable by physical methods) and supernatural (not detectable)
2) between natural (not manmade) and manmade. This is an artificial difference as it separates man from nature.
A building is not natural, but what about a bird's nest or beehive?

Food for thought here.
1) Can inteligence be detected?
2) how?
3) Is a bird or a bee natural?
4) how do you know?

The term natural has been applied to many things but, what is the criteria for making such a determination? As noted elsewhere previously there are times when such a distinction is unclear as can be seen in the Yonaguni Monument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monument
here is another neat object to peruse, Waffle Rock http://www.geulogy.com/myprecious/waffl ... erica.html Natural or man made?

This was interesting too once you realise its a satelite picture
Researcher claims vast network of prehistoric civilization discovered near Lake Titicaca
http://truthspeaker.wordpress.com/2009/ ... -titicaca/

This is also quite a topic;
Klerksdorp sphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klerksdorp_sphere

[sandy_mcd]

1) Can inteligence be detected?
2) how?
3) Is a bird or a bee natural?
4) how do you know?

1) Usually, but first it must be defined.
2) Depends on the definition - problem solving might be one way.
3) depends on definition used of natural; by almost all meanings, yes
4) by one common definition; it occurs from nature without man's intervention

The term natural has been applied to many things but, what is the criteria for making such a determination? As noted elsewhere previously there are times when such a distinction is unclear as can be seen in the Yonaguni Monument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monument
here is another neat object to peruse, Waffle Rock http://www.geulogy.com/myprecious/waffl ... erica.html Natural or man made?

Natural.

Researcher claims vast network of prehistoric civilization discovered near Lake Titicaca
http://truthspeaker.wordpress.com/2009/ ... e-titicaca

Can't tell.

This is also quite a topic;
Klerksdorp sphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klerksdorp_sphere

This is quite an example of a natural object which looks artificial, thereby leading some to claim it is artificial. It is an argument against design since it is a case of apparent design which is in fact natural, as were the hexagonal "paving stones" i pictured elsewhere.

Which is why ID not only needs to look at features but also attempt to address the how? when? where? questions before it will be taken seriously by mainstream scientists.

[KBCid]

Can inteligence be detected?

Usually, but first it must be defined.

We both know that defining it specifically is a problem. However, you can't say on one hand that it can usually be detected and then on the other that it must first be defined. If it requires a specified definition before you can detect it then you have not yet detected it... ever.

how?

Depends on the definition - problem solving might be one way.

If it depends on definition then you cannot give anything for an example because for you it is not yet defined specifically.

Is a bird or a bee natural?

3) depends on definition used of natural; by almost all meanings, yes.

Standard definitions of natural.
natural
produced by nature, Biology - Not produced or changed artificially

how do you know?

3) by one common definition; it occurs from nature without man's intervention

I thought spontaneous generation was an obsolete principle. I believe this fallacy was scientifically disproven by Pasteur around 1859

The term natural has been applied to many things but, what is the criteria for making such a determination? As noted elsewhere previously there are times when such a distinction is unclear as can be seen in the Yonaguni Monument . here is another neat object to peruse, Waffle Rock Natural or man made?

Natural.

Empirical evidence? or opinion

This is also quite a topic;
Klerksdorp sphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klerksdorp_sphere

This is quite an example of a natural object which looks artificial, thereby leading some to claim it is artificial. It is an argument against design since it is a case of apparent design which is in fact natural, as were the hexagonal "paving stones" i pictured elsewhere.

Empirical evidence that it is natural? or opinion