Evolution and Intelligent Design

[Beanybag]

Geocentricism wasn't a theory..

[KBCid]

Geocentricism wasn't a theory..

In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is the theory that the Earth is the orbital center for all celestial bodies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

geocentric
1. having or representing the earth as a center: a geocentric theory of the universe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geocentric

...though evidence of a particular experiment may support a certain hypothesis to the extent of being considered fact, it is not entirely guaranteed to be proven as absolute truth. An example of such a discrepancy may be the ancient belief that the earth was the center of the universe, or geocentric. At the time, scientific methods and technology was very limited. However, given the resources of the time, this theory was considered as scientific fact. It was not until leading scientists of their time were able to negate this initial theory. The first to challenge the geocentric theory as science fact was astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus.
http://www.yearofscience.com/scientific-facts.html

geocentric system, any theory of the structure of the solar system (or the universe) in which Earth is assumed to be at the centre of all. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... ric-system.

The truth is that the geocentric model enjoyed the same strength of belief as the evolutionary model, it was considered a fact by all the observble evidence. You would have held it to be a fact had you been born in that time. It would have held the same level of conviction as you currently hold for your belief. There was even a time when people could boast that the geocentric theory had been a fact for over 1500 years. Imagine if evolution were to last that long... Fortunately, we were born during a reign of scientific inquiry. The truth is coming fast. Possibly riding a white horse...

[Beanybag]

It was a 'fact', but not a scientific theory. Those didn't exist at the time. Science had yet to be developed. Maybe it would be the chronological equivalent of what is now a theory, but that doesn't make it any more convincing. They weren't practicing the scientific method as it is today. They weren't amassing evidence in favor of their theory (which is where the strength of a time-tested theory comes from). There were many problems with intellectual inquiry at the time since there was a lack of free speech and an oppressive oppositional force of the catholic church.

[Pierson5]

This is obviously going no where.

From your previous link when you were defining IR:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. - Darwin

A good experiment would be to look at the proteins we've talked about and see what the researchers are saying about them. When I asked you for evidence for intelligent design, this is what you gave me: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9975/

The positional information needed to construct a limb has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system.* During the past decade, particular proteins have been identified that play a role in the formation of each of these limb axes. The proximal-distal (shoulder-finger; hip-toe) axis appears to be regulated by the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of proteins. The anterior-posterior (thumb-pinky) axis seems to be regulated by the Sonic hedgehog protein, and the dorsal-ventral (knuckle-palm) axis is regulated, at least in part, by Wnt7a. The interactions of these proteins determine the differentiation of the cell types and also mutually support one another.

These proteins are obviously a few components of the whole system. What are researchers saying about them?

FGF:
FIBROBLAST GROWTH FACTOR HOMOLOGOUS FACTORS: EVOLUTION, STRUCTURE, AND FUNCTION
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212846/

Evolution of the Fgf and Fgfr gene families.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15475116

Identification of Distant Homologues of Fibroblast Growth Factors Suggests a Common Ancestor for all b-Trefoil Proteins
http://users.sdsc.edu/~youkha/duplicati ... mmetry.pdf

Fibroblast growth factors: from molecular evolution to roles in development, metabolism and disease
http://jb.oxfordjournals.org/content/149/2/121.short

Fibroblast growth factors (see "Gene organization and evolutionary history")
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pd ... ws3005.pdf

Hedgehog:
Evolution of the Hedgehog Gene Family
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1207033/

The evolution of the hedgehog gene family in chordates: insights from amphioxus hedgehog.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9914417

The Hedgehog protein family
http://genomebiology.com/content/9/11/241

Sonic Hedgehog, a key development gene, experienced intensified molecular evolution in primates
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/13/2031.full

Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs
http://genepath.med.harvard.edu/~tabin/Pdfs/Shubin.pdf

Wnt7a:
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/2/165.full.pdf

Wnt7a, a very highly conserved gene known to be important in early development, shows significant differences in spacial and temporal expression patterns in the developing brain (midbrain, telencephalon) of man and mice. CAPN3, the locus for LGMD2A limb girdle muscular dystrophy, and its mouse orthologue differ extensively in expression in embryonic heart, lens and smooth muscle. Our study also shows how muscular analyses, while providing explanations for the observed differences, can be important in providing insights into mammalian evolution.

The researchers actually doing experiments and publishing data come to the conclusion that these proteins have an evolutionary heritage. You have not provided one citation (only your personal rationale) which concludes this system (either parts, or as a whole) could not have come about through evolution, or is Irreducibly Complex, or is the product of biological "Intelligent Design." The most information you have given regarding an actual experiment is:

My proposition is that intelligence can be tested and that it can leave telltale signatures of its having acted that are discernable.

... Fascinating, why don't you give us an example on how you would test this in the field of biology?

I have sent my paper to numerous places on the evo side and so far no reply.

You claim you have presented your research to the "evo side" (I assume you just mean, actual scientists), and have gotten nothing back? You hold a position in academia and you have gotten no feedback from anyone in the field? I find that difficult to believe. You haven't presented your findings at meetings? Conferences? The individuals you've sent your paper to didn't give you an ETA as far as a response goes? You said you have a degree in bio engineering. You haven't done any networking with the biology department at all?

I don't want you to feel like I'm ignoring your other post entirely, but I don't have a ton of time to keep going back and forth like this. It was going in circles. If you feel you made a point which I should address, just quote it and I'll get to it the next time I'm free.

[KBCid]

From your previous link when you were defining IR:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. - Darwin

A good experiment would be to look at the proteins we've talked about and see what the researchers are saying about them. When I asked you for evidence for intelligent design, this is what you gave me: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9975/

The positional information needed to construct a limb has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system.* During the past decade, particular proteins have been identified that play a role in the formation of each of these limb axes. The proximal-distal (shoulder-finger; hip-toe) axis appears to be regulated by the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of proteins. The anterior-posterior (thumb-pinky) axis seems to be regulated by the Sonic hedgehog protein, and the dorsal-ventral (knuckle-palm) axis is regulated, at least in part, by Wnt7a. The interactions of these proteins determine the differentiation of the cell types and also mutually support one another.

These proteins are obviously a few components of the whole system. What are researchers saying about them?

I have posted what researchers are saying about them 3 times now and you keep avoiding it in an attempt to circumvent the plain statements and focus on some components that take part in the overall system. Note carefully what the researchers are saying about focusing on the individual components;

Spatiotemporal chemical dynamics in living cells: From information trafficking to cell physiology
Molecular sciences, including molecular biology, genomics, proteomics, and crystallography, have now described life in unprecedented depth and breadth. Yet these descriptions have not improved significantly the rate of drug discovery. Themolecular defect in sickle cell anemia was discovered nearly a half-century ago, yet in 50 years what treatments has this knowledge yielded?
The defects in oncogenes were found in the 1970s, and those in cystic fibrosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy were discovered in the 1980s, but we have yet to see significant improvements in clinical care. Whatever scientific insights might have been gained, molecular science has not yielded sufficient insight to provide better care for patients.
So what have we missed? By so thoroughly embracing structural reductionism, we have learned a great deal about the system’s parts without really understanding how the system works. For example, a list of the capacitors, resistors, and the other functional parts found in a television set are not sufficient to deduce how a television works. As the parts list of the human genome is much longer than that of a television set, and the behavior of its components more subtle, it is not surprising that molecular biology has not yielded the anticipated cornucopia of new drugs. Living cells require networks of enzymes and receptors with large numbers of feedback loops under conditions held far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Therefore, the properties of individual isolated components can never adequately model the dynamic chemical processes that underlie cell functions. The part cannot explain the whole; to understand how all of the parts of a cell work in concert, the parts must be studied in their cell biological context at a time-scale relevant to the physico-chemical processes under study.
...the processes underlying cell behavior more closely resemble the decision making processes of a computer than the dynamics of a stirred
chemical reactor.
http://www.sownar.com/silvercluster/Spa ... iology.pdf

The text is in plain english so there should not be much to discuss. You either recognise that it is impossible to define a system by simply studying a single component or you continue on as you have been by trying argue a point based on what is known and assumed about a component.

"By so thoroughly embracing structural reductionism, we have learned a great deal about the system’s parts without really understanding how the system works. For example, a list of the capacitors, resistors, and the other functional parts found in a television set are not sufficient to deduce how a television works."

Do you not understand this? what is your native language?
"the properties of individual isolated components can never adequately model the dynamic chemical processes that underlie cell functions. The part cannot explain the whole"

What you are attempting to do is called the Red Herring fallacy;
Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Because you don't understand systems you feel that you can somehow respond to the subject of a spatiotemporal system better by looking only at some parts involved in the system.very sad and on top of it all I can point out exactly why you want this redirection;


FIBROBLAST GROWTH FACTOR HOMOLOGOUS FACTORS: EVOLUTION, STRUCTURE, AND FUNCTION
These findings demonstrate the remarkable functional adaptability during evolution of the FGF gene family.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212846/

You wish to point to such opinions by other researchers that mention evolution in their papers. However, one only needs to read them a bit to see that these are simply opinions without any evidence.

Evolution of the Fgf and Fgfr gene families.
Fibroblast growth factors (Fgfs) and Fgf receptors (Fgfrs) comprise a signaling system that is conserved throughout metazoan evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15475116

For some reason you think that if you can show a researcher whose opinion is that something evolved then its as good as any fact. A very sad way to try and discuss a topic which in truth is not being discussed from your side. It more properly looks like a simple propaganda campaign. Are you being paid to sit on a creationist site and repetitiously promote evolution? Really though if you are absolutely convinced that everything is explainable by evolution then why waste time sitting on a creationist site? what could you possibly gain?

The researchers actually doing experiments and publishing data come to the conclusion that these proteins have an evolutionary heritage. You have not provided one citation (only your personal rationale) which concludes this system (either parts, or as a whole) could not have come about through evolution, or is Irreducibly Complex, or is the product of biological "Intelligent Design." The most information you have given regarding an actual experiment is:

My proposition is that intelligence can be tested and that it can leave telltale signatures of its having acted that are discernable.

Fascinating, why don't you give us an example on how you would test this in the field of biology?

A specifiable function has specifiable physical requirements. We won't need to wait a million years to perform a test. Not one aspect of the spatiotemporal system is beyond the scientific method and every evidence we currently posess shows that such a system is beyond chance occurance since you can't evolve such a system when evolving depends on such a system to begin functioning.

You claim you have presented your research to the "evo side" (I assume you just mean, actual scientists), and have gotten nothing back? You hold a position in academia and you have gotten no feedback from anyone in the field? I find that difficult to believe. You haven't presented your findings at meetings? Conferences? The individuals you've sent your paper to didn't give you an ETA as far as a response goes? You said you have a degree in bio engineering. You haven't done any networking with the biology department at all?

Oh I have gotten responses... mostly that they are too busy with their own research to get involved in something that they don't really comprehend.
But of course even this is just another of your methods to try and distract from discussing the system and its clear implications. As I noted very early in the other thread this is a topic that is just becoming clear to researchers as we can now observe 3 dimensional interactions live, so research will come sooner than you think and the evidence will just become clearer as the system is more fully understood.

I don't want you to feel like I'm ignoring your other post entirely, but I don't have a ton of time to keep going back and forth like this. It was going in circles. If you feel you made a point which I should address, just quote it and I'll get to it the next time I'm free.

No worries I am not holding my breath for any substance to occur in a discussion of the system with those who have a priori convictions. However, you are doing just fine working for the ID side since your avoidance of the subject in posting is quite easily discernable.

[Pierson5]

Spatiotemporal chemical dynamics in living cells: From information trafficking to cell physiology
Molecular sciences, including molecular biology, genomics, proteomics, and crystallography, have now described life in unprecedented depth and breadth. Yet these descriptions have not improved significantly the rate of drug discovery. Themolecular defect in sickle cell anemia was discovered nearly a half-century ago, yet in 50 years what treatments has this knowledge yielded?
The defects in oncogenes were found in the 1970s, and those in cystic fibrosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy were discovered in the 1980s, but we have yet to see significant improvements in clinical care. Whatever scientific insights might have been gained, molecular science has not yielded sufficient insight to provide better care for patients.
So what have we missed? By so thoroughly embracing structural reductionism, we have learned a great deal about the system’s parts without really understanding how the system works. For example, a list of the capacitors, resistors, and the other functional parts found in a television set are not sufficient to deduce how a television works. As the parts list of the human genome is much longer than that of a television set, and the behavior of its components more subtle, it is not surprising that molecular biology has not yielded the anticipated cornucopia of new drugs. Living cells require networks of enzymes and receptors with large numbers of feedback loops under conditions held far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Therefore, the properties of individual isolated components can never adequately model the dynamic chemical processes that underlie cell functions. The part cannot explain the whole; to understand how all of the parts of a cell work in concert, the parts must be studied in their cell biological context at a time-scale relevant to the physico-chemical processes under study.
...the processes underlying cell behavior more closely resemble the decision making processes of a computer than the dynamics of a stirred
chemical reactor.
http://www.sownar.com/silvercluster/Spa ... iology.pdf

I can highlight things too! Actually, I did address this. You just weren't satisfied with the answer.

And? Their goal is to understand the system and create new drugs. I am trying to determine the origin of the system, not how the system works. You have said and shown, many times, you understand how the system functions. But, you are going one step further and claiming to have the answer and evidence of the origin (biological design). That's what we are discussing.

The authors are concerned about understanding functions to create new drugs. Breaking down the system and examining the parts did not lead them to a greater understanding in order to create new drugs. Now, if you find a citation that examines this system and concludes "Therefore we cannot examine the components of this system to determine evolutionary history or its origin," then you may actually have something.

According to you, you already understand how this system functions in its entirety.

There are many things unknown about this system.

No there are not.

Understanding how the system works, apparently isn't the problem here. We are not using the individual parts to explain how the whole thing functions. In the first citation you gave me (which mentions the proteins we are discussing) the authors break down components of the system in the conclusion to explain some parts of the system. If all the components have come about through evolutionary processes, then I don't see a problem for evolution, or evidence for design.

Do you not understand this? what is your native language?
Are you being paid to sit on a creationist site and repetitiously promote evolution? Really though if you are absolutely convinced that everything is explainable by evolution then why waste time sitting on a creationist site? what could you possibly gain?

Woh, calm down there cowboy. What's with the passive agressive ad hominem assumptions? If you are genuinely curious, I came to this site with questions regarding relationships and raising children. You can view my post history if you want. I didn't come here to discuss evolution. This topic was brought up by a creationist and my main topic was getting derailed, which is why I created this one. I wish I was getting paid, I'm as broke as they come. I continue discussing this topic because it *gasps* interests me to see the rationale behind evolution denial and the human psyche in general.

I would also point out that not everyone on the site is a creationist. Many are theistic evolutionists and raise the same concerns about ID as I do.

For some reason you think that if you can show a researcher whose opinion is that something evolved then its as good as any fact. A very sad way to try and discuss a topic which in truth is not being discussed from your side. It more properly looks like a simple propaganda campaign.

Sure, and these scientist's "opinions" are based on experimentation, which they happen to actually publish. The researchers examining the components of this system come to the conclusion that these evolved, or have no problem with evolution in general. I guess presenting peer-reviewed, published data which shows the system provides no problem to evolution is a sad way to argue my case indeed. I welcome you to provide evidence for the system (or any of its components) which concludes it was impossible to have come about through evolution/or was designed. Show me one citation that comes to that conclusion.

The researchers actually doing experiments and publishing data come to the conclusion that these proteins have an evolutionary heritage. You have not provided one citation (only your personal rationale) which concludes this system (either parts, or as a whole) could not have come about through evolution, or is Irreducibly Complex, or is the product of biological "Intelligent Design." The most information you have given regarding an actual experiment is:

My proposition is that intelligence can be tested and that it can leave telltale signatures of its having acted that are discernable.

Fascinating, why don't you give us an example on how you would test this in the field of biology?

A specifiable function has specifiable physical requirements. We won't need to wait a million years to perform a test. Not one aspect of the spatiotemporal system is beyond the scientific method and every evidence we currently posess shows that such a system is beyond chance occurance since you can't evolve such a system when evolving depends on such a system to begin functioning.

Really? Because all the evidence involving the components have been determined to have evolutionary heritage. I have yet to see you provide one piece of evidence which concludes this system could not have arisen through evolutionary processes. Not one citation that concludes the system is irreducibly complex. Not one citation which concludes this is evidence for design.

Also, where is your experiment? Why don't you walk us through an experiment (using naturalistic methodology or not) which concludes the system could not have come about through evolution/was designed. Or you can cite another researcher's experiment, doesn't matter to me.

You claim you have presented your research to the "evo side" (I assume you just mean, actual scientists), and have gotten nothing back? You hold a position in academia and you have gotten no feedback from anyone in the field? I find that difficult to believe. You haven't presented your findings at meetings? Conferences? The individuals you've sent your paper to didn't give you an ETA as far as a response goes? You said you have a degree in bio engineering. You haven't done any networking with the biology department at all?

Oh I have gotten responses... mostly that they are too busy with their own research to get involved in something that they don't really comprehend.
But of course even this is just another of your methods to try and distract from discussing the system and its clear implications. As I noted very early in the other thread this is a topic that is just becoming clear to researchers as we can now observe 3 dimensional interactions live, so research will come sooner than you think and the evidence will just become clearer as the system is more fully understood.

You have gotten responses? Why did you say:

I have sent my paper to numerous places on the evo side and so far no reply.

They are too busy? Have you sent your paper in to be published? You haven't held meetings or conferences? I mean, this is evidence for design you are talking about. Nobel Prize winning evidence. If you are saying the evidence will become clear eventually and you don't actually have anything now, then we have nothing else to talk about. So far, from what I understand, this "evidence" has not yet been examined by the scientific community and is just one guy's (KBCid) rationale/opinion.

I don't want you to feel like I'm ignoring your other post entirely, but I don't have a ton of time to keep going back and forth like this. It was going in circles. If you feel you made a point which I should address, just quote it and I'll get to it the next time I'm free.

However, you are doing just fine working for the ID side since your avoidance of the subject in posting is quite easily discernable.

So now I'm working for the ID side? Where do I pick up my check?

[KBCid]

Their goal is to understand the system and create new drugs. I am trying to determine the origin of the system, not how the system works. You have said and shown, many times, you understand how the system functions. But, you are going one step further and claiming to have the answer and evidence of the origin (biological design). That's what we are discussing.

Their goal is to create new drugs. This is a given but like any other scientific inquiry they cannot create what they want because the system has a form of complexity that they are finding is necessary to comprehend before they can possibly form something that can affect in a predictable way. This is the point that has meaning. In order to explain something you must of necessity have an understanding of its functionality. You cannot explain the whole by simple observation of a component.

if you find a citation that examines this system and concludes "Therefore we cannot examine the components of this system to determine evolutionary history or its origin," then you may actually have something.

For the experimenters who are coming to realise that a systematic functionality is operating beyond the simple understanding of the components they simply call it a mystery because they were not expecting this type of complexity to be in operation. You would also need to define how the imagined evolutionary history could be tested. How can one test a historic occurance.

According to you, you already understand how this system functions in its entirety.

Indeed I understand what is minimally required in functionality to perform such an operation since this is entirely within the realm of physics to provide an explanation. Being able to explain how something can possibly perform a function is necessary to comprehension of such a function when it is encountered.

Understanding how the system works, apparently isn't the problem here. We are not using the individual parts to explain how the whole thing functions. In the first citation you gave me (which mentions the proteins we are discussing) the authors break down components of the system in the conclusion to explain some parts of the system. If all the components have come about through evolutionary processes, then I don't see a problem for evolution, or evidence for design.

The problem of course is that they cannot explain how anything could evolve to begin with. So a hypothetical conclusion that the components could evolve is nothing more than a guess without substance. In order to provide an explanation with substance they must be able to define how the coding in the DNA is able to be translated into 3 dimensional form.
If you think about your question carefully "If all the components have come about through evolutionary processes, then I don't see a problem for evolution" I would logically ask how might one determine if a component could come into existence by the hypothetical evolutionary process if the hypothetical process requires the components in order to function? In order for you to contemplate that a hypothetical process could form a component then you must of necessity be able to explain how it functions in order to be able to show how it could have formed something.

Woh, calm down there cowboy. What's with the passive agressive ad hominem assumptions? If you are genuinely curious, I came to this site with questions regarding relationships and raising children. You can view my post history if you want. I didn't come here to discuss evolution. This topic was brought up by a creationist and my main topic was getting derailed, which is why I created this one. I wish I was getting paid, I'm as broke as they come. I continue discussing this topic because it *gasps* interests me to see the rationale behind evolution denial and the human psyche in general. I would also point out that not everyone on the site is a creationist. Many are theistic evolutionists and raise the same concerns about ID as I do.

It is not an ad hominim assumption since everything was a question. This type of response is why I asked the questions to begin with. If both of us are speaking the same language then how did you miss the clearly defined questions? Really look at it again and see that there were a series of questions and every single question ended with a question mark to clearly define them as questions;

Do you not understand this?
what is your native language?
Are you being paid to sit on a creationist site and repetitiously promote evolution?
Really though if you are absolutely convinced that everything is explainable by evolution then why waste time sitting on a creationist site?
what could you possibly gain?

Assumptions are never posed as questions, rather an assumption presumes to know how to explain something. As for the ad hominim part;
Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If you wish to understand my rationale for denying evolution then it is necessary for you to comprehend the argument that is being brought to the table.

For some reason you think that if you can show a researcher whose opinion is that something evolved then its as good as any fact. A very sad way to try and discuss a topic which in truth is not being discussed from your side. It more properly looks like a simple propaganda campaign.

Sure, and these scientist's "opinions" are based on experimentation, which they happen to actually publish.

Ok then show me their published experiments that show how they tested for systems to have evolved in the past. Show me their published results from any experiment that shows how an irreducibly complex system arises by chance. Show me the empirical test where a system arose by evolution even. Show me where evolution is not simply an assumption in any of the current tests.
We all know that they have a priori commitments this is why their opinions mean nothing to anyone who actually challenges their assumptions.
You should also realise that your argument is based on a fallacy of Argument from authority.

The researchers examining the components of this system come to the conclusion that these evolved, or have no problem with evolution in general.

How exactly do they know that the components evolved. Define how the assumption was empirically tested. If I design a robot that replicates itself and it does so for a million years how could you determine whether it was natural vs. designed after a million years? Would it not still use the same system to perform the actions. Would we not see that the same components are observable in the fossilised remains? The assumption of evolution is just that an assumption. However, there is a new concept coming forward. This one recognises that there must be a system in place to spatiotemporally control matter before replication can occur and before evolution can operate. How would you explain it from a naturalism perspective? Poof it just appeared by chance.

I guess presenting peer-reviewed, published data which shows the system provides no problem to evolution is a sad way to argue my case indeed. I welcome you to provide evidence for the system (or any of its components) which concludes it was impossible to have come about through evolution/or was designed. Show me one citation that comes to that conclusion.

The problem is that you have not actually presented that kind of evidence. First and foremost neither you nor they provide a testable solution to show how something evolved.
The evidence for the system is outlayed in every experiment and noted by the researchers as an undefined control in operation. The evidence for how such a system arises is provided by all the systems already designed and the fact that no empirical test has shown that a system can evolve. Let's have a contest. You post every occurance of a system evolving and I will post every occurance of a system that was designed and then we will go with the observable evidence for how they can possibly come into existence ok? I know, I know... You will avoid all of this since you can't post what doesn't exist. Most of us are used to that.

The researchers actually doing experiments and publishing data come to the conclusion that these proteins have an evolutionary heritage. You have not provided one citation (only your personal rationale) which concludes this system (either parts, or as a whole) could not have come about through evolution, or is Irreducibly Complex, or is the product of biological "Intelligent Design." The most information you have given regarding an actual experiment is:

My proposition is that intelligence can be tested and that it can leave telltale signatures of its having acted that are discernable.

Fascinating, why don't you give us an example on how you would test this in the field of biology?

A knockout experiment of all the individual components necessary for replication to occur will define the extent of the system. Since replication is the necessary functionality for the conceptual hypothesis of evolution to occur then it is a simple rationale to infer that all of the components observable were necessary prior to replication in order for replication to begin. Since a telltale signature of intelligent agency is the formation of irreducibly complex systems then you have evidence for ID required. simple. Try it on for size yourself. What do you think is minimally required in order for something to replicate in 3 dimensions. Current science has asserted that the simplest system possible is between 100 to 200 genes. what is your logical guess for minimal complexity required? and then try and describe how such an irreducibly complex system could begin by chance.

A specifiable function has specifiable physical requirements. We won't need to wait a million years to perform a test. Not one aspect of the spatiotemporal system is beyond the scientific method and every evidence we currently posess shows that such a system is beyond chance occurance since you can't evolve such a system when evolving depends on such a system to begin functioning.

Really? Because all the evidence involving the components have been determined to have evolutionary heritage. I have yet to see you provide one piece of evidence which concludes this system could not have arisen through evolutionary processes. Not one citation that concludes the system is irreducibly complex. Not one citation which concludes this is evidence for design.

The empirical evidence that has already been determined in the building of similar systems which have occured by design has defined that such a system is irreducibly complex. It has minimal requirements in order to function. Common sense should tell you that there are minimal requirements for any system to function. Minimal requirements = irreducible complexity
We should also consider how such systems have they been experimentally shown to come into existence by the evolutionary mechanism? define the experiment. Really, can you show one experiment that has shown how a system or its components came into existence? Scientists are guessing that such an arrangement can occur where they infer evolutionary possibility.
The evidence that the components did not occur by the conceptual evolutionary system is a logic based understanding that evolution cannot begin without replication and replication requires the components that allow the system to function to exist prior to functionality. This is a systems engineering foundational understanding. Systematic functionality requires a minimal set of components in order to allow for a function to occur. The system of life cannot function without a specifiable set of components to allow the operation to occur and replication of 3 dimensional form has specifiable minimal functionality and components required. For every effect there is a cause. So no one can make the illogical assumption that the evolutionary mechanism is the cause for the system and components that it requires in order to function in the first place.
Do you disagree that evolution can't occur until replication occurs? Do you disagree that replication of 3 dimensional form requires specifiable minimal complexity in order to occur? if so then define how you logically make such conclusions. If your position is that function can logically occur without a minimal specifiable complexity then you are asserting that an effect doesn't need to have a definable cause.

Also, where is your experiment? Why don't you walk us through an experiment (using naturalistic methodology or not) which concludes the system could not have come about through evolution/was designed. Or you can cite another researcher's experiment, doesn't matter to me.

You can look at any positional control system of matter currently existing that comes from design (because there are none shown to have evolved) and see what the minimal requirements of them are. You can also reference to the scientific assertion of the necessity for there to minimally be between 100 and 200 genes in order for replication to occur and life to exist. Every single occurance of systematic control of matter is an experiment to define minimal requirements for a function to occur. Every factory in existence is evidence for there being minimal requirements to perform a function. Would you like to explore this? Do you want to delve into applied physics to see why effect x has minimal requirements of causation?
We can begin here;
Motion
...An object's motion cannot change unless it is acted upon by a force, as described by Newton's first law.
Laws of Motion
Motions of all large scale and familiar objects in the universe (such as projectiles, planets, cells, and humans) are described by classical mechanics.

Classical mechanics
Classical mechanics is used for describing the motion of macroscopic objects, from projectiles to parts of machinery, as well as astronomical objects, such as spacecraft, planets, stars, and galaxies. It produces very accurate results within these domains, and is one of the oldest and largest subjects in science, engineering, and technology.

Planar motion
While all motion in a mechanical system occurs in three dimensional space, planar motion can be analyzed using plane geometry, if all point trajectories are parallel to a plane. In this case the system is called a planar mechanism (or robot). The kinematic analysis of planar mechanisms uses the subset of SE(3) consisting of planar rotations and translations, denoted SE(2).
The group SE(2) is three dimensional, which means that every position of a body in the plane is defined by three parameters. The parameters are often the x and y coordinates of the origin of a coordinate frame in M measured from the origin of a coordinate frame in F, and the angle measured from the x-axis in F to the x-axis in M. This is described saying a body in the plane has three degrees-of-freedom.

Spatial motion
A mechanical system in which a body moves through a general spatial movement is called a spatial mechanism. An example is the RSSR linkage, which can be viewed as a four-bar linkage in which the hinged joints of the coupler link are replaced by rod ends, also called spherical joints or ball joints. The rod ends allow the input and output cranks of the RSSR linkage to be misaligned to the point that they lie in different planes, which causes the coupler link to move in a general spatial movement. Robot arms, Stewart platforms, and humanoid robotic systems are also examples of spatial mechanisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)

Newton's laws of motion
Newton's first law of motion, also called the law on inertia, states that an object continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion unless compelled to change that state by an external force.
Newton's second law of motion states that if a net force acts on an object, it will cause an acceleration of that object.
http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/pract ... aws-motion

Do you require that an evolutionary biologist perform empirical tests to accept the laws of physics?

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome
Abstract
We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08–mega–base pair Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.
Our interest in synthesis of large DNA molecules and chromosomes grew out of our efforts over the past 15 years to build a minimal cell that contains only essential genes. This work was inaugurated in 1995 when we sequenced the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium, a bacterium with the smallest complement of genes of any known organism capable of independent growth in the laboratory. More than 100 of the 485 protein-coding genes of M. genitalium are dispensable when disrupted one at a time (knockout experiments).
obtaining an error-free genome that could be transplanted into a recipient cell to create a new cell controlled only by the synthetic genome was complicated and required many quality-control steps. Our success was thwarted for many weeks by a single–base pair deletion in the essential gene dnaA. One wrong base out of more than 1 million in an essential gene rendered the genome inactive, whereas major genome insertions and deletions in nonessential parts of the genome had no observable effect on viability
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/52.abstract

Here is an empirical study that is defining what is minimally required for life and replication. How simple is this living system? do you believe it can just happen by chance? based on what evidence?

The Science of Chemical Evolution
by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.
In an attempt to explain the origin of life, scientists propose a two-stage process of natural chemical evolution:
1) formation of organic molecules, which combine to make larger biomolecules;
2) self-organization of these molecules into a living organism.
For each stage, scientists are learning that what is required for life seems to be much greater than what is possible by natural process. This huge difference has motivated scientists to creatively construct new theories for reducing requirements and enhancing possibilities, but none of these ideas has progressed from speculation to plausibility.
The simplest "living system" we can imagine, involving hundreds of components interacting in an organized way to achieve energy production and self-replication, would be extremely difficult to assemble by undirected natural process. And all of this self-organization would have to occur before natural selection (which depends on self-replication) was available.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origi ... cal-cr.htm

My view is not alone out there. Others who can rationalise system mechanics have a similar position. The system required to allow for replication and life to proceed are irreducibly complex and required prior to any conceptual mechanism of evolution begining to function.

Oh I have gotten responses... mostly that they are too busy with their own research to get involved in something that they don't really comprehend. But of course even this is just another of your methods to try and distract from discussing the system and its clear implications. As I noted very early in the other thread this is a topic that is just becoming clear to researchers as we can now observe 3 dimensional interactions live, so research will come sooner than you think and the evidence will just become clearer as the system is more fully understood.

You have gotten responses? Why did you say:
"I have sent my paper to numerous places on the evo side and so far no reply"

Because there is a difference between speaking with people directly and paper submission. Either way there is no direct reply that made any difference. However, this doesn't mean that I have not gotten favorable replies from biologists involved in the field.

They are too busy? Have you sent your paper in to be published? You haven't held meetings or conferences? I mean, this is evidence for design you are talking about. Nobel Prize winning evidence. If you are saying the evidence will become clear eventually and you don't actually have anything now, then we have nothing else to talk about. So far, from what I understand, this "evidence" has not yet been examined by the scientific community and is just one guy's (KBCid) rationale/opinion.

I can't publish in an area of research that I don't have the equiptment to perform the testing with. This is why my paper has been submittted to those who can test and publish. Even Einstein couldn't test his theory about relativety, he needed others to do the test. Does that mean that his theory had no value and that there is nothing to discuss? Note that there were no other scientists dealing with his solution and there were no current empirical tests or papers dealing with the subject when he was working on his paper. I can see you arguing with him and making the same illogical inferences about how no other scientific authority has provided any empirical tests or made any statements that matched his. lol

[Indurkar]

Apropos to
"Tell me a way in which ID can be subjected to a scientific test,"
Why should you demand a Scientific Test for ID. A scientific proposition/statement has to appropriately stand the scientific test.But why do you expect ID to cater to your whims and wishes of Scientific Test. Science has been consistantly and conspicuously appling exclusion to ID. So this is blatantly unreasonable. Will the reverse can be? Will the Science subject itself to anID test? ID will proffer Superlative intelligence and through you out in a DustBin!

Indurkar

[KBCid]

Apropos to
"Tell me a way in which ID can be subjected to a scientific test,"
Why should you demand a Scientific Test for ID. A scientific proposition/statement has to appropriately stand the scientific test.But why do you expect ID to cater to your whims and wishes of Scientific Test. Science has been consistantly and conspicuously appling exclusion to ID. So this is blatantly unreasonable. Will the reverse can be? Will the Science subject itself to anID test? ID will proffer Superlative intelligence and through you out in a DustBin! Indurkar

Actually the line of reasoning I am proposing will be testable by the scientific method for ID.

It will begin with logic based physics of matter to comprehend how matter can be controlled in 3 dimensional space since the living system and replication require the control of matter in 3 dimensions and then followed by system mechanics testing for the arrangement of systems that have minimal requirements for function. It is without doubt that it can be shown that intelligence can form irreducibly complex systems so testing by scientific method will be a snap.
What will be hard for evolutionists is to provide a logical and reasonable theoretic that is testable by the same scientific method for chance to be capable of initially forming such minimal systems and then defining how the current evolutionary model would be capable of affecting the system in the way they believe it functions.

[Pierson5]

It is not an ad hominim assumption since everything was a question. This type of response is why I asked the questions to begin with. If both of us are speaking the same language then how did you miss the clearly defined questions?

Ad hominem attacks can't be questions? Are you stupid? (that was an example, not a serious question). I honestly don't think you are seriously asking me what's my native tongue, or if I'm being paid by scientists to discuss evolution like some sort of conspiracy. That's silly. I addressed your concern, and as I pointed out, you just weren't satisfied with my answer regarding drugs.

Ok then show me their published experiments that show how they tested for systems to have evolved in the past....
How exactly do they know that the components evolved.

I gave you the citations. These researchers have met the burden of proof in their field. You hold a position in academia, if you disagree with/or don't understand the methods they used, you can write to them. I'm not going to sit here and defend the details of their work. There are many citations, and I'm sure you could find more about the evolution of these genes. The evidence is proficient enough for the many other scientists in the field. I trust their examination of the evidence just as I trust the examination of the evidence for any other field of science. I have gone over the "Argument from Authority" on the very first page:

This isn't an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority logical fallacy is when you argue that a conclusion is correct simply because a known authority said so. There is an important distinction to be made here. If you argue that evolution is a fact because most relevant scientists think so, that is a logical fallacy. However, if you argue that evolution is a fact and most relevant scientists agree with that conclusion based upon the evidence, this separation between scientific skepticism and appeal to authority is a little clearer.

We put our trust in experts and scientists because they represent the evidence. Experts are then vassals of knowledge, public manifestations of the evidence science uncovers. If this was truly a fallacy the whole movement was committing, we would never see any expert admonished for their position. If a beloved scientist came out tomorrow in full favor of crop circles, cryptozoology, etc... we would certainly change our views of his or her "authority" pretty quickly. It is not the authority of the figure that I trust, it is their interpretation of science, the scientific method, and evidence that I trust, and even this is open to revision.

Pierson5 wrote:Experts build a lifetime of knowledge, not in isolation but in concordance with other scientists. As was said before, trusting the opinion of someone who accurately represents the preponderance of evidence is not an appeal to authority, it is using an expert by proxy to state a position on the evidence. Surely not everyone has the time to research all of the topics themselves in science. It would be hard to learn all of the ins and outs of evolution if that was not your field or if you do not have the time, but knowing the basic facts and the weight of evidence behind evolution is enough to state my case. The same can be said about any discipline in science.

I guess presenting peer-reviewed, published data which shows the system provides no problem to evolution is a sad way to argue my case indeed. I welcome you to provide evidence for the system (or any of its components) which concludes it was impossible to have come about through evolution/or was designed. Show me one citation that comes to that conclusion.

Let's have a contest. You post every occurance of a system evolving and I will post every occurance of a system that was designed and then we will go with the observable evidence for how they can possibly come into existence ok? I know, I know... You will avoid all of this since you can't post what doesn't exist. Most of us are used to that.

Come into existence? Origins of life/abiogenesis have nothing to do with evolution. As was pointed out before, if a designer created the very first organisms with this system in place, it would not discredit the theory of evolution one bit.

As for your "test." Sounds good to me, but I would look to make sure it's fair. I'll post the evidence for systems which have evolved, and you can point to the evidence of systems which were biologically designed. I'm not talking about people building stuff here, that's not evidence for design in biology. I would also like to point out, the evidence is only valid if it has met the burden of proof in the scientific community. You can come up with as many arguments as you want about why you don't accept the evidence. The fact is, these scientists have met the burden of proof and done ACTUAL RESEARCH, and all the arguments put forth by you, or the discovery institute, or w/e are worthless until they do the same. So, peer reviewed evidence of biological design vs. peer reviewed evidence for evolution (involving "systems"). Sounds fair to me. If you accept, we can go over the details and begin.

My view is not alone out there. Others who can rationalise system mechanics have a similar position. The system required to allow for replication and life to proceed are irreducibly complex and required prior to any conceptual mechanism of evolution begining to function.

You are making arguments for the origin of life, not for evolution. "X must occur before evolution can occur," "How do you suppose X came into existence?" If the first simple organisms were poofed into existence using dirt and magic, this says nothing about how the organisms evolved after that.

You have gotten responses? Why did you say:
"I have sent my paper to numerous places on the evo side and so far no reply"

Because there is a difference between speaking with people directly and paper submission. Either way there is no direct reply that made any difference. However, this doesn't mean that I have not gotten favorable replies from biologists involved in the field.

I can't publish in an area of research that I don't have the equiptment to perform the testing with. This is why my paper has been submittted to those who can test and publish. Even Einstein couldn't test his theory about relativety, he needed others to do the test. Does that mean that his theory had no value and that there is nothing to discuss? Note that there were no other scientists dealing with his solution and there were no current empirical tests or papers dealing with the subject when he was working on his paper. I can see you arguing with him and making the same illogical inferences about how no other scientific authority has provided any empirical tests or made any statements that matched his.

The difference is, Einstein met the burden of proof in the scientific community.

Of course this doesn't mean there is nothing to discuss. You discuss it with others in your field. You can sit here on a forum and claim your hypothesis is evidence against evolution/for design, but you have not met the burden of proof in the scientific community. A more apt comparison would be to those many hypotheses which claimed to revolutionize a field and turned out to be incorrect. There are many more of those failed hypotheses than those which succeeded, like Einstein's. Scientists don't just accept every hypothesis that is thrown at them. Such is the process of the scientific method. Once you have actually TESTED and PUBLISHED your data, I will concede that you actually have something that deserves a second look. Until then, you are just making another extravagant claim that has not met the burden of proof in the field of biology.

[VindicateMe7]

Hi guys. I feel a little awkward jumping in, but I read through most of this thread and I'm seeing a lot more argueing on whether or not arguements exist than discussion on evolution and creationism itself. I'm only 17, and I obviously lack the knowledge either of you have, so I hope you can forgive my ignorance for asking this:

Does the idea of intelligent design in the sense of a intelligent being determining the existence of species have to totally contradict the idea of evolution, a species changing and adapting? Could it be that a being is designing species through manipulating their breeding patterns, and determining the exact mutations that an animal undergoes? Lamentations says that nothing comes to pass outside of God's plan. I hold the belief that the universe's extremely complex workings viewed from our time plane make the illusion of chaos and chance, but that these things don't really exist, because every event is happening as God knows it will happen. So if we apply this concept to the changing of species, isn't the fact that, in the theory of evolution, the species we have are the products of many unlikely mutations and quite a bit of "luck" (what would happen if the mammal with the perfect mutation for survival gets killed by a falling rock?) So one could say that modern day species are the product of an intelligent design fufilled by gradual engineering with occasional drastic modifications. I think the evidence from both sides doesn't contradict this idea. Furthermore, in Christianity, God works both through gradual change (like the fufillment of promises made to past generations) and drastic change in a short time.

I suppose I have an inferior understanding of both implications, so all I ask when you are refuting me is that you do so with respect and without antagonizing me. Thank you.

[FlawedIntellect]

Hi guys. I feel a little awkward jumping in, but I read through most of this thread and I'm seeing a lot more argueing on whether or not arguements exist than discussion on evolution and creationism itself. I'm only 17, and I obviously lack the knowledge either of you have, so I hope you can forgive my ignorance for asking this:

Does the idea of intelligent design in the sense of a intelligent being determining the existence of species have to totally contradict the idea of evolution, a species changing and adapting? Could it be that a being is designing species through manipulating their breeding patterns, and determining the exact mutations that an animal undergoes? Lamentations says that nothing comes to pass outside of God's plan. I hold the belief that the universe's extremely complex workings viewed from our time plane make the illusion of chaos and chance, but that these things don't really exist, because every event is happening as God knows it will happen. So if we apply this concept to the changing of species, isn't the fact that, in the theory of evolution, the species we have are the products of many unlikely mutations and quite a bit of "luck" (what would happen if the mammal with the perfect mutation for survival gets killed by a falling rock?) So one could say that modern day species are the product of an intelligent design fufilled by gradual engineering with occasional drastic modifications. I think the evidence from both sides doesn't contradict this idea. Furthermore, in Christianity, God works both through gradual change (like the fufillment of promises made to past generations) and drastic change in a short time.

I suppose I have an inferior understanding of both implications, so all I ask when you are refuting me is that you do so with respect and without antagonizing me. Thank you.

The idea you brought up tends to correlate with the line of thinking for Theistic Evolution. However, the common view held is that Theistic Evolution is contrary to scripture for a few reasons. Perhaps, though, I should leave it to someone else to explain? More specifics might be in other threads on here, just a note.

[VindicateMe7]

Thank you for the response. I checked around on the forums, and it seems people think Theistic evolution (If that's what I'm leaning toward, I hate to give titles to my beliefs if they are somewhat unique to me and not ripped directly from someone else) looks at Scripture too metaphorically. with the belief that creation has to refer to the creation of something out of nothing. Now, let's look at other times create is used not referring to earth or life. Psalm 51:10- "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." Here, a new heart is not being synthesized from nothing, but comes from a changing of what you have. Psalm 87:47 says that God "created all the children of man". Children aren't synthesized from nothing, but grow from existing matter. I think one can say literally that God created the species without adding matter to the universe.

PS: The Hebrew word used in both the creation account and in Psalm 51 is "bara". To create.

[KBCid]

Ok then show me their published experiments that show how they tested for systems to have evolved in the past....
How exactly do they know that the components evolved.

I gave you the citations. These researchers have met the burden of proof in their field. You hold a position in academia, if you disagree with/or don't understand the methods they used, you can write to them. I'm not going to sit here and defend the details of their work. There are many citations, and I'm sure you could find more about the evolution of these genes. The evidence is proficient enough for the many other scientists in the field. I trust their examination of the evidence just as I trust the examination of the evidence for any other field of science.

Your citations were to papers where a scientist gave an opinion about a past occurance. What you need to cite are papers where the assertion of past occurances are not simply an opinion. So when you infer that I have disagreed with these people it is not from a basis that involved the scientific method that backed their opinion it is when they haven't got the backing from the scientific method and yet still give an opinion of what they believe the truth is.
You are not going to defend the details of their work because it is the details that show their opinion for what it is. The truth is I wouldn't try to defend them based on their details either however, I also don't blindly accept their rationale either. There are no experts on historical occurances so my guess about the past has as much traction as theirs does.

Let's have a contest. You post every occurance of a system evolving and I will post every occurance of a system that was designed and then we will go with the observable evidence for how they can possibly come into existence ok? I know, I know... You will avoid all of this since you can't post what doesn't exist. Most of us are used to that.

Come into existence? Origins of life/abiogenesis have nothing to do with evolution. As was pointed out before, if a designer created the very first organisms with this system in place, it would not discredit the theory of evolution one bit.

When you came into existence was this the origin of life? The system that allowed you to begin to exist is relevant at every replication event and as I pointed out many times now the system I am pointing to can't be the cause of the first living organism since it is a replication system.

As for your "test." Sounds good to me, but I would look to make sure it's fair. I'll post the evidence for systems which have evolved, and you can point to the evidence of systems which were biologically designed. I'm not talking about people building stuff here, that's not evidence for design in biology. I would also like to point out, the evidence is only valid if it has met the burden of proof in the scientific community. You can come up with as many arguments as you want about why you don't accept the evidence. The fact is, these scientists have met the burden of proof and done ACTUAL RESEARCH, and all the arguments put forth by you, or the discovery institute, or w/e are worthless until they do the same. So, peer reviewed evidence of biological design vs. peer reviewed evidence for evolution (involving "systems"). Sounds fair to me. If you accept, we can go over the details and begin.

So you feel that a system built by man and one existing within a biological organism don't have to play by the same rules of physics? If your rationale is logical then define how intelligently designed systematic control of matter applies a different set of physics rules from biological systems. Unfortunately, your rationale of difference doesn't hold water here. No matter who or what you wish to posit as a cause for controlling matter there will be foundational physics that define how it can occur. Accurate movement of matter in space requires control in 3 planes Therefore it doesn't matter which cause is cited to be capable since the cause must apply force against the matter to be moved and to move it 3 dimensionally requires force to be applied in the only 3 planes of spatial existence that we can define.
If something is to exist and act within our 3 dimensional reality then it and everything else must obey the same foundational understanding of physics.

Newton's first law
The first law law states that if the net force (the vector sum of all forces acting on an object) is zero, then the velocity of the object is constant. Velocity is a vector quantity which expresses both the object's speed and the direction of its motion.
An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an unbalanced force acts upon it. This is known as uniform motion.
Changes in motion must be imposed against the tendency of an object to retain its state of motion. In the absence of net forces, a moving object tends to move along a straight line path indefinitely.

So if your biologial system is affecting the motion of matter it is bound by the same rules of physics that any manmade system is. Each system must of necessity apply force to the matter that is being moved. When you can show that biological systems don't have to follow these rules then you would be able to define why a biological system can perform the same action without the same requirements of intelligently designed systems.
Until that time arrives the truth will remain that a biological system of material control will have the same foundational requirements as any intelligently designed system of material control. Thus, I can point to any designed system and point out exactly what foundational requirements will apply to any system that performs the same action.

My view is not alone out there. Others who can rationalise system mechanics have a similar position. The system required to allow for replication and life to proceed are irreducibly complex and required prior to any conceptual mechanism of evolution begining to function.

You are making arguments for the origin of life, not for evolution. "X must occur before evolution can occur," "How do you suppose X came into existence?" If the first simple organisms were poofed into existence using dirt and magic, this says nothing about how the organisms evolved after that.

Again...
When you came into existence was this the origin of life? The system that allowed you to begin to exist is relevant at every replication event and as I pointed out many times now the system I am pointing to can't be the cause of the first living organism since it is a replication system.
How does a replication system come into existence? what are the minimal requirements of physics to control matter in 3 dimensional space? Define how such a system can evolve since the evolutionary mechanism requires it before it can have an effect.

You understand that I am asking you questions right? Do you also understand that these questions are based on an understanding of the physics of the motion of matter in 3 dimensional space? How do you explain your existence which isn't the origin of life and you are a controlled 3 dimensional arrangment of matter?

In order to provide an explanation for how every existing formation of life comes into existence you must define how it is physically being generated. Your argument so far is essentially that the law of physics are different for a biological formation of matter than it is for designed
formations of matter and.... I'm not buying your rationale.

[KBCid]

Hi guys. I feel a little awkward jumping in, but I read through most of this thread and I'm seeing a lot more argueing on whether or not arguements exist than discussion on evolution and creationism itself. I'm only 17, and I obviously lack the knowledge either of you have, so I hope you can forgive my ignorance for asking this:
Does the idea of intelligent design in the sense of a intelligent being determining the existence of species have to totally contradict the idea of evolution, a species changing and adapting?

There are many who believe that a guiding hand is required during the course of lifes existence and they have a variety of rationales for their view. However, there are others like myself who feel that with the proper initial design a living system can persist without outside influence required.

Any engineer does his best to design something to fullfill the needs that can be forseen for the thing created. The biblical account simply says that God created living things. These living things are actualy physical functioning systems that were designed to persist by replication and were also designed to vary at each replication event. So if the system was initially designed with a view like any human engineer would attempt to apply then there was a view toward the future to account for the environmental variables that would conceivably be encountered.

There are many scientific studies that show a plethora of redundancy just in error correction alone with the system. This is similarly exhibited by the products of engineers who form computers and software. Digital data and the data in Dna have the same requirements when it comes to making them persistent. So if we can see how this type of functionality is part of the living system then we can understand that the designer designed it that way so that there would be no necessity for a guiding hand to be present all the time and we can logically rationalise that every other sub-system that plays a role in the persistence of life over time will also show similar functionality in how it operates.

Intelligent designers are even now devising strategies for automating everything possible to sever the tie to current human interface requirements have a look here;

Programmable Automation Controller (PAC)
The primary difference between a PAC and a simple PC-based control system is that in a PAC, the "box" containing the I/O, also includes the processor and software. In fact the CPU running the system is actually built into the I/O system itself. While a typical, slaved data acquisition system is hosted by some type of general purpose PC complete with mouse, monitor and other human interface devices (HID), a Programmable Automation Controller's processor is usually dedicated to controlling the I/O system and often does not provide any direct human interface.

It is not uncommon for a PAC to run independent of any supervisory or otherwise outside controller.

PACs are often the heart of industrial control systems or process control applications. Programmable Automation Controllers may also be at the center of a portable data acquisition system or remote controller that allows an application to keep running even if its umbilical link to the outside world is cut.
http://www.ueidaq.com/programmable-auto ... llers.html

You continue to exist because all the important processes that occur within your body are controlled automatically. The hand of God is not a necessity in your functional existence because of the automated design that went into your original ancestors. Your system has all the bells and whistles that theirs had which is why you have existed for as long as you have. your body is a fully automated machine made of nano scale automated mechanisms.
You are also different than your ancestors because the system was designed to vary at each replication event within certain boundaries which allows for adaptability over time. Even during your current existence your system is adapting to the conditions you encounter in your environment. Most people never realise that their bone structure changes according to how it is stressed. As you work out to build your muscles the bones that the muscle attach to change in density to withstand the stresses being applied. Without this system in place you could build your muscle to the point where you would literally break your own bones.
You could spend a lifetime just investigating the systems that allow you to exist and never reach the end and it all functions automatically.