Evidence for God from Science

Pierson5 wrote:This is exactly the issue I have with your "evidence." You are taking a small, specific aspect of biology not completely understood and claiming it as evidence for design.

Actually the evidence provided is evidence of a system. This is what nearly every paper referenced shows. Evidence of a system. I asked this question to you before "do you know what a system is?" I also asked Do you understand what 3 dimensional spatial positioning is? Do you understand what temporal control is?
This is the cool thing about evidence. We can both view it. People who are following this thread can look at the evidence for themselves. The evidence is plainly showing that there is a system of spatiotemporal positional control functioning within all life.

Pierson5 wrote:The citation you gave says NOTHING about ID in the regards of this discussion. Your whole argument is just a rehashed version of Paley's watchmaker argument. Just as Behe used the flagellum (motor), you are using the same argument with 3 dimensional spatial organization. Paley's argument is flawed, Behe's argument was flawed and yours is flawed for the same reasons.

Then you should have no serious problems defining how it is flawed just like all the others. Right?

Pierson5 wrote: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?

They are testing the system mostly by knockout experimentation. Determining how the positional control is being implemented and observing how cellular components are being controlled in space and time. This is an exciting field and there is some very neat new technologies that are allowing them to observe the functioning of the cell in vivo with 3 dimensional detail.
The great thing about the neat new technologies that are being developed is that it usually has a mechanical engineer operating in the biological realm that helps to make many of the instruments used in scientific study such as microscopy. Microscopes and software... systems designed by people just like me to help bring the hidden world into view. Its nice to have friends in the right places. As noted I help to research the already existing papers to look for clues that can help make determinations of where they want to explore in future scientific investigations and I also get to have a bit of fun in helping to form the 3 dimensional models of the various components that are being observed. My models are used in video's similar to this; EXPLORING THE LIVING CELL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky8Xs3JhRc0
If you want names of people and specific experiments then you can look through the references I gave, there is one cited from a colleague.

Pierson5 wrote:So, your "research" is looking up other people's research to look for any reference to 3D spatial control? ... EDIT: Just saw Ivellious' post

That is part of it. Remember I stated quite plainly that I am an expert in the replication of 3 dimensional form. This is what I study and apply for a living and I perform research in this specific area.

Pierson5 wrote:When I was asking if you presented your ideas to your colleagues, I meant the biology department. And just so we're clear, you don't have any type of experiments to test your hypothesis?

My collegues are the biology department? and just so we are clear I have a number of experimental evidences to validate the hypothesis that it requires an irreducibly complex system of spatiotemporal control of matter in order to allow for 3 dimensional replication. You simply have to look within the field of mechanical engineering to see the testing and applications of the systems.
As for the hypothesis that such a system requires an intelligent designer the observable evidence speaks for itself there since only intelligent design has ever been observed to form such systems. So how would one test to prove that the system in life was designed? for that matter how would one test to prove that it evolved? We have a common problem. Neither of us can test the past... it is beyond the scientific method. Our only choice is to infer from current observable evidence.
You argue for natural occurance which you have never seen to form such a system and I argue for ID based on the observable evidence left behind as intelligent designers form such systems.

KBCid wrote: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?

Pierson5 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you that it is a requirement, and it does happen. I don't see how you go from: 1. Here is a requirement
2. We don't understand it 3. People build stuff similar 4. Therefore design

Point 2 isn't true... the fact is 'You' don't understand it. I understand it quite well since the type of system you don't understand is what I make for a living and since these systems have only ever been observed as a result of ID I have every right to hypothesize that ID would be required for them to come into existence. What have you observed that forms such a system? really show me what kind of system like this you have personally observed nature forming?

Pierson5 wrote:I also agree with what others have said before. The citations you provide are not relevant. They do not come to the same conclusions you do. None of these papers address what our current discussion entails. One citation is discussion engineering of viable tissue and says nothing about ID in the sense you are promoting.

Ok let's review what I have been saying "The evidence is plainly showing that there is a system of spatiotemporal positional control functioning within all life" and I further state that "a system of spatiotemporal positional control is required for 3 dimensional replication" here is a sampling of
the evidence provide to back these statements;

Emerging paradigms of regulated microRNA processing
The exquisite spatio–temporal control of miRNA abundance is made possible, in part, by regulation of the miRNA biogenesis pathway...
...Thus, miRNAs themselves must be post-transcriptionally regulated. In fact, regulation at multiple biogenesis steps and at turnover of the mature
miRNA has now been established...
...it is clear that miRNA processing is regulated in a complex manner, and we are only beginning to understand its true nature.
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/24/11/1086.full

Transcriptional control of mitochondrial biogenesis: the central role of PGC-1a
Mitochondrial biogenesis
Mitochondrial proteins are encoded by the nuclear and the mitochondrial genomes. The double-strand circular mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is
16.5 kb in vertebrates and contains 37 genes encoding 13 subunits of the electron transport chain (ETC) complexes I,III, IV, and V, 22 transfer RNAs, and 2 ribosomal RNAs necessary for the translation.
Correct mitochondrial biogenesis relies on the spatiotemporally coordinated synthesis and import of 1000 proteins encoded by the nuclear genome, of which some are assembled with proteins encoded by mitochondrial DNA within newly synthesized phospholipid
membranes of the inner and outer mitochondrial membranes. In addition, mitochondrial DNA replication and mitochondrial fusion and fission mechanisms must also be coordinated (Figure 1). All of these processes have to be tightly regulated in order to meet the tissue requirements.
...Mitochondrial biogenesis thus involves an intricate, complicated network of transcription factors NRFs/PPARs/ERRs that activate target genes encoding enzymes of FAO, oxidative phosphorylation, and antioxidant defences (Figure 2). PGC-1a, by co-activating, and controlling the expression of this network, directly links external physiological stimuli to the regulation of mitochondrial biogenesis
and function. Additionally, mitochondrial biogenesis involves fusion/fission and requires protein import and processing and cardiolipin biosynthesis. http://cardiovascres.oxfordjournals.org ... 8.full.pdf

MitoGenesisDB: an expression data mining tool to explore spatio-temporal dynamics of mitochondrial biogenesis
In yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae), the coordinated association of more than 800 proteins (mostly encoded by the nuclear genome) are required to assemble a functional organelle (8,9). http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/3 ... 9.full.pdf

So in your opinion none of these references says anything like what i'm saying right?

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

Pierson5 wrote:As I said above, your reasoning is flawed for the exact same reasons Behe's was flawed. Every argument you have brought up was discussed and shown to be fallacious 7 years ago in the trial. "ID doesn't claim to know who the designer is," "Science is based on naturalistic philosophy and is flawed," "Flagellum (or in your case 3D spatiotemporal control systems) are evidence of design for "X" reasons." You can read the arguments in the transcripts, they are very relevant. These excerpts are from Day 1 and give a small summery of some of the things that are discussed in the trial.

So you wish to misrepresent my position in an attempt to knock down the misrepresentation. the strawman argument along with the fallacy of False Analogy. You are invited to provide an argument for why it is flawed. This is where you need to be a real scientist and bring your rationale into play and define exactly how my argument is flawed. Show us all how my apple arguement is exactly like Behe's orange argument.

Pierson5 wrote:By definition a stone archway is "irreducibly complex."

KBCid wrote: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?

Pierson5 wrote:Behe's famous mouse trap example doesn't replicate itself. I was pointing out by definition the archway is irreducibly complex. If you take a stone away, it falls apart.

Behe's mouse trap arguement is not mine nor is the stone archway. These are your strawman arguments. How about you define where my arguments are wrong.

Pierson5 wrote:Couldn't I use this same argument against your "evidence" for ID? Have you ever seen something built by humans that has 3 dimensional spatiotemporal control systems and was also able to replicate itself with slight modifications?

You could try.
let me introduce you to Synthia

The man-made single cell "creature", which is a modified version of one of the simplest bacteria on earth, proves that the technology works.
Now Dr Venter believes organism, nicknamed Synthia, will pave the way for more complex creatures that can transform environmental waste into clean fuel, vaccinate against disease and soak up pollution.
But his development has also triggered debate over the ethics of "playing god" and the dangers of the new technology could pose in terms of biological hazards and warfare.
"We are entering an era limited only by our imagination," he said announcing the research published in the journal Science.
"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Dr Venter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745 ... g-god.html

Observable evidence - good

KBCid wrote: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.

Pierson5 wrote:If these arguments are not what you are promoting, why did you provide the link!? Perhaps stop citing articles and papers that have nothing to do with what you are promoting and we won't have these misunderstandings....

My cite was to define what irreducible complexity is not how it been applied.

KBCid wrote: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...
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. My system on the other hand has to occur before evolution can operate.

Pierson5 wrote:Citation? And here we have a false premise. You are assuming that evolution could not have produced this system (just as Behe assumed his flagellum could not have evolved). You are assuming that because we currently do not understand it completely, it could not have come about through evolution.

Well lets see here Pierson did you at all read this?

"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."

You would like us to believe that evolution was functioning prior to life, prior to the existence of alleles? Prior to replication?
I am not assuming that evolution couldn't produce this system. I am stating a fact of logic here. Evolution depends on there being alleles and replication in order to function. Therefore, it did not function until both were existing. No replication, no evolution.
LoL you believe its evolution all the way down to base chemicals, no alleles needed, no replication needed... it all just evolved.

Pierson5 wrote:This may be relevant: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21683595
CONCLUSIONS:
The genetic separability of spatial and temporal control modules in Caulobacter reflects their evolutionary history. DnaA is the central component of an ancient and phylogenetically widespread circuit that governs replication periodicity in Caulobacter and most other bacteria. By contrast, CtrA, which is found only in the asymmetrically dividing α-proteobacteria, was integrated later in evolution to enforce replicative asymmetry on daughter cells.

In what way is someones opinion of what may have happened relevant? Do you or they have any evidence from scientific method?

Pierson5 wrote: 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.

KBCid wrote: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....
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?

Pierson5 wrote:The more markers used, the less likely the similarities are to be caused by chance.

hey you got something right

KBCid wrote:Legitimacy of this method of determining relatedness is not as straight forward as some assume;
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.

Pierson5 wrote:The legitimacy of this method is VERY straight forward. The article you cited is warning lawyers and other scientists about individual cases that could have involved bias.

exactly. Having 16 points of reference tends to eliminate chance and bias.

Pierson5 wrote:Now, if you are claiming that 97% of scientists who accept evolution are mistaken in their evaluation of this sort of evidence, we now have a testable claim!! Feel free to re-evaluate the methods used by evolutionary/molecular/geneticists and other scientists and prove them wrong.

ok... how many genetic markers do they use to ascertain relatedness?

Pierson5 wrote:thus homology = relatedness. OR, homology =/= relatedness

KBCid wrote: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.

Pierson5 wrote:The genetic markers are based on the differences in the DNA sequences. DNA is the bases of heredity and, I can't tell if you agree, the number of shared markers is a good measure of relatedness (accepted by courts of law and the scientific community).
There are a variety of ways to test for distinctive variations in DNA.

Yup there certainly are "ways to test for distinctive variations in DNA", Variations are one thing and relatedness is another. Now tell me how many genetic markers are used to define relatedness?

Pierson5 wrote:Comparing two people's genetic variations determines heredity. Biologists use the same process for classifying populations of organisms. This is known as phylogenetics, and wouldn't you know it, matches up perfectly with common characteristics, biogeography and the fossil record (among others, see pg 1). So, if two organisms have the same genetic variations/markers in the same location (#3 on your definition of homologous), I fail to see the false analogy there... Maybe I'm missing something?

Comparing two peoples genetic markers... 16 of them determines heredity.
Yup your missing something;

The problem posed by phylogenetics is that genetic data are only available for living taxa, and the fossil records (osteometric data) contains less data and more-ambiguous morphological characters.[6] A phylogenetic tree represents a hypothesis of the order in which evolutionary events are assumed to have occurred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

KBCid wrote: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.

Pierson5 wrote:Intelligent designers also add novel new functions to their creations. Sometimes they create something completely new. Irrelevant. It is not just similarities. This goes back to my example using the methods of paternity testing to determine relatedness. Homology is similar structures serving similar functions. Analogous structures are those with a different origin/structure/derivation that serve a similar function. For example, the wings of bats and birds are analogous structures. The bones of the flipper of a dolphin and the hand of a human are homologous structures. Convergent evolution = evidence against evolution?

Convergent evolution = evidence for a common designer

Pierson5 wrote:In genetics, there are homologs and paralogs in gene structure. Either homology implies relatedness and paternity testing works, OR all that is wrong, in which case the experiment I provided earlier should be easy for you to conduct.

Homology is not a paternity test since it isn't based on 16 distinct genetic markers

KBCid wrote: Can inteligence be detected?

sandy_mcd wrote:Usually, but first it must be defined.

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

sandy_mcd wrote:So we have established that many properties or descriptions have fuzzy boundaries; so what?

so we can plainly see that you can't see anything dealing with ID because you require a precise definition of intelligence first. lol an intelligent agent who can't detect intelligence.

Ivellious wrote:ID explains the origins of life and of the diversity of life by saying "poof, it happened, so deal with it, end of story." ... But in other areas of science (and by that I mean all of them), scientists strive to discover the how, the why, the when, the where, the what-is-doing-it...ID addresses none of these issues, not even a little bit. When I just say "poof, it happened" I mean that, according to ID proponents, their theory is just that someone did it. It is valid within the scope of ID that God poofed life onto Earth, that aliens seeded our planet, or that a giant space dragon pooped out humans while roaming the galaxy. There is no distinction.

These are excellent points which cannot be overemphasized. There is no ID research into the background of design.

Did the designer design the universe and have everything fall into place (theistic evolution)?
Did aliens or someone else manufacture a first living cell which was programmed to evolve/adapt to changing environments?
Were different species manufactured at different times from natural materials/nothing?

ID addresses none of these issues. Scientists would be researching these questions.

KBCid wrote: fact is my understanding of mechanics and the crumbling understanding of evolutionary theory is what drove me to consider intelligent design theory in the first place and then ultimately to choose who I would believe the designer was. Ironically, this designer - that I have come to believe in specifically tells me to...
1Thess 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.

I think you guys should address KBcid points, especially his last few posts. I lean towards evolution but he sure made some hell of a points back there. It would be nice to see how they can be answered.

Neo, are you referring to his posts about the proposed flaws in evolution or his posts directly about how ID is a valid theory? Those are two very separate topics that have sort of been jumbled up in this thread.

EDIT: Also, I'm probably going to avoid talking specifics about evolution itself (aside from silly "just a theory" comments and the like) because starting in a couple weeks I'll be taking an advanced biology course at my university called "Evolution". Glancing through the textbook, it seems like the course will cover many topics that are routinely criticized by ID and the like, so hopefully I'll learn more specific counter arguments, since personally I'm not an expert on many of the details of evolution. right now I would say I have more of a broad understanding of the various aspects of evolution.

As for ID questions and assertions, I doubt I'll be learning much more about it in the future, so I'm certainly open to arguing/discussing that topic itself.

neo-x wrote: I lean towards evolution but he sure made some hell of a points back there.

What exactly are his points? As many people do with my examples, i am mystified by his examples and writing style. The way i look at things is so different from his that i frequently do not understand what point he is trying to make.

Neo, are you referring to his posts about the proposed flaws in evolution or his posts directly about how ID is a valid theory? Those are two very separate topics that have sort of been jumbled up in this thread.

Well, his post on the top of this page was what I was referring to specifically. I see what you mean, two different things going on here.

ID addresses none of these issues. Scientists would be researching these questions

Red herring.

Good gosh, we've got a bunch of folks here who K has basically mopped the floor with, and they don't have sense enough to know it. He's had to repeat over and over, and yet it seems some refuse to honestly consider his work.

How is that a red herring? Why does ID get to rewrite the rules of scientific exploration just to fit in? Why are all scientific questions irrelevant when talking about ID? Why is no legitimate research being done on ID? Why is all the research KBCid does actually just reinterpreting other people's research and packaging it differently? Why are attacks on evolution considered evidence for ID (a false dichotomy is the proper term for that)?

jlay wrote:

ID addresses none of these issues. Scientists would be researching these questions

Red herring.

Good gosh, we've got a bunch of folks here who K has basically mopped the floor with, and they don't have sense enough to know it. He's had to repeat over and over, and yet it seems some refuse to honestly consider his work.

Science is easy when you can basically be ignorant about the issues KBCI brought up and viola, call it a red herring. You can only explain things for so long. Im just having fun reading his posts. Ive always thought that it would be the engineers that would take us to the next levels pertaining to life.
And KBCI keeps rocking on:)

neo-x wrote:It would be nice to see how they can be answered.

neo-x wrote:Well, his post on the top of this page was what I was referring to specifically. I see what you mean, two different things going on here.

Neo if you read through this thread and observe it carefully you will notice that almost none of my points are discussed as pertains to the system of spatiotemporal control. This was expected.
The position I'm bringing to light is not currently dealt with on any anti-ID sites so the posters here are unsure of what to reply since there is nothing anti to be found and they continually try and redirect the discussion into avenues they believe can be answered. This is good. This means it requires them to form actual intellectual points de novo in order to have any semblance of rationality. Apparently a new thing for them since they are tending to stay away from certain points I am making.

If you see some things in my posts that you want more commentary on then simply quote what interests you and ask me to expand on it. You don't even need to be for or against something to ask for further clarification and who knows, I may say something inadvertantly that the anti-ID side may feel they can swoop in on and thus you may get the discussion points dealt with that interest you.
In many cases the points I'm bringing to the table are 'tips of the iceberg' which I am fully capable and willing to delve into. Most of my understanding is through the mechanical engineering discipline in regards to systems and replication and I could spend days writing about each of these subjects. So feel free do a bit of information steering.

In yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae), the coordinated association of more than 800 proteins (mostly encoded by the nuclear genome) are required to assemble a functional organelle (8,9). http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/3 ... 9.full.pdf

sandy_mcd wrote: There is no ID research into the background of design. ID addresses none of these issues. Scientists would be researching these questions.

Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

Methods of Intelligent Design Detection
Formal Design Detection Methodology
Informal Design Detection Methodology
Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature
Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science
Response to Naturalist Objection
http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design

Nice article. Except that it doesn't address any current research into ID, and falls back on the hilariously obvious red herring "ID is used in forensic science!" argument. That's nice, but every example of "Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science" is utterly irrelevant when talking about biological science. It would be like me quoting the evolution of society or how a chemical reaction "evolves" as it progresses through various steps as evidence for evolution. I mean seriously, what does arson have to do with the origins of species? Anyone?

Ivellious wrote:Nice article. Except that it doesn't address any current research into ID, and falls back on the hilariously obvious red herring "ID is used in forensic science!" argument. That's nice, but every example of "Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science" is utterly irrelevant when talking about biological science. It would be like me quoting the evolution of society or how a chemical reaction "evolves" as it progresses through various steps as evidence for evolution. I mean seriously, what does arson have to do with the origins of species? Anyone?

You keep asserting this argument over and over again and frankly I am just sick and tired of it. How is what ID proposes any different than claiming evolutionary progressions without the ability to test them? Science claims that certain biological similarities are an indication of common ancestry, which is fine, it does fit TE. ID proposes that these similarities are an indication of common design and guess what, the evidence does fit the theory. If you want to claim it's unscientific because it's untestable then at a minimum be intellectually honest enough to admit that TE's claims are unscientific because they are just as untestable.

Why does ID get to rewrite the rules of scientific exploration just to fit in?

Who is rewriting what? It seems, based on what I've read, you guys have to be given (repeatedly) a definition on operational versus forensic science.

As K has said, we can observe thousands of instances of intelligence accounting for 3-D spatial positioning. Show me where the functions for it in nature arose? Just one. You've got a double standard and you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. You are religiously committed to your position. You will stand before God one day, and all of this will be evidence of how you shook your fist in the face of reason, and people who actually care about your eternal destiny. If you have nothing new to add, I'd say, move along, because from my perspective you are only embarrassing yourself as K has laid out his case, and you guys keep attacking red herrings.