Evidence for God from Science

Dissecting Temporal and Spatial Control of Cytokinesis with a Myosin II Inhibitor
Completion of cell division during cytokinesis requires temporally and spatially regulated communication from the microtubule cytoskeleton to the actin cytoskeleton and the cell membrane...
... Continuous signals from microtubules are required to maintain the position of the cleavage furrow, and these signals control the localization of myosin II independently of other furrow components...

New drugs that target guanosine triphosphatases, membrane dynamics, and mitotic motors will be useful in further dissecting the logic of cytokinesis. These proteins and processes are all required for cytokinesis (1, 2), but their precise roles in timing and spatial organization have yet to be defined.
http://straightlab.stanford.edu/PDF/dissecting.pdf

Slowly and methodiclly they are tracing down how many linkages / influences it takes to make a 3 dimensional formation of matter and the farther they can see the more involved the system becomes. This type of investigation is reverse engineering in a way that any mechanical engineer would be proud of. The part that will eventually be tough for them to figure out is how positional control is directed from an origin point and then carried out.

In every case of man made positional control devices such as CNC's or robotics we observe that mechanically the systems have some very specific minimal requirements in order to function. One of these occurs where stored data is translated from an encoded form to a form that can be understood by the automated system that processes the information. The data part is an important understanding in the mechanics of this system.
You see in order to repeat a structure of matter a system minimally needs;
1) to be able to enforce where (in 3 dimensional space) and when physical objects occur during a construction event and since the event is the forming of 3 dimensional structure then the data must encode the positions and the timing information for the components that are used to form the shape.
2) A translator that can provide a translation that initiates physical actions
3) mechanisms that can perform the actions required

This system is irreducible and it is quite complex and it could not evolve because it requires replication ability for evolutionary forces to have any evolving effect. This is where the chemical evolution line is drawn... If it doesn't replicate then evolution has no power over it. Without an imaginable system of control provided by evolutionary rationale, evolutionists lose the ability to convince others about origins of life.

This is the line where any ID rationale or creationist rationale must begin at. We should not be arguing how changes in form can possibly occur. We need to focus on how lifes 3 dimensional structure is able to repeat itself. Even now scientists have hit a brick wall trying to imagine what the smallest repeating cell minimally needs to repeat itself and that is somewhere between 100-200 genes.
as more understanding occurs about 3 dimensional structural repetition it should be easily shown that such a system cannnot possibly occur by chance. It requires intelligent design to form the initial automated structure.

Spatial Control of Cytokinesis by Cdr2 Kinase and Mid1/Anillin Nuclear Export
Summary
Maintaining genome integrity and cellular function requires proper positioning of the cell division plane. In most eukaryotes, cytokinesis relies on a contractile actomyosin ring positioned by intrinsic spatial signals that are poorly defined at the molecular level. Fission yeast cells assemble a medial contractile ring in response to positive spatial cues from the nucleus at the cell center [1,2] and negative spatial cues from the cell tips [3,4]. These signals control the localization of the anillin-like protein Mid1, which defines the position of the division plane at the medial cortex, where it recruits contractile-ring components at mitosis onset [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Here we show that Cdr2 kinase anchors Mid1 at the medial cortex during interphase through association with the Mid1 N terminus. This association underlies the negative regulation of Mid1 distribution by cell tips. We also demonstrate that the positive signaling from the nucleus is based on Mid1 nuclear export, which links division-plane position to nuclear position during early mitosis. After nuclear displacement, Mid1 nuclear export is dominant over Cdr2-dependent positioning of Mid1. We conclude that Cdr2- and nuclear export-dependent positioning of Mid1 constitute two overlapping mechanisms that relay cell polarity and nuclear positional information to ensure proper division-plane specification.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abs ... 09)00985-3

Biomechanical regulation of contractility: spatial control and dynamics
Contractility of the actomyosin cortex is tightly regulated in space and time to orchestrate cell shape changes. Conserved biochemical pathways regulate actomyosin networks in subcellular domains which drive cell shape changes. Actomyosin networks display complex dynamics, such as flows and pulses, which participate in myosin distribution and provide a more realistic description of the spatial distribution and evolution of forces during morphogenesis. Such dynamics are influenced by the mechanical properties of actomyosin networks. Moreover, actomyosin can self-organize and respond to mechanical stimuli through multiple types of biomechanical feedback. In this review we propose a framework encapsulating spatiotemporal regulation of contractility from established pathways with the dynamics and mechanics of actomyosin networks.
http://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology ... 11)00210-8

Spatial control of coated-pit dynamics in living cells
Clathrin-coated pits invaginating from the plasma membrane show definite, but highly limited, mobility within the membrane that is relaxed upon treatment with latrunculin B, an inhibitor of actin assembly, indicating that an actin-based framework may be involved in the mobility of these pits. Transient, motile coated vesicles that originate from coated pits can be detected, with multiple vesicles occasionally appearing to emanate from a single pit. Despite their seemingly random distribution, coated pits tend to form repeatedly at defined sites while excluding other regions. This spatial regulation of coated-pit assembly and function is attributable to the attachment of the coated pits to the membrane skeleton.
http://www.nature.com/ncb/journal/v1/n1 ... 599_1.html

OMG The ASCB 50th Anniversary Essay is absolutely talking my language. <3

Remaining Mysteries of the Cytoplasm
Nothing epitomizes the mystery of life more than the spatial organization and dynamics of the cytoplasm. How can a bunch of molecules, no matter how sophisticated, generate spatially complex behavior on a scale that is much larger than the molecules themselves? In my view, we will be done as cell biologists when we can predict the structure and dynamics of cells from DNA sequence. That goal is still some way off; indeed it is not yet clear if it is conceptually feasible. Below I identify three challenges, one general and two specific, that must be overcome if we are to make progress.
COLLECTIVE PROTEIN BEHAVIOR
Understanding how molecules work together to orchestrate cellular processes is the new frontier in basic cell biology. Reductionist approaches generated parts lists for many cellular processes and detailed biochemical information on some parts. Occasionally, studying a single part gave profound insight into large-scale behavior. Myosin-II in muscle contraction is an example, though we are still far from understanding how sarcomeres assemble. However, most cellular processes depend on multiple proteins and lack the quasi-crystalline organization of muscle. Invariably, we lack quantitative, predictive understanding of the collective behavior that generates such cellular processes...
...we may also need new conceptual approaches to understand how integrated behavior emerges from complex microscopic dynamics. ..

BUILDING THE CELL: LOCAL CONTROL VERSUS LOCAL SYNTHESIS
Physical organization and motility of cells requires spatially controlled biochemistry.
http://www.molbiolcell.org/content/21/22/3811.full

Cellular Dynamics and Cell Patterning
Roland Wedlich-Söldner
Research
The organization of cells is at the same time tightly regulated and extremely dynamic. Both, whole cells and sub cellular structures are maintained in a steady state where constant energy input is used to create flux of components between defined compartments.
Our goal is to understand how a highly dynamic system such as the cell can generate the extraordinary spatial and temporal precision characteristic of most cellular processes. http://www.biochem.mpg.de/wedlich/research/index.html

Ahhhh yes "extraordinary spatial and temporal precision characteristic of most cellular processes" Indeed how can 3 dimensional formations of matter repeat without such control?. ....It can't... The control system had to exist prior to replication and thus prior to evolutionary mechanism effects. No control, no replication, no evolution.

I am finding paper after paper now all referring to the spatiotemporal control system that they all know has to exist. Its unfortunate that most of the people studying this area have no expertise in actually setting up replication processes.

SNARE proteins are highly enriched in lipid rafts in PC12 cells: Implications for the spatial control of exocytosis
A plethora of other proteins have been implicated in regulated exocytosis, and gene disruption and protein-binding assays have suggested functions for these proteins. However, a key question that remains unanswered is how these proteins are organized in vivo. For example, the target (t)SNARE syntaxin 1A interacts with a large number of protein components of the secretory machinery, including synaptosomal-associated protein of 25 kDa (SNAP-25), vesicle-associated membrane protein (VAMP)2, αSNAP, nSec1, synaptotagmin, Munc13, Csp, tomosyn, and calcium channels (6, 9–13). How are these proteins organized to allow the appropriate interaction to proceed, while preventing interference from other binding partners of syntaxin 1A? Clearly, some of these interactions are mutually exclusive, but intricate regulatory mechanisms must exist to ensure that the appropriate interactions take place when required. The need for structural organization of the exocytotic machinery is underlined by the demonstration that SNAP-25 and syntaxin 1A are found not only in nerve terminals (where synaptic vesicle exocytosis occurs) but also along the axonal plasma membrane (14). Also, yeast homologues of syntaxin and SNAP-25 are localized around the entire periphery of the cell in addition to the bud, the active site of exocytosis (15). Thus, despite target (t)SNAREs being widely distributed on plasma membranes, exocytosis occurs only at defined sites of the membrane, implying that only certain tSNAREs are functionally active.
Discussion.
Regulated exocytosis requires the specific and sequential interaction of a host of different proteins. Such a complex process is likely to require strict organization of the participating proteins. We have examined the potential role played by lipid rafts in organizing the exocytotic machinery in PC12 cells. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33262/

Chemical and Biological Engineering
Epithelial patterning and morphogenesis: Epithelial morphogenesis, a process by which cellular sheets are folded into three-dimensional structures, relies on cell shape changes and rearrangements that control local tissue deformations. These spatially controlled cell behaviors reflect the spatial expression of “morphogenesis” genes responsible for cell adhesion, shape control, and force generation. The fact that the same morphogenesis genes are implicated in the formation of an amazing variety of structures suggests the possibility of a universal epithelial folding code. http://www.princeton.edu/cbe/people/faculty/shvartsman/

Intracellular signaling: spatial and temporal control.
Abstract
Cells integrate many inputs through complex networks of interacting signaling pathways. Systems approaches as well as computer-aided reductionist approaches attempt to "untangle the wires" and gain an intimate understanding of cells. But "understanding" any system is just the way that the human mind gains the ability to predict behavior. Computer simulations are an alternative way to achieve this goal--quite possibly the only way for complex systems. We have new tools to probe large sets of unknown interactions, and we have amassed enough detailed information to quantitatively describe many functional modules. Cell physiology has passed the threshold: the time to begin modeling is now. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15888574

Do tell....

The Tangled1 Gene Is Required for Spatial Control of Cytoskeletal Arrays Associated with Cell Division during Maize Leaf Development

During interphase, cortical microtubules are believed to influence the orientation of cell expansion by guiding the pattern in which cell wall material is laid down. Little is known about the mechanisms that regulate these cytoskeleton-dependent processes critical for plant development. Previous work showed that the Tangled1 (Tan1) gene of maize is required for spatial regulation of cytokinesis during maize leaf development but not for leaf morphogenesis. Here, we examine the cytoskeletal arrays associated with cell division and morphogenesis during the development of tan1 and wild-type leaves. Our analysis leads to the conclusion that Tan1 is required both for the positioning of cytoskeletal arrays that establish planes of cell division during prophase and for spatial guidance of expanding phragmoplasts toward preestablished cortical division sites during cytokinesis.
http://www.plantcell.org/content/10/11/1875.abstract

Woot they have traced a control back to a gene. I wonder how I would have guessed thats where it would be found?

Telomere Maintenance through Spatial Control of Telomeric Proteins
Our findings highlight how the coordinated interactions between TIN2, TPP1, and POT1 in the cytoplasm regulate the assembly and function of the telosome in the nucleus and indicate for the first time the importance of nuclear export and spatial control of telomeric proteins in telomere maintenance. http://mcb.asm.org/content/27/16/5898.short

3 Dimensional spatial control in conjunction with a temporal control is required to replicate 3 Dimensional formations of matter.
Tell me what is the simplest system you can imagine which can perform this process?
How do you control something in 3 dimensional space? further, how do you control the actions in time?

Seriously now, how does one rationalise that such a system would arise by chance alone? remember "no replication, no evolution". Thus it must form by absolute chance. Of course one must also assume that chemical compositions that could have any chance at making this happen ever existed... no fossil record... no evidence to base an assumption on.

This is some serious stuff KBC. I don't pretend to understand any of it but I'm loving reading it nonetheless. Fascinating!

Byblos wrote:This is some serious stuff KBC. I don't pretend to understand any of it but I'm loving reading it nonetheless. Fascinating!

Sir, God gives each of us gifts for specific understandings and abilities [1Co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.] You may not posess my exact gift per se nor is it expected that I have yours but I can do my best to convey understanding if at all possible from the gift I do have.

If you don't quite understand something in this topic by all means please try and define where you lose it so that I may in some small way devise a method that will convey understanding better. This topic in my view is of ultimate importance in how even an unbeliever can be brought to a proper rationale that a designer is required. I found my way to God because of this very truth. Once it becomes apparent that a designer is required then it is only a small step to rationalising who the designer is. Granted that some may choose another historicly concieved designer which means we can't win them all but, everyone will have a firm basis for asserting that regardless of your concept of who it is we can all agree that one is required.

ID is a gateway concept that can bring one to God or a god this is usually the hardest part of a rationale for those who are still undecided about their beliefs. Atheism and evolutionists have their greatest power of persuasion based on there being no need for a God right? So let's remove that particular point / lie from their arsenal and get the truth where it belongs.

I would like to request that this thread be stickied for a time and let as many as possible try and get their understandings wrapped around this. I promise that I will do my best to figure out ways of making a proper conveyance of understanding so that they may be able to go forth with the ability to argue this point on their own.

Each of us is given a period of time to come to an understanding of God before we check out and await judgement. The more solid our understanding can become for why we believe not only in God by why God is necessary the easier it will be for fence sitters to choose their path.

KBCid wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:So where is the scientific backing for ID?

everywhere. every object that exhibits specified complexity is existing evidence for ID and everything that exhibits such attributes as ID leaves behind can have ID posited as its cause.

That's not actually scientific backing, that's just an assertion based on observation. You have a hypothesis and you have presented it as true despite no scientific paper supporting this point. You also have multiple arguments ex nihilo that basically point out dark areas of science (that scientists have identified as needing future research) as evidence for your hypothesis. While the scientific articles you have presented are fascinating, your baseless conclusions are unsettling.

KBCid wrote:

Byblos wrote:This is some serious stuff KBC. I don't pretend to understand any of it but I'm loving reading it nonetheless. Fascinating!

Sir, God gives each of us gifts for specific understandings and abilities [1Co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.] You may not posess my exact gift per se nor is it expected that I have yours but I can do my best to convey understanding if at all possible from the gift I do have.

If you don't quite understand something in this topic by all means please try and define where you lose it so that I may in some small way devise a method that will convey understanding better. This topic in my view is of ultimate importance in how even an unbeliever can be brought to a proper rationale that a designer is required. I found my way to God because of this very truth. Once it becomes apparent that a designer is required then it is only a small step to rationalising who the designer is. Granted that some may choose another historicly concieved designer which means we can't win them all but, everyone will have a firm basis for asserting that regardless of your concept of who it is we can all agree that one is required.

ID is a gateway concept that can bring one to God or a god this is usually the hardest part of a rationale for those who are still undecided about their beliefs. Atheism and evolutionists have their greatest power of persuasion based on there being no need for a God right? So let's remove that particular point / lie from their arsenal and get the truth where it belongs.

I would like to request that this thread be stickied for a time and let as many as possible try and get their understandings wrapped around this. I promise that I will do my best to figure out ways of making a proper conveyance of understanding so that they may be able to go forth with the ability to argue this point on their own.

Each of us is given a period of time to come to an understanding of God before we check out and await judgement. The more solid our understanding can become for why we believe not only in God by why God is necessary the easier it will be for fence sitters to choose their path.

Okay, here's something I didn't quite understand when watching the video you linked some time back of an embryo forming and the video clearly displays a flash of light (some electrical discharge) that resulted in the positioning of the head. 3D spacial positioning was given as evidence of ID. While the video is absolutely fascinating, I'm not certain exactly how that's evidence of ID. Why could not that electrical discharge be a random occurrence (position-wise), at which time the head forms in that particular location? In other words, how do we know the electrical discharge and a particular 3D position are interrelated? Are we certain that this discharge always occurs at the same exact location, for example?

KBCid wrote:everywhere. every object that exhibits specified complexity is existing evidence for ID and everything that exhibits such attributes as ID leaves behind can have ID posited as its cause.

Beanybag wrote: That's not actually scientific backing, that's just an assertion based on observation. You have a hypothesis and you have presented it as true despite no scientific paper supporting this point. You also have multiple arguments ex nihilo that basically point out dark areas of science (that scientists have identified as needing future research) as evidence for your hypothesis. While the scientific articles you have presented are fascinating, your baseless conclusions are unsettling.

Are you familiar with the scientific method?

Overview of the Scientific Method
The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Scientists use the scientific method to search for cause and effect relationships in nature.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-f ... thod.shtml

Observable evidence is part of the scientific method. Nearly every object created from intelligent design exhibits CSI;

Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information
the information that tends to interest us as rational inquirers generally, and scientists in particular, is not the actualization of arbitrary possibilities which correspond to no patterns, but rather the actualization of circumscribed possibilities which do correspond to patterns.
... there are functional patterns to which life corresponds, and which are given independently of the actual living systems. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. The functionality of organisms can be cashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters (1995) cashes it out globally in terms of viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe (1996) cashes it out in terms of the irreducible complexity and minimal function of biochemical systems...
...My argument focuses on the nature of intelligent causation, and specifically, on what it is about intelligent causes that makes them detectable. To see why CSI is a reliable indicator of design, we need to examine the nature of intelligent causation. The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice. Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities. This is true not just of humans, but of animals as well...
...Given this characterization of intelligent causes, the crucial question is how to recognize their operation. Intelligent causes act by making a choice. How then do we recognize that an intelligent cause has made a choice? A bottle of ink spills accidentally onto a sheet of paper; someone takes a fountain pen and writes a message on a sheet of paper. In both instances ink is applied to paper. In both instances one among an almost infinite set of possibilities is realized. In both instances a contingency is actualized and others are ruled out. Yet in one instance we infer design, in the other chance. What is the relevant difference? Not only do we need to observe that a contingency was actualized, but we ourselves need also to be able to specify that contingency. The contingency must conform to an independently given pattern, and we must be able independently to formulate that pattern. A random ink blot is unspecifiable; a message written with ink on paper is specifiable. Wittgenstein (1980, p. 1e) made the same point as follows: "We tend to take the speech of a Chinese for inarticulate gurgling. Someone who understands Chinese will recognize language in what he hears. Similarly I often cannot discern the humanity in man."
This argument for showing that CSI is a reliable indicator of design may now be summarized as follows: CSI is a reliable indicator of design because its recognition coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally. In general, to recognize intelligent causation we must establish that one from a range of competing possibilities was actualized, determine which possibilities were excluded, and then specify the possibility that was actualized. What's more, the competing possibilities that were excluded must be live possibilities, sufficiently numerous so that specifying the possibility that was actualized cannot be attributed to chance. In terms of probability, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly improbable. In terms of complexity, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly complex. All the elements in the general scheme for recognizing intelligent causation (i.e., Actualization-Exclusion-Specification) find their counterpart in complex specified information-CSI. CSI pinpoints what we need to be looking for when we detect design.
As a postscript, I call the reader's attention to the etymology of the word "intelligent." The word "intelligent" derives from two Latin words, the preposition inter, meaning between, and the verb lego, meaning to choose or select. Thus according to its etymology, intelligence consists in choosing between. It follows that the etymology of the word "intelligent" parallels the formal analysis of intelligent causation just given. "Intelligent design" is therefore a thoroughly apt phrase, signifying that design is inferred precisely because an intelligent cause has done what only an intelligent cause can do-make a choice.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

By analysing created formations of matter that were known to be formed by intelligent design we can define specific points about its formation that are repeatedly observed. Repeatability is part of the empirical manner that the scientific method is supposed to be based on. Nearly every object that is created by ID is an experimental study in that anyone at any time can make these same observations by examining them. Here is a simple example of how intelligent design is inferred to ancient arrowheads;

Systematic Flaking
What Identifies Broken Rocks as Man-Made?
Systematic flaking is the collective term used by archaeologists to refer to a suite of characteristics found in a pile of broken pieces of stone (called lithics), that we have agreed are evidence that the stone was purposefully broken by either a human or one of our closest relatives ...
One of the most ubiquitous artifact on the planet is debitage, tiny and not-so-tiny pieces of broken stone that are the results of a stone tool-making episode by one of our ancestors at some point during the past 2.6 million years or so. Broken stone can occur naturally, of course, and some of our primate cousins such as chimpanzees also do some stone breaking in the course of cracking nuts open, but only humans and our ancestors have produced recognizably patterned rock breaking, called somewhat more elegantly, systematic flaking routines.
By the way: natural broken rock which on the surface appears to have been man-made but does not have evidence of systematic flaking is known as geofacts. http://archaeology.about.com/od/sterms/ ... c_flak.htm

Such observable evidence is analysed scientifically and determinations are made based on those observable evidences. Every paper ever produced to define how intelligently created objects can be identified would be the type scientific papers you are asking for. If you need a paper to legitamize that it is indeed scientifically possible to identify intelligent design then you can surely look up all the papers that were produced for the identification of historically designed objects.

Here is another man made object that exhibits much more CSI than an arrowhead;

The Antikythera mechanism is an ancient analog computer[1][2] designed to calculate astronomical positions. It was recovered in 1900–1901 from the Antikythera wreck,[3] but its significance and complexity were not understood until a century later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

No one knows who the designer was. No one initially understood what it was. Yet no one presumed that it was naturally occuring. Why? What was it about this object that allowed for scientists to determine that it was intelligently designed? It had specifiable complexity. The arrangement of the matter it was composed of contained observable evidence to make an inference to design. Can you point out what these specified complexities are?

KBCid wrote:

KBCid wrote:everywhere. every object that exhibits specified complexity is existing evidence for ID and everything that exhibits such attributes as ID leaves behind can have ID posited as its cause.

Beanybag wrote: That's not actually scientific backing, that's just an assertion based on observation. You have a hypothesis and you have presented it as true despite no scientific paper supporting this point. You also have multiple arguments ex nihilo that basically point out dark areas of science (that scientists have identified as needing future research) as evidence for your hypothesis. While the scientific articles you have presented are fascinating, your baseless conclusions are unsettling.

Are you familiar with the scientific method?

Overview of the Scientific Method
The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Scientists use the scientific method to search for cause and effect relationships in nature.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-f ... thod.shtml

Observable evidence is part of the scientific method. Nearly every object created from intelligent design exhibits CSI;

Yes, but there's more steps to the method - it's not scientific if you ignore them. You need repeatable experimentation, a falsifiable hypothesis, accurate measurements, and peer review. CSI is not a scientific concept and ID not a scientific theory. I don't know much to argue against ID, but I do know it is not science.

"We tend to take the speech of a Chinese for inarticulate gurgling. Someone who understands Chinese will recognize language in what he hears. Similarly I often cannot discern the humanity in man."

No, I don't know that it does sound like gurgling. There's noticeable patterns, repeated sounds, clearly non-random, coming from the mouth of a person. In a series of seemingly random characters, we can try to compare the odds that they came there by chance and see if there's a significant pattern. If there's not enough information, however, we won't be able to have enough certainty to know otherwise. But all we can tell is if it came there by chance. You have presented a false dichotomy here. You say that the cause of something is either intelligence or chance.. but why is this? When we drop a ball, we might say it had an equal chance of falling in any direction, and yet it falls in the same direction every time. Is this intelligence at work (you might say yes)? Until all other possibilities are ruled out, or until we have evidence to use otherwise, we can't really know if it was intelligence or a process that created something. It might also be a fallacy of the induction - just because intelligence produces things that are unlikely to have arisen by chance does not make it so that things that are unlikely to have arisen by chance were produced by intelligence.

Byblos wrote:Okay, here's something I didn't quite understand when watching the video you linked some time back of an embryo forming and the video clearly displays a flash of light (some electrical discharge) that resulted in the positioning of the head. 3D spacial positioning was given as evidence of ID.

The discharge was observed to form identifiable 'patterns' in an otherwise blank surface which the scientists continued to observe and found that the patterns corresponded to later formations in 3D.
3D spatial positioning of matter into specifiable patterns is asserted to be an identifiable point of intelligence because intelligence has proven its ability to form matter into arrangements that they have no logical rationale to be formed into. Consider your car. Why would matter ever form by natural cause into that arrangement? Its not a snowflake or a crystaline formation which we can experimentally prove has a natural cause. So when you see matter being formed into a specifiable pattern beyond what a natural cause would infer then it has to be formed systematically. Something has to control how it is arranged.
So, when you see the discharge occur you see electrical energy being applied to already existing molecular structures which then become altered into a recognisable pattern in 3 dimensional space. Thus we know that part of the process of 3D formation has electricity involved in conjunction with molecular structures that can be affected by it in specific spatial locations to define future construction. They tested the electrical control and found that if it was interfered with that it caused the structures to form in different spatial locations so it is empirically confirmed that the electrical component is directly involved with spatial structure formation.

Byblos wrote:While the video is absolutely fascinating, I'm not certain exactly how that's evidence of ID.

ID has been the only cause so far observed that uses electrical energy to precisely replicate formations of matter. You can look up such things as CNC machining to see how it is applied in that area. Essentially electrical energy is the conveyor of information (a signal) from one part of the system to another part of the system which is then actualised into actions that cause formation of matter to occur. So far I have seen no natural occurance of this type produced by natural causes so it is quite simple to infer ID as a possible cause to explain the observable evidence being exhibited.

Byblos wrote:Why could not that electrical discharge be a random occurrence (position-wise), at which time the head forms in that particular location? In other words, how do we know the electrical discharge and a particular 3D position are interrelated? Are we certain that this discharge always occurs at the same exact location, for example?

I'm not sure if I gave the link for the commentary on what was observed by the scientist but by your question it appears that you are only aware of the outlining of the head. Here is a link to that info which will elucidate what was observed in a more expansive manner;
http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/42977

Electric Frog Face
Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.
The Tufts biologists found that, before the face of a tadpole develops, bioelectrical signals (ion flux) cause groups of cells to form patterns marked by different membrane voltage and pH levels.

The imagery revealed three stages, or courses, of bioelectric activity.
First, a wave of hyperpolarization (negative ions) flashed across the entire embryo, coinciding with the emergence of cilia that enable the embryos to move. Next, patterns appeared that matched the imminent shape changes and gene expression domains of the developing face. Bright hyperpolarization marked the folding in of the surface, while both hyperpolarized and depolarized regions overlapped domains of head patterning genes. In the third course, localized regions of hyperpolarization formed, expanded and disappeared, but without disturbing the patterns created during the second stage. At the same time, the spherical embryo began to elongate.
------------------------------------------------------

As you can see it was not simply a head that was defined but "visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear". Each of these individual patterns where coordinated into positions relative to each other. Spatial positioning of a single pattern could be a random occurance but spatial positioning of multiple patterns that have relationships to one another is not random. It shows that a system of precision spatial control must exist to make the 3D formation correctly.
Now we also know that the patterns that become realised on the surface have a specific spatial relationship which they tested to make sure that the electrical signal was in fact being applied to control eventual 3 dimensional formations;

"The Tufts team found that disrupting bioelectric signaling by inhibiting ductin (a protein that is part of the machinery that transports hydrogen ions) correlated with craniofacial abnormalities."

Remember what we are looking at here is a system of replication. We can observe the same sequential events and precision patterning with every new life forming. so it is repeatable. So what is the bottom line evidence we can deduce from what is observed?
1) A mechanism composed of matter generates an electrical signal at a specific time (temporal control)
2) The signal goes out from there to spatial locations on the surface
3) molecular structures at specific spatial locations then act based on the signal
4) 3 dimensional structures then begin to form in precise ways at those precise locations

Thus, it is easy to deduce that the system has a spatiotemporal control system in order to 'reproduce' a living form.
I hope this helped.

KBCid wrote: Antikythera mechanism is an ancient analog computer ... Yet no one presumed that it was naturally occuring. Why? What was it about this object that allowed for scientists to determine that it was intelligently designed?

Because we know that brass does not naturally occur, especially in the form of gears. We can compare non-man-made objects with man-made objects.

KBCid wrote: Wittgenstein (1980, p. 1e) made the same point as follows: "We tend to take the speech of a Chinese for inarticulate gurgling. Someone who understands Chinese will recognize language in what he hears. ...

Yes, if you already know what something is, you can identify it. No Design needed. Wittgenstein (falsely as Beanybag points out) is also saying - we can recognize a language if we already know what it is, otherwise, not so much. The argument isn't from Design, it is from Familiarity.

In the case of Design, we can recognize how man does things. But if we put all natural objects (cells, etc) in the unknown-cause category, we have no idea what nature can accomplish. We know brass doesn't naturally occur in machined form; we do not know this about cells.

KBCid wrote: Spatial positioning of a single pattern could be a random occurance but spatial positioning of multiple patterns that have relationships to one another is not random. It shows that a system of precision spatial control must exist to make the 3D formation correctly.

I can't imagine any biologist has ever claimed that embryo development occurs by random chance. Here's a 1956 paper which addresses some of the coordination necessary http://www.pnas.org/content/43/1/184.full.pdf. And there are earlier ones as well.

Here's a 1970 paper with a slightly different view:http://www.pnas.org/content/67/1/156.full.pdf
"There is not only the evidence of the sorting-out of a random mixture of cells or of tissue fragments into groups of similar cells, there is even the evidence of reconstitution of an entire organism such as a sponge after artificial random mixing of its constituent cells. There are also similar observations showing reaggregation of an artificialy disarrayed set of embryonic cells into a structure resembling the previous embryo, and this in a manner as if the state of differentiation were remembered by the cells."

Again, this is a matter of philosophy. I don't see that this 3D and spatial positioning adds much to the argument that life is too complex to occur naturally; it seems that most people can reach a conclusion without this extra line of reasoning.

KBCid wrote:Observable evidence is part of the scientific method. Nearly every object created from intelligent design exhibits CSI;

Beanybag wrote: Yes, but there's more steps to the method - it's not scientific if you ignore them. You need repeatable experimentation, a falsifiable hypothesis, accurate measurements, and peer review .

â—¦Ask a Question (how do repeating 3D arrangements of matter occur)
â—¦Do Background Research (I have studied the process of 3D replication for 30 yrs)
â—¦Construct a Hypothesis (the process of 3D replication requires an irreducibly complex system to function)
â—¦Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment (Every current functioning system of replication is proof of the simplest a replication system can be).
â—¦Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion (the conclusion is that any system that replicates 3 dimensional formations of matter requires an irreducibly complex system to perform the function)
â—¦Communicate Your Results (the results have been known for decades)

Then take that evidence and consider the same question in a living system

â—¦Ask a Question (how do repeating 3D arrangements of matter occur in living systems)
â—¦Do Background Research (I and a number of biologists are studying the process of 3D replication in living systems)
â—¦Construct a Hypothesis ( I hypothesise that the process of 3D replication in living systems also requires an irreducibly complex system to function)
â—¦Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment (Every paper I have linked provides testable proof of how complex 3 dimensional replication is).
â—¦Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion (the conclusion is that any system that replicates 3 dimensional formations of matter requires an irreducibly complex system to perform the function. Such irreducible systems exhibiting this level of CSI have only been observed to be formed by ID. Thus life was designed)
â—¦Communicate Your Results (I am here telling others about it)

Beanybag wrote: CSI is not a scientific concept and ID not a scientific theory. I don't know much to argue against ID, but I do know it is not science.

That would be a number of opinions. If you are certain that intelligent design is not an acceptable consideration then why are you posting in a Christian forum where it is continually asserted that an intelligent designer is the only answer for how 3 dimensional life began? I would think if you are absolutely certain that life is a natural occurance then there is nothing to debate right? We can all just take your word for it and assume that an irreducibly complex system of 3 dimensional replication occured by chance.

Beanybag wrote: You have presented a false dichotomy here. You say that the cause of something is either intelligence or chance. but why is this?

It is not a "false dichotomy" if you can name another cause that you have observed which can form such a system.

Beanybag wrote:When we drop a ball, we might say it had an equal chance of falling in any direction, and yet it falls in the same direction every time.

Not from a mechanical engineering perspective. We are quite certain that it will fall in the direction of the prevailing force applied to it.

Beanybag wrote:Is this intelligence at work (you might say yes)?

Well if it moves in the direction of gravitational pull then no intelligence needed. If however it falls all the way into outerspace and I have no other observaable evidence to work with then I would be fairly safe in attributing it to an intelligent cause.

Beanybag wrote:Until all other possibilities are ruled out, or until we have evidence to use otherwise, we can't really know if it was intelligence or a process that created something.

What other possibilities can you imply has the power to form 3 dimensional replication systems?

Beanybag wrote:It might also be a fallacy of the induction - just because intelligence produces things that are unlikely to have arisen by chance does not make it so that things that are unlikely to have arisen by chance were produced by intelligence.

Indeed you are right. This is exactly where you can falsify my hypothesis and it doesn't involve a rabbit in the cambrian. You have two possible ways of doing this;
1) provide a rationale for how an irreducible system of 3 dimensional replication of matter just pops into existence by chance. or
2) show that the system is reducible (can be made simpler)

KBCid wrote:If you are certain that intelligent design is not an acceptable consideration then why are you posting in a Christian forum where it is continually asserted that an intelligent designer is the only answer for how 3 dimensional life began?

The issue here isn't whether there is a creator but whether complexity is proof of a creator. Many Christians do not accept the latter.

KBCid wrote: If however it falls all the way into outerspace and I have no other observaable evidence to work with then I would be fairly safe in attributing it to an intelligent cause.

So helium balloons are moved by an intelligent agent? [That's the difference between observation (most things fall) and an explanation (theory of gravity).]

KBCid wrote:

Byblos wrote:Okay, here's something I didn't quite understand when watching the video you linked some time back of an embryo forming and the video clearly displays a flash of light (some electrical discharge) that resulted in the positioning of the head. 3D spacial positioning was given as evidence of ID.

The discharge was observed to form identifiable 'patterns' in an otherwise blank surface which the scientists continued to observe and found that the patterns corresponded to later formations in 3D.
3D spatial positioning of matter into specifiable patterns is asserted to be an identifiable point of intelligence because intelligence has proven its ability to form matter into arrangements that they have no logical rationale to be formed into. Consider your car. Why would matter ever form by natural cause into that arrangement? Its not a snowflake or a crystaline formation which we can experimentally prove has a natural cause. So when you see matter being formed into a specifiable pattern beyond what a natural cause would infer then it has to be formed systematically. Something has to control how it is arranged.
So, when you see the discharge occur you see electrical energy being applied to already existing molecular structures which then become altered into a recognisable pattern in 3 dimensional space. Thus we know that part of the process of 3D formation has electricity involved in conjunction with molecular structures that can be affected by it in specific spatial locations to define future construction. They tested the electrical control and found that if it was interfered with that it caused the structures to form in different spatial locations so it is empirically confirmed that the electrical component is directly involved with spatial structure formation.

Byblos wrote:While the video is absolutely fascinating, I'm not certain exactly how that's evidence of ID.

ID has been the only cause so far observed that uses electrical energy to precisely replicate formations of matter. You can look up such things as CNC machining to see how it is applied in that area. Essentially electrical energy is the conveyor of information (a signal) from one part of the system to another part of the system which is then actualised into actions that cause formation of matter to occur. So far I have seen no natural occurance of this type produced by natural causes so it is quite simple to infer ID as a possible cause to explain the observable evidence being exhibited.

Byblos wrote:Why could not that electrical discharge be a random occurrence (position-wise), at which time the head forms in that particular location? In other words, how do we know the electrical discharge and a particular 3D position are interrelated? Are we certain that this discharge always occurs at the same exact location, for example?

I'm not sure if I gave the link for the commentary on what was observed by the scientist but by your question it appears that you are only aware of the outlining of the head. Here is a link to that info which will elucidate what was observed in a more expansive manner;
http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/42977

Electric Frog Face
Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.
The Tufts biologists found that, before the face of a tadpole develops, bioelectrical signals (ion flux) cause groups of cells to form patterns marked by different membrane voltage and pH levels.

The imagery revealed three stages, or courses, of bioelectric activity.
First, a wave of hyperpolarization (negative ions) flashed across the entire embryo, coinciding with the emergence of cilia that enable the embryos to move. Next, patterns appeared that matched the imminent shape changes and gene expression domains of the developing face. Bright hyperpolarization marked the folding in of the surface, while both hyperpolarized and depolarized regions overlapped domains of head patterning genes. In the third course, localized regions of hyperpolarization formed, expanded and disappeared, but without disturbing the patterns created during the second stage. At the same time, the spherical embryo began to elongate.
------------------------------------------------------

As you can see it was not simply a head that was defined but "visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear". Each of these individual patterns where coordinated into positions relative to each other. Spatial positioning of a single pattern could be a random occurance but spatial positioning of multiple patterns that have relationships to one another is not random. It shows that a system of precision spatial control must exist to make the 3D formation correctly.
Now we also know that the patterns that become realised on the surface have a specific spatial relationship which they tested to make sure that the electrical signal was in fact being applied to control eventual 3 dimensional formations;

"The Tufts team found that disrupting bioelectric signaling by inhibiting ductin (a protein that is part of the machinery that transports hydrogen ions) correlated with craniofacial abnormalities."

Remember what we are looking at here is a system of replication. We can observe the same sequential events and precision patterning with every new life forming. so it is repeatable. So what is the bottom line evidence we can deduce from what is observed?
1) A mechanism composed of matter generates an electrical signal at a specific time (temporal control)
2) The signal goes out from there to spatial locations on the surface
3) molecular structures at specific spatial locations then act based on the signal
4) 3 dimensional structures then begin to form in precise ways at those precise locations

Thus, it is easy to deduce that the system has a spatiotemporal control system in order to 'reproduce' a living form.
I hope this helped.

It most certainly helped to put things into perspective. Thanks.

sandy_mcd wrote:

KBCid wrote:If you are certain that intelligent design is not an acceptable consideration then why are you posting in a Christian forum where it is continually asserted that an intelligent designer is the only answer for how 3 dimensional life began?

The issue here isn't whether there is a creator but whether complexity is proof of a creator. Many Christians do not accept the latter.

KBCid wrote: If however it falls all the way into outerspace and I have no other observaable evidence to work with then I would be fairly safe in attributing it to an intelligent cause.

So helium balloons are moved by an intelligent agent? [That's the difference between observation (most things fall) and an explanation (theory of gravity).]

Oh? Some Christians don't even look into this idea and hence they can't agree or even disagree with the matter due to being unfamiliar with the subject. The ones that do look into this idea and get to know and understand it will eventually come to accept the explanation as a form of proof of a creator.

Your regard of helium balloons being moved by an intelligent agent is a comedic interpretation, though yes, it can be said that at least at some point the helium balloons were moved by an intelligent agent. Balloons need intelligent agents to fill them with helium. It takes an intelligent agent to transport the balloons to an area where they can be released to float off into space. The balloons floating off into space has to do with the fact that helium balloons are lighter-than-air, and hence it floats up. Thus, we can conclude that it took an intelligent agent to at least take part in the steps required for the balloon to float off into space. The steps being: purchase metal tank filled with helium, purchase manufactured balloon and some string, fill balloon with helium and then seal the bottom of the balloon by tying it in order to prevent escape of helium, tie string to it to make it easier to hold, repeat until you have x amount of helium balloons, take balloons outside, release.

The balloons were taken to a place before they were released. Thus, at that time they were moved by an intelligent agent. Also, the balloons were released. This is also movement caused by an intelligent agent. From there, nature takes over and carries the balloons into the sky.

That is, the mechanism behind balloons flying off into the sky is the result of the balloons being filled with helium, a lighter-than-air gas. Lighter gasses rise while heavier gasses descend and stay lower. That isn't to say that an intelligent agent is directly responsible for making this happen. (Though I do believe an intelligent agent wrote the laws of physics necessary for this type of action to take place. This way it isn't necessary to manually ensure this happens every single time.)

Pardon my rather ornery reply. Even so, my intention is to have a bit of a sense of humor here (by being overly-serious and "splitting hairs".) I hope ya don't mind.