Evidence for God from Science

No, this is an important question. You say that by your definition, evolution fails to address certain standards that you give it. ID doesn't even attempt to answer those to those standards. I'm not debating your point. But how can you propose an alternative that fails to address this thing that you repeatedly call out evolution for?

Ivellious wrote:No, this is an important question. You say that by your definition, evolution fails to address certain standards that you give it.

Nope the standards posted are not my own;

•The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
•The steps of the scientific method are to:
â—¦Ask a Question
â—¦Do Background Research
â—¦Construct a Hypothesis
â—¦Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
â—¦Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
â—¦Communicate Your Results
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-f ... thod.shtml

Ivellious wrote:ID doesn't even attempt to answer those to those standards.

in your opinion

Ivellious wrote:I'm not debating your point.

you are by way of redirecting it

Ivellious wrote:But how can you propose an alternative that fails to address this thing that you repeatedly call out evolution for?

It fails in your opinion. The fact that I can repeatedly call out evolutionary hypothesis for not following the scientific method is because it is true and the evidence is plain to see. You can't explain a cause by describing an effect. The evolutionary hypothesis can't explain the origin of species since the first specie (which is part of species) is assumed to have occured without the evolutionary mechanism. In fact the evolutionary mechanism cannot function until there are alleles and a replication system that can control the 3 dimensional formation of matter. So in fact ID is not an 'alternative' explanation to evolution since it requires evolution to have provided an explanation for it to be an alternative of it. The only thing ID is an alternative to is chance.

I'm referring to your cause/effect comment. You say that evolution fails to address the cause...Yet, ID specifically says that the cause is irrelevant, and so do you. That is how you have explained it.

Ivellious wrote:I'm referring to your cause/effect comment. You say that evolution fails to address the cause...Yet, ID specifically says that the cause is irrelevant, and so do you. That is how you have explained it.

The cause is intelligence. that is why its called ID - intelligent design. So obviously neither ID proponents nor myself say the cause is irrelevant.

ID Defined
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/

I'm confused here. You say that the "cause" is not in fact a how, what, or why situation, but in science we typically talk about causes in terms of mechanisms and discovering how they work. The cause of evolution of species are natural selection and mutations, generally speaking. These are the mechanisms and driving forces behind evolution. They, in a matter of speaking, "cause" evolution to take place. So how is that not a cause?

On the other hand, intelligence is not a mechanism. It does not explain anything except "well, it happened, end of story, deal with it." You don't even go so far as to identify the cause, instead just speaking in vague terms to avoid having to actually do things in a scientific way.

So, the way you are presenting it, we have the effect (lots of diverse life on the planet today) and two possible causes: "Evolution by natural selection" is one option, and "it happened via intelligence."

Ivellious wrote:I'm confused here. You say that the "cause" is not in fact a how, what, or why situation,

I do not. The cause 'intelligence' is the what that explains the why of the observable evidence.

Ivellious wrote:but in science we typically talk about causes in terms of mechanisms and discovering how they work.

Then you can explain in detail the mechanism that causes gravity to function.

You see gravity at work any time you drop a book, step on a scale or toss a ball up into the air. It's such a constant presence in our lives, we seldom marvel at the mystery of it -- but even with several well-received theories out there attempting to explain why a book falls to the ground (and at the same rate as a pebble or a couch, at that), they're still just theories. The mystery of gravity's pull is pretty much intact.
As for the science behind the action, we know that Isaac Newton defined gravity as a force -- one that attracts all objects to all other objects. We know that Albert Einstein said gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time. These two theories are the most common and widely held (if somewhat incomplete) explanations of gravity.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... ion232.htm

Ivellious wrote:The cause of evolution of species are natural selection and mutations, generally speaking. These are the mechanisms and driving forces behind evolution. They, in a matter of speaking, "cause" evolution to take place. So how is that not a cause?

Define scientifically exactly how mutation works.Then define specifically how natural selection affects things.
These, in a manner of speaking, is what is believed to cause evolution. so how is a belief in some concepts you can't empirically define a cause?

Ivellious wrote:On the other hand, intelligence is not a mechanism.

what exactly is intelligence asserted to be?

mechanism
An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mechanism

Ivellious wrote:It does not explain anything except "well, it happened, end of story, deal with it." You don't even go so far as to identify the cause, instead just speaking in vague terms to avoid having to actually do things in a scientific way.

From my observations and many others intelligence explains many things we observe. Try explaining your computer without intelligence.
MAybe you can try "well, it happened, end of story, deal with it."

Ivellious wrote:So, the way you are presenting it, we have the effect (lots of diverse life on the planet today) and two possible causes: "Evolution by natural selection" is one option, and "it happened via intelligence."

To be an option requires the evidence for the ability to cause the effect observed. The conceptual belief of RM + NS are both devoid of empirical testing and remain hypothetical concepts.

Intelligence on the other hand has been daily providing empirical evidence of what types of information and function it can cause, and strangely life exhibits those same types of information and function.

1+1=......

Then you can explain in detail the mechanism that causes gravity to function.

Gravity is a cause in itself. We do not see gravity as the effect of something prior, but rather we see gravity as a force that causes other things to happen. It is a force. It is an inherent law of the universe, presumably in place since the dawn of the universe. Therefore, one can stipulate that the origins of the universe is in fact the "cause" of gravity. And that is in fact being studied.

Define scientifically exactly how mutation works.

A mutation is an alteration in genetic information caused by errors in translating DNA at a molecular level. Not sure what you mean by "scientifically." I mean, are you asking for a description of what a mutation is? Or what happens during genetic copying that causes a mutation?

Then define specifically how natural selection affects things.

This is easy. Natural selection is the process by which genetics are passed on (or not passed on) through generations of populations. It's not even all that technical. If a particular trait aids an individual in its chances of reproduction, then that individual is more likely to pass it on to the next generation. Genetic traits that hinder an individual are less likely to be passed on in turn. Better traits are "selected" (and I put that in quotes because scientifically speaking, there is no actual decisions being made) because they are more likely to be passed on to the next generation. Weaker traits naturally die out. How is that not defined?

what exactly is intelligence asserted to be?

mechanism
An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being

Yes, but the "how" is still key here. Say I build a sandcastle using a bucket and a shovel. In this case, the bucket and shovel are the "intelligence", or the instrument. As a scientist, if you see a sandcastle and try to find its origin, do you simply stop at "well, I know it was done by a bucket and shovel...I'll just say that's enough and call it a day." Of course not! The "how" is half the battle.

My girlfriend is an archaeologist. They seek out signs of humans creating things. But identifying that a human made this jar, or that a human made this campsite is no where close to the end. They always seek to find out the how, the why, and the "who made it?" Why does ID get a pass on these questions?

From my observations and many others intelligence explains many things we observe. Try explaining your computer without intelligence.

Of course it would take intelligence to explain it. The point is, if intelligence is where you stop, you are still missing most of the information. I can easily explain to you how my computer was made, who did it, the mechanisms by which my computer was made, why my computer was made this way based on the progressions of computers over the years...If my computer was being analyzed using ID, you are basically saying "screw all that other information, all I need to know is that someone made it." Which is clearly unscientific and insufficient for true understanding.

Ivellious wrote:Of course it would take intelligence to explain it. The point is, if intelligence is where you stop, you are still missing most of the information. I can easily explain to you how my computer was made, who did it, the mechanisms by which my computer was made, why my computer was made this way based on the progressions of computers over the years...If my computer was being analyzed using ID, you are basically saying "screw all that other information, all I need to know is that someone made it." Which is clearly unscientific and insufficient for true understanding.

It sounds as though you have nailed the foundational failure of ID. A scientist would want to know how a computer was made, who did it, what rules/laws govern the behavior etc. The IDist is satisfied with the conclusion that someone made it. There is no further curiosity or interest.

KBCid wrote:To an evolutionist this arrangement came into existence by natural occurance. to anyone else who has a semblance of logic such an answer requires evidence. For the rest of us that aren't going to wait for their truth to show up we choose to believe in an intelligent designer. the God of abraham is that designer.

What is important for science can be extracted from the follwoing quote:

"We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. There are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on. It is our responsibility to leave the man of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant; if we suppress all discussion, all critisism, saying, "This is it, boys, man is saved!" and thus doom man for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.

It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress that is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations."

(Richard P. Feynman: The value of science)"

KBCid wrote:Then you can explain in detail the mechanism that causes gravity to function.

Ivellious wrote:Gravity is a cause in itself. We do not see gravity as the effect of something prior, but rather we see gravity as a force that causes other things to happen. It is a force.

Indeed it is a force and you think you know enough about how it works to not care about anything beyond it.
Geophysical evidence for non-newtonian gravity
...the strong circumstantial evidence suggests that well controlled large-scale experiments on the inverse square law are urgently required.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v2 ... 230a0.html

MAybe it is important to know more about it.

Ivellious wrote:It is an inherent law of the universe, presumably in place since the dawn of the universe. Therefore, one can stipulate that the origins of the universe is in fact the "cause" of gravity. And that is in fact being studied.

A law that is not as easily defined as once thought.

KBCid wrote:Define scientifically exactly how mutation works.

Ivellious wrote:A mutation is an alteration in genetic information caused by errors in translating DNA at a molecular level.

That is the exact evolutionary view of random mutation and it is wrong. Variation of alleles is not simply an error in translation.
Meiosis
the chromosomes in meiosis undergo a recombination which shuffles the genes producing a different genetic combination in each gamete, compared with the co-existence of each of the two separate pairs of each chromosome (one received from each parent) in each cell which

results from mitosis...
...Each of the resulting chromosomes in the gamete cells is a unique mixture of maternal and paternal DNA, resulting in offspring that are genetically distinct from either parent. This gives rise to genetic diversity in sexually reproducing populations. This genetic diversity can provide the variation of physical and behavioural attributes (phenotypes) upon which natural selection can act...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis

This one point alone shows that variation is not simply a translation error since mitosis is a highly controlled process of integration.
And then we have this little gem;

Some plants defy inheritance laws, scientists find
Challenging a scientific law of inheritance that has stood for 150 years scientists say plants sometimes select better bits of DNA in order to develop normally even when they inherited genetic flaws from their predecessors.
...Researchers found that in 10 percent of Arabidopsis thaliana plants with two copies of a mutant gene called "hothead" didn't always blossom with deformed flowers like their parents which carried the mutant genes. Instead those plants had normal white flowers like their grandparents which didn't carry the hothead gene. So the deformity appeared only for a single previous generation.
The scientists believe the plants with hothead genes appear to have kept a copy of the genetic coding from the grandparent plants and used it as a template to grow normally perhaps when living conditions are not ideal.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbc ... /303249959

This shows that there is a system of control against mutational variation. This would mean that there are limits to variation that are systematically controlled by unnatural selection against truly random mutations.

Ivellious wrote:Not sure what you mean by "scientifically." I mean, are you asking for a description of what a mutation is? Or what happens during genetic copying that causes a mutation?

Science is what we use to define causes for effects. Everyone should know by now that when an evolutionists says mutation they are really saying change. As I pointed out above there are mechnisms that are specifically controlled to cause genetic change. So to simply state that random changes occur is not scientific nor is it anywhere near an accurate description for a cause.
If you wish to believe that genetic change / mutation is a random event from copying errors then you need to scientifically back the assertion by scientific method.

KBCid wrote:Then define specifically how natural selection affects things.

Ivellious wrote:This is easy. Natural selection is the process by which genetics are passed on (or not passed on) through generations of populations. It's not even all that technical. If a particular trait aids an individual in its chances of reproduction, then that individual is more likely to pass it on to the next generation. Genetic traits that hinder an individual are less likely to be passed on in turn. Better traits are "selected" (and I put that in quotes because scientifically speaking, there is no actual decisions being made)

Indeed it is easy to make this part of the statement and be absolutely right in concept.

Ivellious wrote:because they are more likely to be passed on to the next generation. Weaker traits naturally die out. How is that not defined?

However, this is the part where you overstep the evidence and state "Weaker traits naturally die out". This is where NS is not defined.
Antibiotic resistance is ancient
Here we report targeted metagenomic analyses of rigorously authenticated ancient DNA from 30,000-year-old Beringian permafrost sediments and the identification of a highly diverse collection of genes encoding resistance to β-lactam, tetracycline and glycopeptide antibiotics. Structure and function studies on the complete vancomycin resistance element VanA confirmed its similarity to modern variants. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10388.html

So ancient organisms had resistence to antibiotics that were only recently created. If there was no such antibiotic until recently then why didn't NS make the weaker trait die out? apparently your concept of what NS can cause is in error and the error exists because there was no hard evidence provided by scientific method to back the erronious claim being asserted.

KBCid wrote:what exactly is intelligence asserted to be?
mechanism - An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being

Ivellious wrote:Yes, but the "how" is still key here. Say I build a sandcastle using a bucket and a shovel. In this case, the bucket and shovel are the "intelligence", or the instrument. As a scientist, if you see a sandcastle and try to find its origin, do you simply

stop at "well, I know it was done by a bucket and shovel...I'll just say that's enough and call it a day." Of course not! The "how" is half the battle.

The how is always a key to any hypothesis. the problem is there is no way to test via scientific method a historical occurance. This is the same as asking how did nature form life? Pretty darn hard to answer that now isn't it?. If the how is the key to asserting a hypothesis then evolution was out before it ever got in.

Ivellious wrote:My girlfriend is an archaeologist. They seek out signs of humans creating things. But identifying that a human made this jar, or that a human made this campsite is no where close to the end. They always seek to find out the how, the why, and the "who made it?" Why does ID get a pass on these questions?

Nothing gets a pass. We would all like to know the how but here is the reality. Your girlfriend finds a sign of intelligence having worked at some point ok, now what would happen if she never found out the how why or who? would that change the initial declaration of intelligent design? If you were to find a metal ship hull in the cambrian layer would the fact that you couldn't answer any of those questions about it allow you to assume it was a natural occurance? There are simply some things that can be detected and some that can't and since we are studying a historic occurance we have a very limited amount of detectable evidence to work with.

KBCid wrote:From my observations and many others intelligence explains many things we observe. Try explaining your computer without intelligence.

Ivellious wrote:Of course it would take intelligence to explain it. The point is, if intelligence is where you stop, you are still missing most of the information.

Do you really understand why intelligence is required to explain it?
Intelligence itself is not where we are likely to stop since we are as eager as anyone to explain how intelligence applied the actions of the formation process.

Ivellious wrote:I can easily explain to you how my computer was made, who did it, the mechanisms by which my computer was made, why my computer was made this way based on the progressions of computers over the years...If my computer was being analyzed using ID, you are basically saying "screw all that other information, all I need to know is that someone made it." Which is clearly unscientific and insufficient for true understanding.

Indeed many of us can reference historical information that we were around to observe. The key here is to put yourself in the shoes of someone who has no historic evidence to work with.

for a moment consider yourself part of a Cargo cult;

The primary association in cargo cults is between the divine nature of "cargo" (manufactured goods) and the advanced, non-native behavior, clothing and equipment of the recipients of the "cargo". Since the modern manufacturing process is unknown to them, members, leaders, and prophets of the cults maintain that the manufactured goods of the non-native culture have been created by spiritual means, such as through their deities and ancestors, and are intended for the local indigenous people, but that the foreigners have unfairly gained control of these objects through malice or mistake.[3] Thus, a characteristic feature of cargo cults is the belief that spiritual agents will, at some future time, give much valuable cargo and desirable manufactured products to the cult members.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

These people didn't have any foreknowlege about the objects they wanted and yet they didn't simply believe the objects were a natural occurance. They simply tried to explain the how and why with what they understood.

If you have limited ability to test the how and why then you are limited to the questions you can ask regardless of how much you may want to get those answers. It is never unscientific to work within the boundaries of the subject at hand. If as you think it is unscientific and insufficient to be unable to answer certain questions then why are scientists still trying to figure out chemical evolution? why would scientists even attempt to find alien life via SETI? Detecting design is one thing detecting how a design was done and who the designer was is quite another all together.
You should note carefully that ID is design detection within 3 dimensional objects. Detecting design does not require knowing who or how. However once design is detected then further research to answer those questions can certainly be attempted. the fact is that no one needs to know those answers prior to an assertion of design.

sandy_mcd wrote: It sounds as though you have nailed the foundational failure of ID.

Have I really? or did I say something that you want to twist into your own POV.

sandy_mcd wrote:A scientist would want to know how a computer was made, who did it, what rules/laws govern the behavior etc. The IDist is satisfied with the conclusion that someone made it. There is no further curiosity or interest.

We would like to know how matter was manipulated into the form of life. That goes without saying. Intelligence has proven that defining it by rules / laws doesn't work as it does with persistent causes. We know intelligence exists. Do you know how it works? can you explain its mechanism?
What rules / laws can you show for intelligent design? none... and you are an intelligent designer.
The IDist is satisfied with detecting design and there will always be further interest in the how and why. Early scientists who were convinced of Gods being the designer still devised scientific methods to better understand how it all works. This is how intelligence tends to operate, we always want to answer the unknown.

That is the exact evolutionary view of random mutation and it is wrong. Variation of alleles is not simply an error in translation. Meiosis
the chromosomes in meiosis undergo a recombination which shuffles the genes producing a different genetic combination in each gamete, compared with the co-existence of each of the two separate pairs of each chromosome (one received from each parent) in each cell which results from mitosis...
...Each of the resulting chromosomes in the gamete cells is a unique mixture of maternal and paternal DNA, resulting in offspring that are genetically distinct from either parent. This gives rise to genetic diversity in sexually reproducing populations. This genetic diversity can provide the variation of physical and behavioural attributes (phenotypes) upon which natural selection can act...

...I understand that this is not a random mutation. It is something entirely separate...Did I ever say that meiosis was a mutation? Your little description says what any biologist or biology textbook will tell you. What is the point of debunking random mutations by bringing up a different, completely normal genetic function in sexually reproducing organisms?

Variation can indeed come from meiosis, but it can also come from mutations...They aren't mutually exclusive in any way.

This shows that there is a system of control against mutational variation. This would mean that there are limits to variation that are systematically controlled by unnatural selection against truly random mutations.

No, it does not. It shows that in a whopping ten percent of this type of plant have some mechanism for decreasing or eliminating harmful mutations. As far as I can tell, this is not a universal trait that all organisms have (heck, only ten percent of this plant population has it!). Also, how do you jump to the conclusion that this control system is "unnatural"? Does the article say that some magical force is the reason behind this system?

Science is what we use to define causes for effects. Everyone should know by now that when an evolutionists says mutation they are really saying change. As I pointed out above there are mechnisms that are specifically controlled to cause genetic change. So to simply state that random changes occur is not scientific nor is it anywhere near an accurate description for a cause.
If you wish to believe that genetic change / mutation is a random event from copying errors then you need to scientifically back the assertion by scientific method.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that I need to demonstrate that mutations happen during the copying of genetic information?

If there was no such antibiotic until recently then why didn't NS make the weaker trait die out? apparently your concept of what NS can cause is in error and the error exists because there was no hard evidence provided by scientific method to back the erronious claim being asserted.

You don't really understand natural selection, do you? Natural selection would not have "killed off" these antibiotic resistances because they had no impact on survival. A trait that has literally no impact on survival has no reason to flourish or to die off. As far as I know, if a bacteria is resistant to some kind of antibiotic but never has to live in an environment with antibiotics, it will have just as much of a chance to survive as those without that resistance. It's neutral.

If a bear in North America develops a mutation that allows its body to metabolize a toxin only found in southern Africa, is that bear doomed to die off without reproducing? Of course not...The mutation has no effect on survival and therefore has a chance to pass that trait on, as irrelevant as it may be.

KBCid wrote:That is the exact evolutionary view of random mutation and it is wrong. Variation of alleles is not simply an error in translation. Meiosis...

Ivellious wrote:...I understand that this is not a random mutation. It is something entirely separate...Did I ever say that meiosis was a mutation? Your little description says what any biologist or biology textbook will tell you. What is the point of debunking random mutations by bringing up a different, completely normal genetic function in sexually reproducing organisms?

You said;

Ivellious wrote:A mutation is an alteration in genetic information caused by errors in translating DNA at a molecular level. Variation can indeed come from meiosis, but it can also come from mutations...They aren't mutually exclusive in any way.

A change / mutation is an alteration in genetic information. Meiosis is a change / alteration in genetic information performed intentionally by the coding already present within the organism. Tell me how does one discern a controlled change from a random copying error? Reference the experiment that was used to define a random error from an intentional change.

How did scientists test for the cause of nylonase? They didn't. They see a change occur and poof here is evidence of evolution.
However, this change will occur within 9 days as was found out from subsequent testing and it can be made to occur in another specie.
Amazing isn't it? convergent evolution!!!! Or more correctly the variation contunually occurs in the population. This eliminates the random mutation concept. Life is designed to adapt to its environment. The coding already present within the genome causes the genetic arrangement to vary within limits.
Organisms 30,000 yrs. old were already making antibiotic resistence long before the designed antibiotics ever arose. How do you suppose they could see that far ahead? Why was it not removed since it had no use and a definite cost at that time?

KBCid wrote:This shows that there is a system of control against mutational variation. This would mean that there are limits to variation that are systematically controlled by unnatural selection against truly random mutations.

Ivellious wrote:No, it does not. It shows that in a whopping ten percent of this type of plant have some mechanism for decreasing or eliminating harmful mutations.

lol. You say "No, it does not." to my assertion that "there is a system of control against mutational variation" and then state "ten percent of this type of the plants have some mechanism for decreasing or eliminating harmful mutations". How about if I say that there is a 'mechanism'against mutational variation? would that be more acceptable than "there is a system of control against mutational variation".
And now lets see what is the big deal about the "whopping ten percent". Really what is it supposed to mean? Since the scientists don't know how the ten percent did it you feel ok in assuming that because the other whopping 90% didn't do it that they couldn't do it right?
What if... possibly... maybe... the controlled replication 'system' actually puts out that variation a whopping 10% of the time? Isn't this how a constant variation system would function? How good would an adaptation 'system' be if it produced the same variation a whopping 100% of the time?.
Do you understand how your immune system beats antigens? If an antigen invaded your body would you logically send an army of antibodies at it that all had the exact same form prior to knowing which form would function against the antigen?. Or would it be more logical to send out a wide 'variety' of specific 'variations'?.

Antibody
Though the general structure of all antibodies is very similar, a small region at the tip of the protein is extremely variable, allowing millions of antibodies with slightly different tip structures, or antigen binding sites, to exist. This region is known as the hypervariable region. Each of these variants can bind to a different target, known as an antigen.[1] This enormous diversity of antibodies allows the immune system to recognize an equally wide variety of antigens.[6] The large and diverse population of antibodies is generated by random combinations of a set of gene segments that encode different antigen binding sites...
...Antibody genes also re-organize in a process called class switching that changes the base of the heavy chain to another, creating a different isotype of the antibody that retains the antigen specific variable region. This allows a single antibody to be used by several different parts of the immune system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody

Well looky there a system of control against mutationally varied antigens. And how does this system function? It creates variations at a fraction of a % of the systems total output in order to quickly overcome an environmental danger. Is that intelligent or what?
Maybe just maybe the genome creates variations of itself that work the same way. Maybe just maybe there is a system / mechanism encoded in the genome that causes a wide range of variations to come into existence so that if an environmental danger succeeds in killing an organism it won't be able to kill every variant currently existing.
This would explain why 30,000 yr. old organisms had antibiotic resistance before intelligence designed the antibiotics.

Ivellious wrote:As far as I can tell, this is not a universal trait that all organisms have (heck, only ten percent of this plant population has it!).

continued lol. As far as you can tell...
what experiments have you performed that shows the other 90% don't have that same capability? What experiments have you conducted that show that offspring from that 90% won't show up with the very same arrangement in the next generation? You are overstepping what the evidence shows.

Ivellious wrote:Also, how do you jump to the conclusion that this control system is "unnatural"? Does the article say that some magical force is the reason behind this system?

I was hoping you would notice that.
The normal watercress plants with hothead genes appear to have kept a copy of the genetic coding from the grandparent plants and used it as a template to grow normally.
However, Pruitt's team didn't find the template in the plants' DNA or chromosomes where genetic information is stored and they did not determine whether a particular gene is encoded to carry out the recovery of the normal DNA.
Where the normal genetic template is stored and how it is triggered will take additional research and probably involve more genes, Pruitt said. http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... 5/03/66995

Do you understand what is being said here? The plants genome has a saved copy of its granparents genetic arrangement. What are the odds of a genome randomly storing such a copy and then using it at the moment it was needed? Further what are the odds that a whopping 10% of a population would have the exact same variation? exactly a whopping zero %...
This is the giveaway that there is a system... a highly complex system... that is in place within the genome to counter gross genetic error. Consider how complex a system would have to be in order to carry out the function that occured.
Really seriously, try and define what would be involved in order to store a genetic copy from your grandparents and then replace your own genetics with that one. lol its just a random event... pay no attention to the intelligence behind the curtain.

KBCid wrote:Science is what we use to define causes for effects. Everyone should know by now that when an evolutionists says mutation they are really saying change. As I pointed out above there are mechnisms that are specifically controlled to cause genetic change. So to simply state that random changes occur is not scientific nor is it anywhere near an accurate description for a cause.
If you wish to believe that genetic change / mutation is a random event from copying errors then you need to scientifically back the assertion by scientific method.

Ivellious wrote:I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that I need to demonstrate that mutations happen during the copying of genetic information?

You need to define the difference between a change caused by the system and a random event.

KBCid wrote: If there was no such antibiotic until recently then why didn't NS make the weaker trait die out? apparently your concept of what NS can cause is in error and the error exists because there was no hard evidence provided by scientific method to back the erronious claim being asserted.

Ivellious wrote:You don't really understand natural selection, do you? Natural selection would not have "killed off" these antibiotic resistances because they had no impact on survival. A trait that has literally no impact on survival has no reason to flourish or to die off. As far as I know, if a bacteria is resistant to some kind of antibiotic but never has to live in an environment with antibiotics, it will have just as much of a chance to survive as those without that resistance. It's neutral.

A change of tune I see from your earlier stance;

Ivellious wrote: "Weaker traits naturally die out"

Apparently someone here actually doesn't understand NS or process engineering. Any trait that provides no benefit to the organism still has an effect / impact in the cost to the system for its formation / existence. Further, a non-performing antigen takes up valuble space when an otherwise positive performing antigen could be making a benefit in its place. A straight loss to the system on multiple fronts is not a neutral existence for a non-performing antigen.
This is where having an understanding of process engineering makes a difference in accounting for cause and effect in system comprehension. In your understanding NS stops having an effect at the level of the whole organism with no regard to system specifics. In my world the existence of every systematically controlled formation of 3 dimensional matter has a real definable cost.

Ivellious wrote:If a bear in North America develops a mutation that allows its body to metabolize a toxin only found in southern Africa, is that bear doomed to die off without reproducing? Of course not...The mutation has no effect on survival and therefore has a chance to pass that trait on, as irrelevant as it may be.

Your rationale is an error in logic as any I have already pointed out. You have failed to account for operational costs to the system. Every action in a system that uses system resources must be accounted for. Inefficiency and waste are negative factors that any intelligent designer and the logic of NS would select against in preference to anything that would be a more positive benefit. It is a constant amazement to me to see what others will overlook that is in plain sight.

Nobody rides for free, not even your imagination.

A change / mutation is an alteration in genetic information. Meiosis is a change / alteration in genetic information performed intentionally by the coding already present within the organism. Tell me how does one discern a controlled change from a random copying error? Reference the experiment that was used to define a random error from an intentional change.

Take a crash course in cell biology, it might help your understanding of this problem. It is clear that you have zero understanding of the subject or you wouldn't even ask this question. I'll try my best to explain.

We have established that translation errors (random mutations) and recombination of chromosomes during meiosis can both cause genetic variations and changes. You say that I can't tell them apart...but yes, I can.

Translation and Meiosis are separate functions in cell division/replication. Scientists can and have watched these steps in cell division/reproduction for many years. if a variation comes out of the meiosis step, then clearly that change is caused by recombination during meiosis. If that mutation comes as a byproduct of translation, then it is a translation error. Is that so hard to understand?

If you wanted to tell whether a variation/mutation was caused by one of these functions (or another process altogether) you can look at the type of change to the genetic structure. Mutations come in many forms:
insertion(a segment of DNA is copied twice in a row, i.e. If I was copying a sentence "Jill ate lunch" but wrote "Jill ate ate lunch")
deletion (a segment of DNA is erased altogether, i.e. "Jill lunch")
point mutation (a nucleotide is translated incorrectly, i.e. an adenine is swapped with a guanine)

and so on and so forth. There are many types of mutations that can occur randomly, some on a small scale and some much more impactful (i.e. duplicating entire chunks of chromosomes instead of just a string of a few nucleotides).

On the other hand, Meiosis operates entirely separately, and predictably to some degree. First of all, every time you have meiosis you have recombination. in that sense, it isn't random in the slightest. Also, recombination will never have the same effect as a mutation. It doesn't add new nucleotides, it doesn't delete DNA strands, it doesn't change existing DNA bases...It simply swaps pieces of chromosomes with each other to form a distinct chromosome that is different from each parent. For the record, in an evolutionary sense, meiosis will never produce a new species in the absence of mutations. Recombination does not change the gene pool at all.

Are you still confused by this?

Reference the experiment that was used to define a random error from an intentional change.

This is a loaded question. I've shown you how to differentiate between two vastly different processes in cells. Your question presumes that organisms somehow have the ability to intentionally change themselves at a genetic level, which is ludicrous. Genetic changes are not "intentional" unless you are referring to meiosis and recombination of a child's DNA at conception.

How do you suppose they could see that far ahead?

They didn't.

Or more correctly the variation contunually occurs in the population. This eliminates the random mutation concept.

No, it does not. In a type of population such as a bacteria, mutations are frequent and more readily seen because their populations reproduce so quickly. Also, bacteria do not even undergo meiosis, and thus the type of genetic variation you referenced earlier doesn't even apply here.

What if... possibly... maybe... the controlled replication 'system' actually puts out that variation a whopping 10% of the time? Isn't this how a constant variation system would function? How good would an adaptation 'system' be if it produced the same variation a whopping 100% of the time?.

So wait, you see that in an experiment, 10% of the plants of this specific species had the ability to override bad mutational defects. Now, you claim that this is a universal system of controlled variations and claim that I must refute your groundbreaking discovery. Forgive me, you lost me somewhere around where you have no evidence to support that idea but apparently you can apply this to all life and it's my job to disprove it.

I see a system that has never been recorded within another species to my knowledge, and then I see you jumping to a conclusion that, if actually backed up, might win a Nobel Prize...Perhaps you should write a paper on this idea you have, considering no biologists have considered such a thing existing at all.

Well looky there a system of control against mutationally varied antigens. And how does this system function? It creates variations at a fraction of a % of the systems total output in order to quickly overcome an environmental danger. Is that intelligent or what?

I think we got totally separate things out of that article. As far I as I can understand, the body creates a massive amount of different antibodies so that the odds are higher that one of them will work in the case of an antigen entering the body. Note that these variations are all caused by random mutations and recombinations, according to the article. As opposed to an organism that only produced very limited types of antibodies, it would make sense that an organism that could produce many antibodies would be naturally selected to survive and likely would be more able to adapt to more regions and climates.

Maybe just maybe the genome creates variations of itself that work the same way. Maybe just maybe there is a system / mechanism encoded in the genome that causes a wide range of variations to come into existence so that if an environmental danger succeeds in killing an organism it won't be able to kill every variant currently existing.

Perhaps. But again, you might have to prove that such a universal system exists before telling me that I have to disprove it. Again, you might win a Nobel Prize for this if it turns out to be true. But that's your job to bring out the proof from your speculation, because as of now that is all it amounts to.

As far as you can tell...

Yes, indeed. The experiment only showed me that much. You took that experiment and speculated that an entire universal system exists just like it, without doing any research yourself.

You are overstepping what the evidence shows.

Haha, I didn't overstep anything. I said that all the experiment showed was that 10% of one type of plant had it, nothing more, nothing less. You are the one venturing into a whole new realm of speculation here.

It is a constant amazement to me to see what others will overlook that is in plain sight.

Your entire post about operational costs is flawed in that it presumes that either the organisms themselves or some great guiding force is choosing traits and eliminating others at will. You also seem to be stating that there is always a "better" trait that can replace a neutral one...which clearly is not even close to reality.

Again, take two bear populations, one with the toxin resistance that I talked about before and another that is literally the same except without the toxin resistance. According to you, the first bear population should die off for absolutely no reason other than "a designer surely would have eliminated it". Natural selection only deals with survival rates, and whether certain traits make an organism stronger or weaker in the game of survival.

Also, just fyi, your logic dictates that antibiotic resistance should have been weeded out by our designer 30,000 years ago because at the time it was useless. Say what now?

KCB pulls up a lot of scientific articles, which are great, but never support whatever he's saying. He says very often that the articles he's referencing somehow support ID when it's never the case. Confirmation bias is just hard at work over there.