Evidence for God from Science

Wall-dog wrote:BGood,

You seem to be disputing her but all you did was repeat what she said in a long winded manor. Your use of theory is the same as the scientific use of hypothesis.

That's bunk. Hundreds of scientists are currently performing legitimate scientific research on ID. It is a strong, flexible theory that is rapidly growing in following both in and outside the scientific community. You make it sound like I'm the only guy on the planet who thinks ID is credible.

The whole point of this thread is to prove that there is legitimate research being performed. You have yet to show this.

As for the bunk comment, I didn't mean to be condescending or dismissive.
=(
Sorry.

Wall-dog wrote:

Take a look at how life reproduces and tell me again how this shows irreducible complexity in life? What you are saying is that because inanimate peices of a mouse trap don't self assemble, that the self assembly of complex systems in cells is explained by intelligence? Does this also explain the complex physics involved in tornadoes?

I wouldn't include tornados

Why can't we include tornadoes they don't reproduce and they appear fairly complex.

Wall-dog wrote:, but certainly nano technology illustrates intelligence directing micro mechanisms that are both designed and that replicate themselves. Besides that, while most ID proponents do not believe in evolution, ID does not in and of itself refute evolution. Nothing in ID theory claims that organisms cannot evolve after they are designed.

Did the parts of a cell all appear together spontaneously, or did they all already exist for quite some time before they randomly fell into place to create the first living cell? At least with the mousetrap we can answer that.

The point is answering the mouse trap question does not answer the former.

Wall-dog wrote:

Not if you use your short sighted criteria that the function must remain. If you notice B changes the function of A. As the spring in a mousetrap serves a different function than in a pen.

I didn't say that the function must remain. I said that a function must remain. For something to evolve it must evolve from something. You can't reduce without preserving something. Keep in mind that with a living cell, no function means no life. Also keep in mind that while a pen might not serve the same function as a mousetrap, it does serve a function.

I agree.

Wall-dog wrote:

Again how does this show that something was designed? What is design?

It's a theory. I only claim that it shows it

could

have been designed. And that's semantics...

No because could is a hypothesis, demonstrating it could makes it closer to a theory.

Wall-dog wrote:

What are you testing then, by tossing mousetraps in the air?

That the mousetrap isn't going to be assembled without intelligence. I was using a common illustration used by ID proponents. See my previous post with all the quotes - there is hard math behind my contention that some things are better explained by intelligence than by chance.

Please remind me again what this math is?

Wall-dog wrote:

So RNA is intelligent? You do understand that the chemistry of life is no different than other chemical processes? So who is assembling a yeast cell when it duplicates?

RNA and DNA may not be intelligent themselves, but the one who designed them may well have been.

Again with the suppositions, where is the empirical data?

Wall-dog wrote:Who assembled the first yeast cell is a better question.

Again assumptions.

Wall-dog wrote:

What is the evidence which supports this idea? Otherwise it seems to be a story of some sort.

Evidence? Would you like more quotes or will you take my word for it that legitimate scientists claim DNA was probably designed? If you want quotes I'll be happy to provide them. Just tell me how many you need before you stop accusing me of making it up.

I didn't accuse you of making it up, I am only pointing out that it is conjecture, you have yet to show any experiments dealing with any mechanism of ID.

Wall-dog wrote:

How is it scientific proof? I am beginning to think you don't understand what science is.

Now you are the one jabbing.

You stated DNA is proof of a designer. Don't we need proof of a designer to prove a designer?

Wall-dog wrote:

Worms make holes in the earth. So all holes in the earth are from worms.

That would be a very short-lived hypothosis. Please reduce the single-celled organism to a similar absurdity.

I just did but for your benefit I'll create a new one.

You claim that because you remove a part from a cell it no longer lives and that proves that it is irreducibly complex.

If I remove a stone from an arch and it crumbles, does this prove that the arch is irreducibly complex?

I don't recall arches being built all at once.

Wall-dog wrote:

And finally you seem to be missing a fundamental flaw to your argument. The machines being built today are built on a design. This design did not just appear, it was created through an iterative process. Beleive me when I say that it took alot of trial an error to "design" your microwave oven.

Are you pointing out flaws in my argument, or helping me prove it? It was an iterative process inherently involving intelligence and design.

You are saying because people are involved that there was intelligence involved. Don't you think you are blurring the picture? In other words the process is iterative any sort of test will do.

For example I need a device that will hit balls very far. I take a design and keep modifying and testing etc... until I have a good bat. Where does the intelligence come in? In making the judgement that the bat is good? So when the same process is used in nature where is the intelligence?

Wall-dog wrote:I don't care how much trial and error it took. It would never have happened without a form of intelligent design. Man is imperfect so we need trial and error.

No it wouldn't have occurred without elimination by trial. Think about it.

Wall-dog wrote:The same may not be true of the designer of the single cell organism.

Again with the suppositions, when will we get to actual experimentation and empirical evidence?

Wall-dog wrote:

The mechanisms of evolution are still at work today.
The process of evolution still continues to this day.
Once we understand the mechanisms of evolution we can examine living forms and identify where these changes occurred.
Comparative analysis morphological and genetic lend credence to the idea of common descent.

If you'd like a quick play on words, replace 'evolution' and 'common descent' with 'ID'. All statements are still accurate.

False
You have yet to explain how the mechanisms of ID are testable, let alone that they are still at work to this day.
ID has yet to show any processes.
Without experimentally confirming any of the mechanisms of ID any examination of the data is pure speculation.

It is like seeing a lamppost bent in your driveway and saying that bigfoot did it. Look no man is strong enough and there are stories of bigfoot. Do you have evidence of bigfoot?

Now let me be clear on this point, notice I am not stating there is no bigfoot.
But to claim that the lamppost is evidence of bigfoot is not scientific.

Wall-dog wrote:

Exactly my point! For evolution the moments of diversion are all speculation and best guesses based on fossil record and mutation rates. However for IC the status rest on the fact that we do not know how it could have come about gradually. Irreducible complexity is identified by our present lack of knowledge. It basically fills in the gaps in our knowledge, certainly not advised and definately not scientific.

'We don't know what it is but it sure wasn't God' is a statement of faith - not a statement of science.

Noone stated this. Is this the problem you have with science? Science cannot say either way, as there is no evidence. Nobody stated it was not God. You are stating that it must be because we don't have the answers. See the difference?

Wall-dog wrote:Evolution based on fossil record and mutation rates has pretty much been disproven by such things as the Cambrian Explosion.

There is a thread on the Cambrian explosion. You can post info there. You're assertion that it has been disproven is false.

Wall-dog wrote:I really want to pull out one statement:

However for IC the status rest on the fact that we do not know how it could have come about gradually.

How do you know it came about gradually? That is a theory - not a fact.

???Huh???
The statement is that IC is based on the fact that evolution cannot account for something. Not that IC came about gradually.
"Exactly my point! For evolution the moments of diversion are all speculation and best guesses based on fossil record and mutation rates. However for IC the status(of a phenomenon as being charachterized as ID) rest on the fact that we do not know how it could have come about gradually. Irreducible complexity is identified by our present lack of knowledge. It basically fills in the gaps in our knowledge, certainly not advised and definately not scientific. "

Wall-dog wrote:

There is a thread on it feel free to post there.

I'm spending enough time on this thread.

Wall-dog wrote:

Again you are assuming that function came before form.

And you assume the converse...

No, I accept both possibilities.
For example for the antennae on your cell phone function came before form.

Wall-dog wrote:

It is irreducible now because the mitochondria is now required for all anaerobic life. But the mitochondria has it's own genome, and behaves and reacts much like a bacteria. What does this show you?

That it may be irreducible.

No it shows that it is reducible. It shows that life can exist without the mitochondria. And it does. And it points to a possibility that the mitochondria is a result of Endosymbiosis. Perhaps we should start a thread on this topic, it appears you are missing the point, or may not understand the concept. This is not an ad hominum attack. Just want to make sure I am using ideas you understand.

Here is the information again so that you can review.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... iosis.html
Let me know if you have any questions.

Wall-dog wrote:

How come with the mouse trap it's the person who assembles it who has the intelligence yet with the mold its not the mold cell which assembles the daughter cell that possesses intelligence? What kind of analogy is this? Please stop rationalizing and use real data and real science.

So the cell was designed to be able to reproduce. What's your point?

You're assuming this without evidence. If you attack the questions this way you will be guilty of circular reasoning. It will be better to say you think that it may be designed this way.

Wall-dog wrote:The intelligence would still rest with the designer of the first cell. Nano technology has shown that mankind can also produce micro-mechanisms that reproduce.

Again this is not scientific.

Wall-dog wrote:

You think because you can program that you are like God? Don't you see how evolution is much more flexible,complex and intricate than the most complex of human inventions?

The Bible does say we are created in God's image, but no - I wasn't saying anything as arrogant as that. I was simply saying that DNA resembles a computer program in many ways.

Not quite as this program indirectly runs in the environment. And does not encode any actual operating instructions. It's more like a blueprint for interactive animated components. And the instruction for operation are the laws of nature itself.

Wall-dog wrote:And no - what I see about evolution is that it is a flawed theory.

I'll give you this, but what theory isn't? That is why biologists are still at work, because of the unanswered questions.

Wall-dog wrote:

And because we don't know the exact mechanisms you say it must be a higher intelligence?
What about 500 years ago when we didn't know why lightning struck some houses burning them down, it was a higher intelligence?

Theories get disproven. Saying that we know something is not true today does not mean we should have known that 500 years ago - and if they did not know that, they should have acknowledged that it was possible.

Or better yet they should acknowledge that they do not know yet.

Wall-dog wrote:

Your point?

Isn't overnight a little too short for evolutionary theory??

Not if you understand that evolution as a process appears to have taken place, but the mechanism which accounts for it is still under debate. The only alternative would be multiple creation events or alien seeding, which science cannot address at this time.

Wall-dog wrote:

So can microevolution account for the evolution from a mouse to an elephant? Its only a longer nose, greater body mass, longer teeth etc...

You really call that a better explanation? That the elephant is decended from the mouse?

Tell me then how is microevolution restricted? Is there a definition of a mouse encoded in the DNA preventing it from growing to large sizes and adapting new features? Have there been experiments conducted to show that microevolution cannot proceed beyond a certain point?

Wall-dog wrote:

Throwing around mousetraps does not show that assembly requires an intelligent force. It only shows that mousetraps require assembly.

Are you disputing that assembly requires intelligence?

Assembly of a mousetrap? No.

Wall-dog wrote:

Then show how it does so.

ID says that an intelligent creature may have designed and created it.

How is this not a hypothesis, and how does one test this?

Wall-dog wrote:

These UAW workers designed the Ranger?

They did assemble it, and I think the designers of the Ford Ranger probably qualify as intelligent also.

So are we now talking about intelligent assembly?

Wall-dog wrote:

Simply because you state the scientific method, then you proceed to rationalize, instead of actually applying the scientific method. You are appealing to peoples sence of what should be or what must be and neglect any actual data or experimental results. Your post was devoid of any empirical data or anything else which would resemble the scientific method. Thus I stated that you were able to define the scientific method but were unable to show that you understood it.

Ditto.

Now I feel you are insulting me, as I have posted countless possible experiments during the course of this discussion. Is it not your goal to show how ID is a scientific discipline?

Wall-dog wrote:

I am not disprooving IC to prove evolution! I am disproving IC to show that IC is a result of our lack of knowledge not because it actually exists.

Since when did lack of knowledge become a proof under the scientific method? When we don't know, we theorize. ID is a theory...

Exactly.
Lack of knowledge is not a proof.
I am simply stating that you have failed to show how we can identify IC other than stating that evolution cannot account for it.

IC is a concept not a scientific theory, you have failed to show how it can be identified.

BeGood,

Thank you for bringing civility back to the debate. You are a true scholar and it is a pleasure to debate you.

Here is some hard math by Dr. William Dembski, an accomplished mathmatician that many claim is one of the greatest mathmatical thinkers not only of our time, but of any time.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... mation.pdf

The article covers Design Inference, which establishes that certain events are due to and must be explained with reference to design.

Wesley R Elsberry, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University:

Dembski crafts his argument as a process of elimination. From the set of all possible explanations, he first eliminates the explanatory categories of regularity and chance; then whatever is left is by definition design. Since all three categories complete the set, design is the set-theoretical complement of regularity and chance.

Dembski's book and major concept share a name, The Design Inference. The Design Inference is an argument which leads to a conclusion of design for an event. Dembski deploys a large number of terms and phrases in making his argument that design must be recognized as a necessary mode of explanation in science. Fortunately, Dembski is also scrupulous in making clear what each term means, even when it has a common or casual usage. Design is one of those terms, and it becomes a category defined by the elimination of events that can be attributed to regularity or to chance. Complexity-specification is a term used by Dembski in other works to describe the diagnostic attribute of design in an event. It derives from Dembski's earlier use of the phrase, Complex Specified Information. The idea behind complexity-specification is that the jointly-held attributes of complexity, as small probability, and specification, as conforming to an independently-given pattern, reveal the presence of design in an event. Complexity excludes high- and intermediate-probability events, and specification excludes chance events. Since regularity comprises events marked by high probability, complexity-specification then yields those events that fall into the exclusionary category of design as Dembksi uses the term. Since these three categories (regularity, chance, and design) embrace all events, and design is established by elimination of the other two categories, design is thus the set-theoretical complement of regularity and chance.

The Design Inference is a deductive argument which can lead to the recognition of complexity-specification, and thus design, for a particular event.

Why can't we include tornadoes they don't reproduce and they appear fairly complex.

Tornados are easily explained by natural phenomon. You already know that though. I took the bait, so go ahead and run with it.

The point is answering the mouse trap question does not answer the former.

I think you quoted the wrong section. I have no idea what you are referring to.

No because could is a hypothesis, demonstrating it could makes it closer to a theory.

I have demonstrated that it could have happened. I've shown examples of things mankind has built - all of which required intelligence.

Please remind me again what this math is?

See earlier in this thread.

Again with the suppositions, where is the empirical data?

I've given lots of empirical data, but whenever I do you call it a supposition. <shrug>

Every example of man-made objects is empirical data for the existance of ID.

You stated DNA is proof of a designer. Don't we need proof of a designer to prove a designer?

If I used the word 'proof' I used the term too loosely. ID is a theory - not a proof. Yes - to move beyond being a theory we would need to prove the existance of a designer. That said, mankind proves that ID occurs whenever mankind designs.

If I remove a stone from an arch and it crumbles, does this prove that the arch is irreducibly complex?

I don't recall arches being built all at once.

No. Removing a single stone and having the arch collapse does not in and of itself prove the arch is irreducibly complex. It only proves that in order to stay intact, the arch needed that stone. That said, could an arch, depending on the application, be irreducibly complex? That's actually a good question.

You are saying because people are involved that there was intelligence involved. Don't you think you are blurring the picture? In other words the process is iterative any sort of test will do.

For example I need a device that will hit balls very far. I take a design and keep modifying and testing etc... until I have a good bat. Where does the intelligence come in? In making the judgement that the bat is good? So when the same process is used in nature where is the intelligence?

People are intelligent. When you build the bat, you bring intelligence in.

No it wouldn't have occurred without elimination by trial. Think about it.

Most of mankinds inventions took both trial and error (iterative) and intelligence. You can't take intelligence out of human invention. Adding trial and error in does not take the intelligence out.

Again with the suppositions, when will we get to actual experimentation and empirical evidence?

You refuse to accept empirical evidence, but maybe you'll look at the article by Dr. Dembski that I linked above and accept the experimentation.

You have yet to explain how the mechanisms of ID are testable, let alone that they are still at work to this day.
ID has yet to show any processes.
Without experimentally confirming any of the mechanisms of ID any examination of the data is pure speculation.

Again - read some of Dr. Dembski's work.

Noone stated this. Is this the problem you have with science? Science cannot say either way, as there is no evidence. Nobody stated it was not God. You are stating that it must be because we don't have the answers. See the difference?

I think you said something more along the lines of not needing to use theories to try and understand our gaps in knowledge.

There is a thread on the Cambrian explosion. You can post info there. You're assertion that it has been disproven is false.

I'm going to drop this just because there is a seperate thread on it and it isn't central to this debate...

"Exactly my point! For evolution the moments of diversion are all speculation and best guesses based on fossil record and mutation rates. However for IC the status(of a phenomenon as being charachterized as ID) rest on the fact that we do not know how it could have come about gradually. Irreducible complexity is identified by our present lack of knowledge. It basically fills in the gaps in our knowledge, certainly not advised and definately not scientific. "

The problem with that statement is that you don't know that it came about gradually, and there is scant evidence to support the contention that it did. But let's move away from evolution again unless you'd like to ressurect the thread we were on a couple weeks ago. Personally, I thought we beat that into a dead horse.

No, I accept both possibilities.
For example for the antennae on your cell phone function came before form.

Agreed.

Here is the information again so that you can review.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... iosis.html
Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you for the link. I'll read it with interest.

You're assuming this without evidence. If you attack the questions this way you will be guilty of circular reasoning. It will be better to say you think that it may be designed this way.

You're assuming that it wasn't designed without evidence. The only thing either of us know is that the cell reproduces...

Again this is not scientific.

Nano technologies are not scientific?

Not quite as this program indirectly runs in the environment. And does not encode any actual operating instructions. It's more like a blueprint for interactive animated components. And the instruction for operation are the laws of nature itself.

As a computer programmer, I would say that RNA/DNA absolutely have operating instructions encoded into them. Are the laws of nature the instruction or do they better represent the run-time environment?

Or better yet they should acknowledge that they do not know yet.

Ancient man just simply attributed things to God or to the gods. Religion in the ancient world was a power-base and lack of knowledge made the priesthoods more powerful. They not only encouraged questions to be answered by attributing things to the gods, but they had a vested interest in not finding answers.

Using the word 'theory' implies that we don't really know.

Not if you understand that evolution as a process appears to have taken place, but the mechanism which accounts for it is still under debate. The only alternative would be multiple creation events or alien seeding, which science cannot address at this time.

Please read Dr. Dembski's work.

I don't agree that evolution as a process appears to have taken place except on a micro-level. I don't agree that enough time was available for micro-evolutionary changes to add-up to macro levels. Evolution is supposed to be the mechanism. Don't you see something wrong with the picture of the mechanism needing a mechanism?

Tell me then how is microevolution restricted? Is there a definition of a mouse encoded in the DNA preventing it from growing to large sizes and adapting new features? Have there been experiments conducted to show that microevolution cannot proceed beyond a certain point?

There are a whold slew of restrictions. Time is the big one.

Assembly of a mousetrap? No.

Now you've touched on the real argument against ID. Assembly of certain things clearly took intelligence, but that doesn't mean that assembly of all things did. Even Dr. Dembski's math can't really show an intelligent designer. All it shows is an intelligent, or at least pseudo-intelligent, process. One could argue that evolution, being based on pseudo-intelligent environmental variables such as 'survival of the fittest,' also constitute a pseudo-intelligent process on at least the micro-level. If there is a pseudo-intelligent spin to evolution and evolution is a natural process, then it is entirely possible that there are other natural processes that are also pseudo-intelligent. Proving that a process which displays characteristics of intelligence exists does not prove that an intelligent being exists. Intelligent design will probably never go farther than to prove that some unknown process must exist that displays many of the characteristics of intelligence. Whether these characteristics constitute true 'intelligence' or are merely shared with true 'intelligence' may never be known.

I'd be perfectly satisfied if the scientific community would agree only with that and really at the end of the day I think this is all Intelligent Design can honestly claim to theorize.

On the other hand, if it looks like an apple, smells like an apple, and tastes like an apple, it might be an apple. But THAT is a theological argument and not a scientific one. It's a sound theological argument, but it's theological none the less. But - perhaps something else further down the road will help make other arguments that are currently theological turn into something more scientific. That's the hope. As a Christain, I have to believe that a pure approach to science will eventually lead to God rather than away. But I think science needs to

truly

be objective and I think too many scientists today are not.

How is this not a hypothesis, and how does one test this?

Once again, please read Dr. Dembski.

Now I feel you are insulting me, as I have posted countless possible experiments during the course of this discussion. Is it not your goal to show how ID is a scientific discipline?

Do you not see how similar the experiments and empirical evidence shown by both of us are? Maybe your faith in evolution blinds you to that. I honestly don't know.

Lack of knowledge is not a proof.
I am simply stating that you have failed to show how we can identify IC other than stating that evolution cannot account for it.

Lack of knowledge is not a proof, but it does beg for the creation of theories. Again though - please read Dr. Dembski for more on testing for the existence of intelligent design.

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,

Thank you for bringing civility back to the debate. You are a true scholar and it is a pleasure to debate you.

Likewise, however one specific point has frustrated me.
=)
I highlighted below in green.
heh

Wall-dog wrote:Here is some hard math by Dr. William Dembski, an accomplished mathmatician that many claim is one of the greatest mathmatical thinkers not only of our time, but of any time.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... mation.pdf


The Design Inference is a deductive argument which can lead to the recognition of complexity-specification, and thus design, for a particular event.

I have read his argument before, and it is a well written peice, for the most part, however the section on surprisal seems quite inappropriate. To start off when a system is a result of an iterative process it will not be a random convergence of parts, rather a specified complex based on the rules acting on the system. In other words he shown that all phenomenon belong to a series of subsets which comprise a whole. He does all this mathmatically with no actual experimentation in nature however. And he does not show how complexity means intelligent design.

Specified complexity is a result of an iterative process interacting with an environment. This is how evolution works. And this is how man's technology has developed. What he has not shown is that specified complexity is a result of intelligence not only iterative processes which have been subjected to specific rules.

Wall-dog wrote:

The point is answering the mouse trap question does not answer the former.

I think you quoted the wrong section. I have no idea what you are referring to.

You stated
"Did the parts of a cell all appear together spontaneously, or did they all already exist for quite some time before they randomly fell into place to create the first living cell? At least with the mousetrap we can answer that."
My point is that the mouse trap needing assemble does not equate to anything else requiring assembly.

Wall-dog wrote:

No because could is a hypothesis, demonstrating it could makes it closer to a theory.

I have demonstrated that it could have happened. I've shown examples of things mankind has built - all of which required intelligence.

You have shown how man made inventions are designed, you are only making analogies. You have not demonstrated how nature is designed by an intelligence. This is done through experimentation with nature.

Wall-dog wrote:

Please remind me again what this math is?

See earlier in this thread.

The math shows that all subsets belong to a set. Not that specified complexity is a result of intelligence. One has to make an ideological jump to say that because human examples of specified complexity is a result of intelligence that natural ones are as well.

This is the same deal with the mouse traps.
=)
Because worms make holes in the earth all holes in the earth are from earthworms.
FALSE

Wall-dog wrote:

Again with the suppositions, where is the empirical data?

I've given lots of empirical data, but whenever I do you call it a supposition. <shrug>

Here is an example of empirical data,
We take a two individual plants and cross pollinate them. One individual is blue and the other is red. Both parents come from a homogeneous line. We then plant the seeds and tally the resulting offsprings flower colors. The resulting count will allow us to determine whether one trait is dominant over the other.

Now if you could show me yours again maybe we can compare.

Wall-dog wrote:Every example of man-made objects is empirical data for the existance of ID.

Not in the natural world.

Wall-dog wrote:

You stated DNA is proof of a designer. Don't we need proof of a designer to prove a designer?

If I used the word 'proof' I used the term too loosely. ID is a theory - not a proof. Yes - to move beyond being a theory we would need to prove the existance of a designer.

No to move beyond a hypothesis you need to experimentally show the mechanisms in work in nature.
You're arguments so far have amounted to the following.
I have an aeroplane and it flies using gasoline as fuel.
So all things which fly use gasoline.

Does this prove that birds use gasoline to propell themselves?

Wall-dog wrote:That said, mankind proves that ID occurs whenever mankind designs.

Yes but does this prove that life is a result of ID? No.

Wall-dog wrote:

If I remove a stone from an arch and it crumbles, does this prove that the arch is irreducibly complex?

I don't recall arches being built all at once.

No. Removing a single stone and having the arch collapse does not in and of itself prove the arch is irreducibly complex. It only proves that in order to stay intact, the arch needed that stone.

So how does removing a component of an organism result in the proof of IC? It should only prove that in order to stay alive the cell needed that component.

Wall-dog wrote:That said, could an arch, depending on the application, be irreducibly complex? That's actually a good question.

You are saying because people are involved that there was intelligence involved. Don't you think you are blurring the picture? In other words the process is iterative any sort of test will do.

For example I need a device that will hit balls very far. I take a design and keep modifying and testing etc... until I have a good bat. Where does the intelligence come in? In making the judgement that the bat is good? So when the same process is used in nature where is the intelligence?

People are intelligent. When you build the bat, you bring intelligence in.

Again you are unable to separate the actual cause from the intelligence in the human being? What if I built a computer which did the judgement? Would you then argue that the computer required intelligence to build before it could have done the judging?

Wall-dog wrote:

No it wouldn't have occurred without elimination by trial. Think about it.

Most of mankinds inventions took both trial and error (iterative) and intelligence. You can't take intelligence out of human invention. Adding trial and error in does not take the intelligence out.

Sure it does, take a bacteria population and add a dose of antibiotic. The resulting population will be more resistant to the antibiotic. It's trial and error. No intelligence involved.

Wall-dog wrote:

Again with the suppositions, when will we get to actual experimentation and empirical evidence?

You refuse to accept empirical evidence, but maybe you'll look at the article by Dr. Dembski that I linked above and accept the experimentation.

Point out where the experiment is in this article?

Wall-dog wrote:

You have yet to explain how the mechanisms of ID are testable, let alone that they are still at work to this day.
ID has yet to show any processes.
Without experimentally confirming any of the mechanisms of ID any examination of the data is pure speculation.

Again - read some of Dr. Dembski's work.

Again no mention of mechanism nor of a way to experiment on it. This is a mathematical proof, not a scientific experiment.

Wall-dog wrote:

Noone stated this. Is this the problem you have with science? Science cannot say either way, as there is no evidence. Nobody stated it was not God. You are stating that it must be because we don't have the answers. See the difference?

I think you said something more along the lines of not needing to use theories to try and understand our gaps in knowledge.

No, the statement was you cannot use a gap in knowledge as a way of identifying a concept.

Wall-dog wrote:

"Exactly my point! For evolution the moments of diversion are all speculation and best guesses based on fossil record and mutation rates. However for IC the status(of a phenomenon as being charachterized as ID) rest on the fact that we do not know how it could have come about gradually. Irreducible complexity is identified by our present lack of knowledge. It basically fills in the gaps in our knowledge, certainly not advised and definately not scientific. "

The problem with that statement is that you don't know that it came about gradually, and there is scant evidence to support the contention that it did.

Again you missed the point. You are the one saying because there is scant evidence that this means that a system is IC.

How can you continually misread this?

Wall-dog wrote:

You're assuming this without evidence. If you attack the questions this way you will be guilty of circular reasoning. It will be better to say you think that it may be designed this way.

You're assuming that it wasn't designed without evidence. The only thing either of us know is that the cell reproduces...

I did not assume that. You think because you are biased one way that I must be biased the other? Evolution does not state it was not designed, it is only trying to determine the mechanisms of design.

Wall-dog wrote:

Again this is not scientific.

Nano technologies are not scientific?

No the whole statement was.
"The intelligence would still rest with the designer of the first cell. Nano technology has shown that mankind can also produce micro-mechanisms that reproduce."

Man producing "micro-mechanisms that reproduce", DOES NOT PROVE that nature is the result of a similar process.

So because we can support our structures with crossbeams, termites must use the same method?

Wall-dog wrote:

Not quite as this program indirectly runs in the environment. And does not encode any actual operating instructions. It's more like a blueprint for interactive animated components. And the instruction for operation are the laws of nature itself.

As a computer programmer, I would say that RNA/DNA absolutely have operating instructions encoded into them. Are the laws of nature the instruction or do they better represent the run-time environment?

No they do not resemble the run time environment. The RNA,DNA is more like the blue print for each of the screws, not gates, other transistors, wires and adders etc that make up a computer. The ribosomes are like the factories which build these parts. Now this is where the analogy breaks down. The parts are not complete, they now begin to fold in on themselves. It's as if sheets of metal began to roll up on itself until it formed a screw. Now the facinating thing about this is, it is the very sequence of the amino acids which determines how it folds. It is the very laws of the universe which causes it to fold. And then it is the very same laws of the universe which determine how these proteins interact. The computer self assembles because of the interactions of the charges and the mechanical aspects of the various proteins. The environment is like the program you load onto the computer. Effecting the way the various parts interact. So as you can see DNA is not the software of life, it is the blueprint for the hardware of life.

Wall-dog wrote:

Or better yet they should acknowledge that they do not know yet.

Ancient man just simply attributed things to God or to the gods. Religion in the ancient world was a power-base and lack of knowledge made the priesthoods more powerful. They not only encouraged questions to be answered by attributing things to the gods, but they had a vested interest in not finding answers.

Using the word 'theory' implies that we don't really know.

No, in science Theory means concepts backed repeatedly by evidence. It means that this idea has passed alot of tests. Don't change the definition of theory to fit the "theory" of ID.

Wall-dog wrote:

Not if you understand that evolution as a process appears to have taken place, but the mechanism which accounts for it is still under debate. The only alternative would be multiple creation events or alien seeding, which science cannot address at this time.

Please read Dr. Dembski's work.

Have you read this paper?

Wall-dog wrote:I don't agree that evolution as a process appears to have taken place except on a micro-level. I don't agree that enough time was available for micro-evolutionary changes to add-up to macro levels. Evolution is supposed to be the mechanism. Don't you see something wrong with the picture of the mechanism needing a mechanism?

I don't follow, what do you mean?

Wall-dog wrote:

Tell me then how is microevolution restricted? Is there a definition of a mouse encoded in the DNA preventing it from growing to large sizes and adapting new features? Have there been experiments conducted to show that microevolution cannot proceed beyond a certain point?

There are a whold slew of restrictions. Time is the big one.

You're saying mice haven't been around long enough to get bigger? By what observation do you make this assesment?

Wall-dog wrote:

Assembly of a mousetrap? No.

Now you've touched on the real argument against ID. Assembly of certain things clearly took intelligence, but that doesn't mean that assembly of all things did. Even Dr. Dembski's math can't really show an intelligent designer. All it shows is an intelligent, or at least pseudo-intelligent, process. One could argue that evolution, being based on pseudo-intelligent environmental variables such as 'survival of the fittest,' also constitute a pseudo-intelligent process on at least the micro-level. If there is a pseudo-intelligent spin to evolution and evolution is a natural process, then it is entirely possible that there are other natural processes that are also pseudo-intelligent.

Identifying these other natural processes, would infact constitute science. And once experimentally tested they would be among the other identified mechanisms of evolution.

Wall-dog wrote:Proving that a process which displays characteristics of intelligence exists does not prove that an intelligent being exists. Intelligent design will probably never go farther than to prove that some unknown process must exist that displays many of the characteristics of intelligence. Whether these characteristics constitute true 'intelligence' or are merely shared with true 'intelligence' may never be known.

I'm glad you understand the secular philosophy of the problem.

Wall-dog wrote:I'd be perfectly satisfied if the scientific community would agree only with that and really at the end of the day I think this is all Intelligent Design can honestly claim to theorize.

Mosts scientists do agree with this! However this is imaterial.

However that's why ID is not a scientific theory. Unknown processes at least have to be measurable.

Wall-dog wrote:

How is this not a hypothesis, and how does one test this?

Once again, please read Dr. Dembski.

This paper isn't even a hypothesis, it's a mathematical semi-proof.

Wall-dog wrote:

Now I feel you are insulting me, as I have posted countless possible experiments during the course of this discussion. Is it not your goal to show how ID is a scientific discipline?

Do you not see how similar the experiments and empirical evidence shown by both of us are? Maybe your faith in evolution blinds you to that. I honestly don't know.

I have read through the posts, I have not seen any of the examples you are refering to. Could you point them out for me?

Wall-dog wrote:

Lack of knowledge is not a proof.
I am simply stating that you have failed to show how we can identify IC other than stating that evolution cannot account for it.

Lack of knowledge is not a proof, but it does beg for the creation of theories.

In science this is called a hypothesis, now you need experimental evidence which backs these ideas.

Wall-dog wrote:Again though - please read Dr. Dembski for more on testing for the existence of intelligent design.

Again the paper does not describe any experiments, nor show any methods of testing. It is a mathematical proof.

I.E. to put it simply something is either A B or C and must belong in one of the three. If it doesn't belong in A or B it must be C.

However scoff.
He does not show how we can identify A, B nor C!

For example lets say I have a Rock formation made of photosensitive materials.

As the formation degrades it forms an impression of its current shape on the ground behind it as a shadow is cast. As it degrades the layers build up. Until eventually the formation is weathered away. Isn't the resulting information in the layers of material specified complexity?

Wall-dog wrote:There are some thinly veiled personal attacks in some of the more recent posts.

If you are referring to my calling you disingenuous, then I apologize if it isn't true.

bgood wrote: No to move beyond a hypothesis you need to experimentally show the mechanisms in work in nature.

Just wondering here BGood can you Show Macro Evolution? Not just the fact that an Elephant went from having Tusks to Tuskless. But show a Dinosaur Gradually changing into a Bird?

I think I can answer this myself and you can tell me if I am right or wrong?
No that is no possible to show this in Nature because we are therefore assuming a Past event without proper evidence. We can only assume a Dinosaur-Bird/Dino (not even going to bother on Spelling that ) -Bird is correct. So Macro Evolution is just a Hypothesis because the Testing of it is unavailable to us?

Can you expand if possible?

Thanks

bizzt wrote:

bgood wrote: No to move beyond a hypothesis you need to experimentally show the mechanisms in work in nature.

Just wondering here BGood can you Show Macro Evolution? Not just the fact that an Elephant went from having Tusks to Tuskless. But show a Dinosaur Gradually changing into a Bird?

There is really no such thing.
Take erosion for example.
We can define a concept called macroerosion. Basically the long term effects of erosion.

Evolution is sort of an erosion of the genetic code.
Over time it changes, over a longer period of time it changes more.
This process of change needs to be experimentally demonstrated.

bizzt wrote:I think I can answer this myself and you can tell me if I am right or wrong?
No that is no possible to show this in Nature because we are therefore assuming a Past event without proper evidence. We can only assume a Dinosaur-Bird/Dino (not even going to bother on Spelling that ) -Bird is correct. So Macro Evolution is just a Hypothesis because the Testing of it is unavailable to us?

Not quite.
=)
We only need to show that erosion happens. The long term effects are inferrered once the mechanism has been demonstrated to work.

Of course if a limiting factor can be identified, this picture changes drastically. But no evidence of limiting factors other than viability have been observed.

Evolution is like coastal erosion, there are additive and reductive mechanisms.

bizzt wrote:Can you expand if possible?
Thanks

Let me know if I need to elaborate.

bizzt wrote:

bgood wrote: No to move beyond a hypothesis you need to experimentally show the mechanisms in work in nature.

Just wondering here BGood can you Show Macro Evolution? Not just the fact that an Elephant went from having Tusks to Tuskless. But show a Dinosaur Gradually changing into a Bird?

I think I can answer this myself and you can tell me if I am right or wrong?
No that is no possible to show this in Nature because we are therefore assuming a Past event without proper evidence. We can only assume a Dinosaur-Bird/Dino (not even going to bother on Spelling that ) -Bird is correct. So Macro Evolution is just a Hypothesis because the Testing of it is unavailable to us?

Can you expand if possible?

Thanks

The terms Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution are purely the creation of those wishing to dis-credit the Theory of Evolution. All evolution occurs between parent and child, small variations that lead to the variation having its own significant population, sometimes at the expense of its non-variation peers, and sometimes in parallel. Through successive repetition of this very simple concept, organisms diverge from a common ancestor and become different species.

the theory of evolution only says that change occurs (and at that I only know of those changes being what Creationists/ID proponents refer to as 'Micro-Evoluton'), and that the change gets passed on to successive generations. That's 80-90% of the Theory of Evolution.

The last 10-20% of the theory of evolution is broken up into two parts. 1) If the change gives the indiividual an advantage in its environment, then it has a better chance for survival than another member in its environment that does not have that change. That makes sense.

This results in a higher likelyhood that the 'enhanced' indiividual will surviive long enough to reproduce and pass along the trait to the next generations. That makes sense too.

As a result of this "natural selection" of 'enhanced' individuals, the species will evenually be overtaken by the enhanced version. 2) And the tricky part, every indiividual is subject to the 80-90% part and part 1) above.

The point is everything is changing and one 'enhanced' trait gets piled ontop of others as the generations procceed. In essensce an individual is a stepping stone to the next. It just keeps going. IN this way localized groups of indiividuals can progress independent of a different group of individualls, so long as intermingiling does not occur.

Take for example an early horse like animal, liiving in herds. Some members travel to the African plains, some to North Amerca. When the continents split apart, the two can no longer inter-relate and keep there gene pool the same, as a result the two groups start to take differnent paths of change, each being subjected to the results of natural selection. In africa, this pre-horse aniimal through many generations becomes a Zebra. In NA, it becomes a Mustang Horse. While in NA the Horse lineage is moving along it seems another divergent path takes form in a smaller version more sure-footed, the donkey. So it keeps going. As the separated populations move further and further away in generations from the common starting point the less and less they can recognize there "anscestors" and also, as in this example, there "cousins" in africa. Given enough generations, it will get to the point that the "cousins" will be so genetically different that they cannot even produce offspring given cross-breeding. What is this called then? different species. Or as Creationists refer to it, as Macro-evolution.

In reality its' all just the application of change from one generation to the next.

The only explanation I can think of for why those wishing to discredit the theory of evolution insist on the distinction between micro and macro, is damage control. It is quite obvious that small changes within species occur, we see it all the time. For them to argue they don't occur is even too ludicrious for even them. They have taken a secondary argument of this concept of "change between species" (macro???) and think that they can play 3 card monte and switch the basic defining mechanism of Evolution with some ridiculous Straw man arguement like "show me a reptile that gives birth to a mammal" and win. I am truely embarassed that such poor sportsmanship, and trickery are the staples of those claiming to be good christians.

You stain all of us by doing so.

jleslie48 wrote:

bizzt wrote:

bgood wrote: No to move beyond a hypothesis you need to experimentally show the mechanisms in work in nature.

Just wondering here BGood can you Show Macro Evolution? Not just the fact that an Elephant went from having Tusks to Tuskless. But show a Dinosaur Gradually changing into a Bird?

I think I can answer this myself and you can tell me if I am right or wrong?
No that is no possible to show this in Nature because we are therefore assuming a Past event without proper evidence. We can only assume a Dinosaur-Bird/Dino (not even going to bother on Spelling that ) -Bird is correct. So Macro Evolution is just a Hypothesis because the Testing of it is unavailable to us?

Can you expand if possible?

Thanks

The terms Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution are purely the creation of those wishing to dis-credit the Theory of Evolution. All evolution occurs between parent and child, small variations that lead to the variation having its own significant population, sometimes at the expense of its non-variation peers, and sometimes in parallel. Through successive repetition of this very simple concept, organisms diverge from a common ancestor and become different species.

the theory of evolution only says that change occurs (and at that I only know of those changes being what Creationists/ID proponents refer to as 'Micro-Evoluton'), and that the change gets passed on to successive generations. That's 80-90% of the Theory of Evolution.

The last 10-20% of the theory of evolution is broken up into two parts. 1) If the change gives the indiividual an advantage in its environment, then it has a better chance for survival than another member in its environment that does not have that change. That makes sense.

This results in a higher likelyhood that the 'enhanced' indiividual will surviive long enough to reproduce and pass along the trait to the next generations. That makes sense too.

As a result of this "natural selection" of 'enhanced' individuals, the species will evenually be overtaken by the enhanced version. 2) And the tricky part, every indiividual is subject to the 80-90% part and part 1) above.

The point is everything is changing and one 'enhanced' trait gets piled ontop of others as the generations procceed. In essensce an individual is a stepping stone to the next. It just keeps going. IN this way localized groups of indiividuals can progress independent of a different group of individualls, so long as intermingiling does not occur.

Take for example an early horse like animal, liiving in herds. Some members travel to the African plains, some to North Amerca. When the continents split apart, the two can no longer inter-relate and keep there gene pool the same, as a result the two groups start to take differnent paths of change, each being subjected to the results of natural selection. In africa, this pre-horse aniimal through many generations becomes a Zebra. In NA, it becomes a Mustang Horse. While in NA the Horse lineage is moving along it seems another divergent path takes form in a smaller version more sure-footed, the donkey. So it keeps going. As the separated populations move further and further away in generations from the common starting point the less and less they can recognize there "anscestors" and also, as in this example, there "cousins" in africa. Given enough generations, it will get to the point that the "cousins" will be so genetically different that they cannot even produce offspring given cross-breeding. What is this called then? different species. Or as Creationists refer to it, as Macro-evolution.

In reality its' all just the application of change from one generation to the next.

The only explanation I can think of for why those wishing to discredit the theory of evolution insist on the distinction between micro and macro, is damage control. It is quite obvious that small changes within species occur, we see it all the time. For them to argue they don't occur is even too ludicrious for even them. They have taken a secondary argument of this concept of "change between species" (macro???) and think that they can play 3 card monte and switch the basic defining mechanism of Evolution with some ridiculous Straw man arguement like "show me a reptile that gives birth to a mammal" and win. I am truely embarassed that such poor sportsmanship, and trickery are the staples of those claiming to be good christians.

You stain all of us by doing so.

As for Macro Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution


Most Importantly

In the late 1930s, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky devised the Modern evolutionary synthesis. In bringing macroevolution and microevolution to the English language, wrote "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution" (Dobzhansky, 12). Some have argued that he was reluctant to equate macro- and microevolution because it went against the beliefs of his mentor, Filipchenko, who was an orthogenetist, and of the opinion that micro- and macroevolution were of a different mechanism and calibre. (Burian, 1994). From the writings of Dobzhansky, the modern synthesis view of evolution grew to its present prominence.

However Let's move on

First of all yes there is small changes over time HOWEVER there is still lack of Proof whether those small changes create a whole new species! For Example some Evolutionary texts believe Fish became Mammals from Gills to Lungs. How many Generations does it take to make a Change?

As well if this is the Fact why in 150 years why have we not found Transitional Species around us?
Stephen Gould touched on this in some of his publications. And for this reason he came up with the Puctuated Equilibrium Hypothesis

What about Complicated body Parts and how they were performed through "Evolution"

All for now...

bizzt wrote: First of all yes there is small changes over time HOWEVER there is still lack of Proof whether those small changes create a whole new species!

First off, there will [most likely] never be proof. Only a perponderance of evidence. This entire thread was supposed to be about the science method of ID, and some 15 pages in not even a single simple example, let alone a single thought as to why missing evidence in the theory of evolution even remotely validates anything to do with ID. Yet here we are listening to yet another ID proponent going on about problems with ToE.

For Example some Evolutionary texts believe Fish became Mammals from Gills to Lungs. How many Generations does it take to make a Change?

Millions and millions.

As well if this is the Fact why in 150 years why have we not found Transitional Species around us?

every organsm you see is a transitional species. that's the point you keep missing. Something more tangible I imagine your looking for.

How about that recently discovered egg laying mammal?

How about those fish that can absorb O2 from the air?

And what is wrong with my zebra-- mustang example?

jleslie48 wrote:

bizzt wrote:

bgood wrote: No to move beyond a hypothesis you need to experimentally show the mechanisms in work in nature.

Just wondering here BGood can you Show Macro Evolution? Not just the fact that an Elephant went from having Tusks to Tuskless. But show a Dinosaur Gradually changing into a Bird?

I think I can answer this myself and you can tell me if I am right or wrong?
No that is no possible to show this in Nature because we are therefore assuming a Past event without proper evidence. We can only assume a Dinosaur-Bird/Dino (not even going to bother on Spelling that ) -Bird is correct. So Macro Evolution is just a Hypothesis because the Testing of it is unavailable to us?

Can you expand if possible?

Thanks

They have taken a secondary argument of this concept of "change between species" (macro???) and think that they can play 3 card monte and switch the basic defining mechanism of Evolution with some ridiculous Straw man arguement like "show me a reptile that gives birth to a mammal" and win. I am truely embarassed that such poor sportsmanship, and trickery are the staples of those claiming to be good christians.

You stain all of us by doing so.

I hope you're not applying this to bizzt, he did specify gradually above.

jleslie48 wrote:The theory of evolution only says that change occurs (and at that I only know of those changes being what Creationists/ID proponents refer to as 'Micro-Evoluton'), and that the change gets passed on to successive generations. That's 80-90% of the Theory of Evolution.

The last 10-20% of the theory of evolution is broken up into two parts. 1) If the change gives the indiividual an advantage in its environment, then it has a better chance for survival than another member in its environment that does not have that change. That makes sense.

This results in a higher likelyhood that the 'enhanced' indiividual will surviive long enough to reproduce and pass along the trait to the next generations. That makes sense too.

As a result of this "natural selection" of 'enhanced' individuals, the species will evenually be overtaken by the enhanced version. 2) And the tricky part, every indiividual is subject to the 80-90% part and part 1) above.

While you have the general underpinnings of evolution correct, the percentages are a bit off. The chances of a specific mutation overtaking a whole population due to it setting an individual apart is miniscule. In other words evolution does not work one gene at a time.

In bacteria one change is enough because all resultant offspring are a direct result of the parent.

In sexually reproducing organisms the changes are mostly to the organization of cells and intracellular or isolated cellular chemistry. Mutations accumulate within a species gene pool over time. Usually this causes a general drift. This is the source of most variety.

When isolated populations begin to expand their range, or there is an envrionmental change then selection takes place, and it can take place at a phenomenal rate! This is the source of rapid speciation.

So in essence a stable population will not see sudden replacement of individuals with more fit individuals. We are talking at the level of population here. An isolated population when comming into contact with an existing population will cause the less fit population to be outcompeted from their existing niche. It's like the mongols who came down from asia and conquered half the known world.

The only explanation I can think of for why those wishing to discredit the theory of evolution insist on the distinction between micro and macro, is damage control. It is quite obvious that small changes within species occur, we see it all the time. For them to argue they don't occur is even too ludicrious for even them. They have taken a secondary argument of this concept of "change between species" (macro???) and think that they can play 3 card monte and switch the basic defining mechanism of Evolution with some ridiculous Straw man arguement like "show me a reptile that gives birth to a mammal" and win. I am truely embarassed that such poor sportsmanship, and trickery are the staples of those claiming to be good christians.

You stain all of us by doing so.

It's kind of hard not to get sucked-in to talking about evolution when you make enflaming remarks like this one.

First off, there will [most likely] never be proof. Only a perponderance of evidence. This entire thread was supposed to be about the science method of ID, and some 15 pages in not even a single simple example, let alone a single thought as to why missing evidence in the theory of evolution even remotely validates anything to do with ID. Yet here we are listening to yet another ID proponent going on about problems with ToE.

And what's up with that? If I demonstrate examples of intelligent design occurring in the world today I'm told that doesn't count as proof and then someone says something like this. There is no proof for evolution and there will probably never be proof but we are going to call this theory scientific and ignore all others.

bizzt wrote: However Let's move on

First of all yes there is small changes over time HOWEVER there is still lack of Proof whether those small changes create a whole new species!

How do you define a species? Are you assuming that species are permanent and do not change over time? The definition of a species for higher organisms is a population of interbreeding individuals. Nothing restricts a species from gradually changing over time.

bizzt wrote:For Example some Evolutionary texts believe Fish became Mammals from Gills to Lungs. How many Generations does it take to make a Change?

Actually swim bladder to lung. But more technically lung to lung! The question is not as hard as one would think. Organisms are not like man made creations where they form into a design and stay that way permanently. Organisms develop.

More on this later.
If you look at the phylogenic distribution of lungs and gills one will reach the conclusion that lungs are the older of the two!

In order for eukaryotic life to live it requires carbon dioxide and oxygen exchange. In smaller organisms this is done through the skin.
You can see that these organsims are flat in nature because getting any larger will prevent adequate gas exchange from occuring.

Many fish already have a structure which is used for gas exchange when the oxygen content in the water is low. It's known as a swim bladder. You might say that this is required for the fish in order to maintain a certain level of bouyancy but, some fish have lungs, and some fish don't have swim bladders!

Now back to the development part, the lung and swim bladder are actually formed from the gastrointestinal tract during development. In amphibians the blood vessels are close enough to the skin to allow gas transfer through the skin. If we were born with capilaries close enough to the skin we could breathe through our skins! However we would still need our lungs because the surface area of the skin would not be enough to provide adequate gas transfer. Due to our sheer body size we depend on our lungs. Fortunately the smaller amphibians did not depend on lungs to breathe. The lung really is, in it's basic form, a series of folds to allow maximum surface area, which equals maximum gas transfer. Changes in development of the lung to allow more folds is all that is required to improve an amphibian lung. Most amphibians have very simple baloon like structures which serve as their lungs.

A lobe finned fish is thought to have been the precursor to amphibians. These fish are now found in deep oceans. However a relative which inhabited swamps would have had the ability to gulp air in order to get the oxygen it needed if the oxygen content in it's swampy home had been depleted. It is from these creatures where the first amphibians are thought to have arrisen from. A primative amphibian such as this is really just a land crawling fish, it already had lungs!

bizzt wrote:As well if this is the Fact why in 150 years why have we not found Transitional Species around us?
Stephen Gould touched on this in some of his publications. And for this reason he came up with the Puctuated Equilibrium Hypothesis

Now lets say we have an isolated group of these crawling fish and this group has accumulated mutations which cause additional folds in their lungs. This allows them to get much larger. When reintroduced back to general range they become predators. This will force their smaller cousins to develop the ability to evade or face extinction. This is exactly what is thought to have occurred! The larger predatory amphibians forced their smaller cousins to become frogs and salamander and newts of today.

bizzt wrote:What about Complicated body Parts and how they were performed through "Evolution"

All for now...

We don't have the answer's to these questions, however we can look around at existing life forms and guess the most likely scenario.
=)

Wall-dog wrote:

The only explanation I can think of for why those wishing to discredit the theory of evolution insist on the distinction between micro and macro, is damage control. It is quite obvious that small changes within species occur, we see it all the time. For them to argue they don't occur is even too ludicrious for even them. They have taken a secondary argument of this concept of "change between species" (macro???) and think that they can play 3 card monte and switch the basic defining mechanism of Evolution with some ridiculous Straw man arguement like "show me a reptile that gives birth to a mammal" and win. I am truely embarassed that such poor sportsmanship, and trickery are the staples of those claiming to be good christians.

You stain all of us by doing so.

It's kind of hard not to get sucked-in to talking about evolution when you make enflaming remarks like this one.

First off, there will [most likely] never be proof. Only a perponderance of evidence. This entire thread was supposed to be about the science method of ID, and some 15 pages in not even a single simple example, let alone a single thought as to why missing evidence in the theory of evolution even remotely validates anything to do with ID. Yet here we are listening to yet another ID proponent going on about problems with ToE.

And what's up with that? If I demonstrate examples of intelligent design occurring in the world today I'm told that doesn't count as proof and then someone says something like this. There is no proof for evolution and there will probably never be proof but we are going to call this theory scientific and ignore all others.

There is Proof of Evolution but it is the implications that Gradual Change over TIME gives us what we have today. yet the Fossil Record does not show this Gradual Change and yet we don't see Transitional Species Out there today. Maybe we will truly know in 400 Years or so if there was gradual change to species but who knows for now we are only Speculating whether this is true or not.

Wall-dog wrote: It's kind of hard not to get sucked-in to talking about evolution when you make enflaming remarks like this one.

I am sorry that you were subjected to this sort of comment.

Wall-dog wrote:

First off, there will [most likely] never be proof. Only a perponderance of evidence. This entire thread was supposed to be about the science method of ID, and some 15 pages in not even a single simple example, let alone a single thought as to why missing evidence in the theory of evolution even remotely validates anything to do with ID. Yet here we are listening to yet another ID proponent going on about problems with ToE.

And what's up with that? If I demonstrate examples of intelligent design occurring in the world today I'm told that doesn't count as proof and then someone says something like this. There is no proof for evolution and there will probably never be proof but we are going to call this theory scientific and ignore all others.

There is proof that the mechanisms of evolution operate in the natural world.

For example one proposed mechanism would be natural selection. Does the gene pool of a population change as a result of selective pressures?

To find out we take a population of guppies and place them in a large tank. We let them grow and reproduce for quite some time. Now we split this group in two.

We measure the average tollerancy to acidic water. And determine the point where the guppy will fail.

For one group we gradually raise the ph level in the water until it is intollerable to the control group. We do this gradually and hopefully we still have a population to work with.

In the off chance that we do we then do a genetic comparison of the two populations.

The results should show wether a change in environment had an effect on the gene pool of the experimental group in comparison to the control group.

The theory of evolution is based on the results of experiments verifying that these mechanisms do indeed occur.

I have read his argument before, and it is a well written peice, for the most part, however the section on surprisal seems quite inappropriate. To start off when a system is a result of an iterative process it will not be a random convergence of parts, rather a specified complex based on the rules acting on the system. In other words he shown that all phenomenon belong to a series of subsets which comprise a whole. He does all this mathmatically with no actual experimentation in nature however. And he does not show how complexity means intelligent design.

Sorry - you are right that Dembski focuses primarily on the math. That's kind of what I thought you wanted to see. But try the book Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe. I don't have a copy of the book on hand to quote from but here is from a review at http://www.idurc.org/archive/stearnssedu.htm.

After finding how intelligence can be inferred, Dembski hands the book off to Meyer and Behe in order to see if we can, in fact, find CSI in the universe. Next in order is Stephen Meyer's “Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology,” which I found to be extremely in-depth and informative. He focuses partly on the anthropic fine-tuning principle, which tries to show that since “the constants in physics, the initial conditions of the universe, and many other of its features appear delicately balanced to allow for the possibility of life” (SEDU 56-57), then the universe must have been designed, due to the outrageously low probability of life. I've found this argument quite convincing, but the reader should determine this on his/her own, not from my words or of any other reviewer — especially not from some of the Amazon.com fundamentalist Darwinists who possibly haven't even touched an ID book.

Meyer spends more time, however, on the mystery of the origin of DNA. In my opinion, this is stronger than the anthropic fine-tuning principle, since Meyer analyzes many of the objections to the design of DNA — such as the creation of DNA through chance, pre-biotic natural selection, and self-organization theories — and systematically dismantles them. In fact, this origin of DNA problem is specifically what convinced renowned atheist philosopher Antony Flew to believe in some supernatural designer. At a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research, Flew noted , “What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence” (Kinkaid).

Next comes one of Behe's pieces, “Evidence for Design at the Foundation of Life.” While this is rather short, it outlines much of what Behe has been known for: the presence of irreducible complexity (IC) in biochemistry. Dembski has explicated that something exhibits IC when “the system cannot be simplified and still retain the level of function needed for selective advantage” (Design 294). The most common example of IC has been given using a typical mousetrap; every piece of the mechanism is necessary for the entire structure to work at all. Again, Behe's ability to rely on a standard for determining design has kept the argument from dying Paley's death. The biochemist analyzes two examples of IC — the bacterial flagellum and the cilium — by demonstrating that they are inherently motor-like and that a designer must have helped assemble them in some way.

Specified complexity is a result of an iterative process interacting with an environment. This is how evolution works. And this is how man's technology has developed. What he has not shown is that specified complexity is a result of intelligence not only iterative processes which have been subjected to specific rules.

Actually, what he has shown a mathmatical equation with which others, such as Behe, determine the probability of different things happening by something other than intelligence. According to Behe the probability of the mechanisms in a single celled organism being produced naturally is roughly the same as the chance of a tornado going through a junkyard and throwing together a fully functional Boeing 747.

You have shown how man made inventions are designed, you are only making analogies. You have not demonstrated how nature is designed by an intelligence. This is done through experimentation with nature.

Mankind is a part of nature. We are also the most intelligent creatures on the planet. It is only natural that I would look to man-made creations to demonstrate intelligence in design and assembly in real-world scenarios. If I wanted to go to a lower level I might use a bird building a nest.

Now if you could show me yours again maybe we can compare.

I prefer to use empirical evidence from people with more credentials than me. Sometimes I pull them from memory but if you look closely you'll see the mousetrap above coming from a microbiologist. I'm just a cheesy little computer programmer. I wouldn't pretend to be able to go toe-to-toe with you without support from experts.

No to move beyond a hypothesis you need to experimentally show the mechanisms in work in nature.
You're arguments so far have amounted to the following.
I have an aeroplane and it flies using gasoline as fuel.
So all things which fly use gasoline.

Actually, my argument would be that the airplane clearly shows signs of having been designed by intelligence.

So how does removing a component of an organism result in the proof of IC? It should only prove that in order to stay alive the cell needed that component.

I'll grant that, however, in his book, Darwin's Black Box, Behe compares the single living cell to a factory, complete with...

...artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilied for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction and a capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.

Behe incidentally named his book based on the idea that the cell was a 'black box' to Darwin, in that while he understood that it constituted a building block for living organisms, he had no idea how it worked. During his day they could see cells in microscopes, but all they could see was the nucleus surrounded by a what Behe says looked like Jello. They knew it "could do interesting things - it could divide, it could move around - but they didn't know how it did anything." The assumption scientists made at the time was that as they learned more about the cell they would marvel at its simplicity.

Darwin in his "Origin of Species" said the following:

If it could be demonstrated thta any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

IC is based on the following (again from Behe):

A system or device is irreducibly complex if it has a number of different components that all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if you were to remove one of the components, the system would no longer function. An irreducibly complex system is highly unlikely to be built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes, because the system has to be fully present in order for it to function.

It must maintain function because, according to Behe, "natural selection chooses systems that are already working."

As for indirect routes, Behe says:

You can't absolutely rule out all theoretical possibilities of a gradual, circuitous route, but the more complex the interacting system, the far less likely an indirect route can account for it. And as we discover more and more of these irreducibly complex biological systems, we can be more and more confident we've met Darwin's criterion of failure.

This is where Dembski comes in. Dembski's math predicts, based on such principals, just how unlikely it is for an indirect gradual, circuitous route to produce something.

You see, ID does not require IC. But the closer to IC something is, the worse the odds are for Darwinian processes.

Behe uses the mousetrap for illustration. I think it is also a great example on a forum such as this one because most of us are not actually scientists. He has other, better examples though.

Cilia are whiplike hairs on the surface of cells. If the cell is stationary, the cilia move fluid across the cell's surface. For instance, you've got cilia lining your respiratory tract. Every cell has about two hundred of them, and they beat in sychrony in order to sweep mucus toward your throat for elimination. That's how your body expels little foreign particles that you accidentally inhale. But cilia have another function: if the cell is mobile, the cilia can row it through a fluid. Sperm cells would be an example; they're propelled forward by the rowing action of cilia.

Simple, right?

That's what scientists used to think when they examined cilia under a light microscope. They just looked like little hairs. But now that we have electron microscopes, we've found that cilia are, in fact, quite complicated molecular machines. Think about it: most hairs don't beat back and forth. What enables cilia to do this? Well, it turns out a cilium is made up of about two hundred protein parts. There are nine pairs of microtubules, which are long, thin, flexible rods, which encircle two single microtubles. The outer microtubles are connected to each other by what are called nexin linkers. And each microtubule has a motor protein called dynein. The motor protein attaches to one microtubule and has an arm that reaches over, grabs the other one, and pushes it down. So the two rods start to slide lengthwise with respect to each other. As they start to slide, the nexin linkers, which were originally like loose rope, get stretched and become taut. As the dynein pushes farther and farther, it starts to bend the apparatus; then it pushes the other way and it bends back. That's how you get the rowing motion of the cilium. That doesn't begin to do justice to the complexity of the cilium. But my point is thta these three parts - the rods, linkers, and motors - are necessary to convert a sliding motion into a bending motion so the cilium can move. If it weren't for the linkers, everything would fall apart when the sliding motion began. If it weren't for the motor protein, it wouldn't move at all. If it weren't for the rods, there would be nothing to move. So like the mousetrap, the cilium is irreducibly complex.

And he even says whey Darwinian processes can't account for it:

You only get the motion of the cilium when you've got everything together. None of the individual parts can do the trick by themselves. You need them all in place. For evolution to account for that, you would have to imagine how this could develop gradually - but nobody has been able to do that.

As for the notion that the pieces of the cilium had other functions before they adopted their current function:

Creating the cilium inside the cell woudl be counter-productive; it would need to extend from the cell. The necessary components would have to come together at the right place at the right time, even assuming they were all pre-existing in the cell.

Possible? Dembski's math again (illustrated by Behe - speaking to Lee Strobel for one of Lee Strobel's books - The Case for a Creator):

It's extraordinarily improbable. Let me illustrate it for you. Say there are ten thousand proteins in a cell. Now, imagine you live in a town of ten thousand people, and everyone goes to teh county fair at the same time. Just for fun, everyone is wearing blindfolds and is not allowed to speak. There are two other people named Lee, and your job is to link hands with them. What are the odds that you could go grab two people at random and create a link of Lees? Pretty slim. In fact, it gets worse. In the cell, the mutation rate is extremely low. In our analogy, that would mean you could only change partners at the county fair one time a year. So you link wiht two other people - sorry, they're not the other Lees. Next year, you link wiht two other people. Sorry, no Lees again. How long would it take you to link with the other Lees? A very, very long time - and the same is true in the cell. It would take an enormous amount of time - a prohibitive amount of time - even to get three proteins together. To make it even more difficult, a recent study in Science magazine found that half the proteins in a simple yeast cell don't functoin alone, but they function as complexes of half dozen proteins or more. Up to fifty proteins are stuck together like cogs in a machine. Of the other fifty percent, most are in complexes of three or four. Very few work as single, Lone Ranger proteins. So this is a huge problem not only in cilia but in other cells too.

Sorry - I hit submit too early!!

Dembski's math also shows that these systems could have been constructed by inteligence. So you get no to the other subsets, but yes to intelligence.