Evidence for God from Science

A common criticism i get from a lot of ID proponents is that when mere bacteria become resistant to a drug, that no real DNA addition or deletion occurs and the bacteria only becomes resistant because of DNA swapping, not evolution. Yet in my biotechnology class I've done a procedure called Transformation(Basically making holes on a bacteria and "Shocking" it to suck in DNA) in which I added a plasmid to the DNA of E. Coli. Therefore I have just evolved my E.coli to acquire a ampicillin resistant gene because of the plasmid. What am I not getting or missing?

I think your missing the point because most ID proponents DO IN FACT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, especially AT THE MICRO LEVEL called micro-evolution (ie: resistance or non-resistance to bacteria). The DIFFERANCE IS THE MECHANISM'S INVOLVED.

Secondly, your missing the most OBVIOUS POINT due to the fact your using a PROCESS CALLED TRANSFORMATION to do just WHAT YOU SAID: "Transformation(Basically making holes on a bacteria and "Shocking" it to suck in DNA) in which I added a plasmid to the DNA of E. Coli". In other words, this process you use CALLED TRANSFORMATION is non-random because its pre-planned, and if thats the way you want species to evolve, than thats NOT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION, its a PROCESS called INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

"Therefore I have just evolved my E.coli to acquire a ampicillin resistant gene because of the plasmid."

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE MY FRIEND....resistance to bacteria isn't going to create new species. Thats what the Darwinian fools would like you to believe, but the LACK OF POWER IN DARWINIAN MECHANISMS THEMSELVES is the only thing that seems to be resistant to outside scrutiny.

You have performed a HIGHLY low-level experiment equivalent to installing or adding a spyware protection or anti-virus protection program to the operating system. No details mentioned however, about the actually information processing, the logical code that is needed to perform that processing and the physical pathways to allow deliverance of that information or data, this is a joke my friend, to me anyways! Although everything looks like a blob of goo where you manipulate it like jello pudding, there is more specificity going on at a highly detailed and complex level, although you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I wouldn't compare drug resistance to installation of software. The processes involved are chemical and ultimately physical.

Drug resistance is attained by the modification of a protein or introduction of a new protein.

It's like making a ski trail skier resistant by plopping boulders into the hillside.

Or changing the shape of the hill so that it is now flat.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I wouldn't compare drug resistance to installation of software. The processes involved are chemical and ultimately physical.

What I meant with my example is that if you manipulate or add a software to a operating system, there is no ultimate change to the source code of the operating system. There is a notable change in protection from viruses that can affect the operating system, but that could only be harmful to the operating system if a virus were to actually take effect. If a change does occur due to a virus, its not a pleasant change. It adds no new additional source code to improve the OS, it either deteriorates it completely or subsequent change or changes lead to loss of functionality and efficiency. This is not evolution, its de-evolution and does not help Darwinian evolution one bit.

The presence of a virus is a change to the environment. The change in the population in response is a result of selection.

The fact that the virus could be present or not is arbitrary.
The concept is simple a change in environment leads to selective pressure.

You are correct in that selective pressure alone does not lead to evolution. It only lends to the "specified complexity " if you will, of a particular organism to it's environment.
In otherwords the organism is adapted to it's environment because of selective pressures (the environment).

However selection is a mechanisms identifed in the theory of evolution.

in terms of computers: logical cannot change the physical structure of the hardware
Logical changes cannot lead to physical changes in complexity
Cannot reproduce physically and logically, only logically (at present time)

in terms of biology: logical can change the physical structure of the biological system
Logical to Chemical processes lead to changes in physical complexity
Reproduction can produce physical and logical structure

There is a obvious advantage in biological systems. That is probably why Bill Gates believes
"Biological systems are far more advanced then any software we have ever created/developed"

All you have to do now Bgood, is present a mechanism that produces highly complex and specified
molecular machines without resorting to actual goal-intended and goal-directed mechanisms which
are the only known mechanisms to our knowledge that exist, for creating specified and irreducibly
complex machines.

RM&NS are nice-to-have mechanisms for DE, but I would like to see less of a assumption and more of
a procedure using the scientific predictive method by those same mechanisms that produces new species.

Who knows, maybe Microsoft will be smarter in the future and consider RM&NS to do all the programming for them.
I'm sure Bill Gates has thought about it in his sleep, or in a dream far distant from reality.

godslanguage wrote:All you have to do now Bgood, is present a mechanism that produces highly complex and specified
molecular machines without resorting to actual goal-intended and goal-directed mechanisms which
are the only known mechanisms to our knowledge that exist, for creating specified and irreducibly
complex machines.

We have been through this several times, and I am not sure that this is the appropriate thread for this discussion.

1. Once a process is in place which reduces the posibilities to those which are favorable we already have a mechanism which leads to "specificity".
example: We have a many tones of paint in a store. We eliminate only those which match the carpeting in your apartment. The tones left are more "specified".
In evolution natural selection is the mechanism behind this. In Biology we could call it adaptation.

2. New features can come from modification or duplication. It is not a single step process, so please DO NOT respond that duplication is not new information and read the following statement first.
Duplication leads to "freedom of movement". In other words duplications allow otherwise harmful mutations to occur.
example: Elizabeth writes a poem. She asks Allison to review it. Allison likes it and is inspired by it, she asks Elizabeth if she can make a copy and modify it. The original poem still exists, and Elizabeth does not have to suffer the loss of her great work. Allison is able to create a new poem similar to the first but perhaps with a twist making it completely unique invoking a completely different set of emotions.
In evolution the main mechanism is mutation, however this is a very large subject, and there are several other mechanisms identified which serve this purpose.

So think about it. Lets say we have a collection of identical clay balls in the room. And we are to go to each one and modify it slightly.
And we have strict set of rules which define what changes are allowable. (This represents the environment.)
Now we go through and modify each ball, without regards to the rules. (This represents mutations etc.)
Next we remove all the balls which do not meet the strict criteria. (This represents natural selection.)
We are left with a diverse population. (This represents the variety, or overall the gene pool.)

New information has been created and it also fits within the strict framework of the experiment.
Thus you can see natural selection is the goal oriented mechanism you were looking for, the goal here being environmentally fit.

As for complexity and irreducible complexity, you can refer to the following threads.
Irreducible Complexity
Complexity

As for the thread Bgood, which you have attempted to refute irreducible complexity and failed based on the fact that irreducible complexity cannot be reduced if it is specified. That is why IC is a subset result of specified complexity, so therefore it cannot be reduced. Its simply not reducible, for example, a mousetrap is reducible to have the function of a key chain etc...the mousetrap was specified to catch mice as efficiently as possible. If you deduced the bacterial flagellum into a bicycle, based on this IC happens to be subjective, and I agree, but since a bicycle wasn't specified to do what the function of the bacterial flagellum performs, then this is neither specified complex and neither IC. Therefore, in whichever way you would like to form analogies to derive biological conclusions, it happens to be a waste of time since IC and CSI are not interchangeable, they work together just like any other goal-directed mechanism to achieve a particular goal-intended function.

To be continued...

So think about it. Lets say we have a collection of identical clay balls in the room

Here is a similar analogy that proves evolution (such as yours Bgood about those "clay balls") but in the form of a video:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolutio ... evolution/

As for blood clotting, that is redundant application based on CSI and IC...once again.

goal here being environmentally fit.

That is interesting, however I asked you for a NON-goal directed and NON- goal-intended mechanism using the hard-scientific predictive method to prove that it can create a specified and irreducibly complex biological feature (goal-oriented does not really suit a highly complex and specified structure, goal-oriented would be a good way to describe something that may or may not have a goal specific function)

godslanguage wrote:

goal here being environmentally fit.

That is interesting, however I asked you for a NON-goal directed and NON- goal-intended mechanism using the hard-scientific predictive method to prove that it can create a specified and irreducibly complex biological feature (goal-oriented does not really suit a highly complex and specified structure, goal-oriented would be a good way to describe something that may or may not have a goal specific function)

Why would you ask for a non-directed mechanism?

You don't know?

Because non-goal directed does not create specified and irreducibly complex modular systems, this is what ID theory infers.

While natural selection is not goal-directed, per se, it is also not random. Differential reproduction and survival will depend on the relationship between the organism and its environment.

While mutations are random, the match between the genetic variation and the environment is not.


I think this is where some of the confusion is coming from here??

godslanguage wrote:You don't know?

Because non-goal directed does not create specified and irreducibly complex modular systems, this is what ID theory infers.

zoegirl is correct. The theory of evolution does not identify a non-directed mechanism. The regularity of physical laws which manifests itself into the environment provides the direction.

So the question is will a goal-less process lead to complexity. Because neither side is claiming lack of direction.
A friendly suggestion, perhaps you should review the theory of evolution once more, why fight a strawman?