Intelligent Design

[AAA]

I don't want to take the time to watch an hour long video, but let me guess at what it covers. Matter can arrange itself in symmetrical patterns that give the appearance of design. I agree. But the DNA molecule (it's actually two molecules) is not symmetrical, it is an irregular sequence that you would not expect to arise based on necessity such as the symmetry we see in lattice structures like crystals or salt. I looked at the first part of it and it talks about how the elements that make up humans are embarrassingly common, but there is a huge difference between the presence of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, and their specific arrangement into molecules that make up our bodies. Also order does not arise from chaos. We can go to the second law of thermodynamics argument if you like. Entropy increases. Unless you have a system to harvest energy and actively work against the law, then the amount of energy available for work decreases over time according to every observation ever outside of life.

Sorry if I'm way off with what the video is going to be about, but I'm sure you can understand that I don't want to spend an hour of my time watching a video. If not, then you should watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxMkMBXAVZ8

No, that is not what it says.  But I guess you aren't actually interested in educating yourself on what it DOES say, just setting up a straw man and knocking it down.

Did you watch the video I posted? If not you are a hypocrite. Just save us both some time and summarize your video if you want me to respond to it.

[The Grand Nudger]

You've already indicated that you consider evolution to be a fact, here, on these boards AAA.  I could quote you if you like.

[AAA]

Has AAA mentioned yet what difference it makes if life does turn out to be designed by some sort of intelligence? Just interested if there is any point whatsoever behind this obsession with trying to poison one specific piece of science. Why is it always this one, I wonder? Could it be because it makes the bible look stupid as a side effect? Yes, I think it is. But he's using science to disprove science, by assuming all the rest of science is correct while it would also fall into being useless according to all these "objections". Someone has objected to it, at some point! You can always find someone who thinks gravity isn't real or whatever. What, they aren't a real scientist just because they say that?

I have him on ignore, I'm having a hard time believing he is any kind of science student. If he is, he needs to seriously learn from what people are trying to tell him here. Or the only kind of "science" he'll be doing is creationist science. He seems wholly unconcerned with evidence and instead treats science like some kind of popularity contest. I suppose it is possible to study the theory without knowing much about how science actually works.

Please give me the evidence that makes you think that the neo-Darwinian evolution account for life's diversity is correct? Don't tell me that I'm ignoring the evidence when you robvalue in particular have not responded to me directly. I responded to one of your "poor design" statements with quite a few examples of what can be interpreted as inexplicable design. You never responded, yet you keep going on implying that you know more about science than me. You have me on ignore because you don't want to argue the evidence. I think you know that I am more knowledgeable about biology than you, so you just slap and run.

[AAA]

You've already indicated that you consider evolution to be a fact, here, on these boards AAA.  I could quote you if you like.

Please do

[AAA]

I am comparing it to everything we know about the abiotic world. We don't see nucleotides organizing themselves into a purposeful sequence. We barely see them at all. We don't see amino acids organizing themselves. We don't see mutations increasing the information content in genomes.

 Do you agree that life looks designed? Do you agree that the cell does things that require the specific action of proteins working together? Would you rather have the body you have now, or let all the best engineers who have ever lived collaborate to create you a new one without all the crappy design that you guys have been going on about? Do you think they could do a better job? Do you deny that the theory of evolution has a lot of holes? Do you honestly think these holes will be filled in? Why do you require hard evidence for design while not requiring it for the theory of evolution, yet not count the fine tuning of the universe or the intricate activity of the genetic code?

I don't know what would count as evidence for intelligent design in the cell if tRNA, attenuation, viral capsid structure, telomeres/telomerase, p53, cyclins, kinases, immune system functioning, and the hundreds of thousands of intricate activities that go on in the bodies of living organisms. You'll probably just say that they evolved and that the evidence for that will come later.

No I do not agree that life looks designed, goodbye.

fair enough

[AAA]

Hilarious.

No, it seriously does not look designed. It looks exactly like what you'd expect from a natural iterative process. If you understand how such a process works.

Of course it looks to designed to people who have presupposed it is designed. To people who have to believe it is designed due to religious biases.

Even if it did "look designed", what science is this? Lookey likey theory?

It has qualities of design. You oversimplify the issue. It does not look exactly like  you'd expect from the natural process. Nobody expected the cell to be so intricate and complex. I don't have to believe in a designer, but I think the appearance of design is obvious. If you disagree with this, then you disagree with Richard Dawkins, which is fine.

[The Grand Nudger]

Change is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. Neo-Darwinian evolution is far from fact.  Saying it is a fact does not make it a fact. And biology

Done.....

Natural selection and mutation are fact. Whether they can lead to improved information content in the organism is up for debate.

-and done.

That's twice in one thread you affirmed that the theory of evolution was a fact, in your estimation.

Genetics (mutation/change), check....natural selection, check.  


Whats the problem?  Natural selection and mutation are facts.  This is Modern Synthesis, the theory of evolution.  Why did you think you took issue to it...when you clearly don't? Who told you that you did?

[AAA]

Natural selection and mutation are fact. Whether they can lead to improved information content in the organism is up for debate.

You accept that variation through mutation and natural selection are factual, and yet you claim you don't accept evolution; with that one statement you have demonstrated very clearly that you don't possess even a basic understanding of the term.

You don't understand that mutation doesn't lead to the kind of structures required for new structures and functions to evolve. I do understand evolution. If we're defining it as change, then yes evolution happens.

[AAA]

Hilarious.

No, it seriously does not look designed. It looks exactly like what you'd expect from a natural iterative process. If you understand how such a process works.

Of course it looks to designed to people who have presupposed it is designed. To people who have to believe it is designed due to religious biases.

Even if it did "look designed", what science is this? Lookey likey theory?

I agree, I'm wondering how someone tells the difference between designed life and non designed life.

You don't, that's why you have to compare life's qualities to the qualities of things that we know were designed and things that we know were not and see which one it lines up better with.

[AAA]

It's known as a Dog's Vomit slime mold apparently.  Truly another beautiful gift of nature bestowed by the All-Father.

That dog's vomit slime mold is more complex than anything humans have ever designed. Believe it or not