Intelligent Design

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

lol *flies away*

[The Grand Nudger]

It fucking worked!  This entire thread has been worth it.  I regret nothing.

[AAA]

I think that you simply need to deny the design at every turn, and the qualities in nature and life that look like a designed product. It looks designed. Why can't I settle for it happened well enough to do what it does? Because what it does is unbelievably complex and it couldn't just happen. It isn't a lack of understanding the theory of evolution.

That is exactly what you don't understand. Perhaps you never took a good look at the history of life history, as paleobiologists understand it, but from what they can see they believe our planet's 4.5 billion year history is quite more than enough time for life to evolve and become just as it is.

It is one of the most basic concepts. I simply don't think it explains the complexity we find on the microscopic level in life. I could easily say that you don't accept intelligent design because you don't understand the structures and the way life functions, but I doubt that would sit well with you. Take a genetics course with the question of design vs. evolution in mind, then tell me you think neo-Darwinian evolution explains it well enough to satisfy your questions.

You say you are a student in your field now, and most of your elders there disagree. You need to listen to them more, and opinionate less.

It's not that I don't understand with their position, it is just that I disagree. It's not that the only two options are agree with evolution or not understand it. It can be wrong. Here's what I'm getting from what you are saying: Don't question any scientific theory even if it is on scientific grounds. You must agree with everything you are told and never look at the evidence for yourself.

[AAA]

I think that you simply need to deny the design at every turn, and the qualities in nature and life that look like a designed product. It looks designed. Why can't I settle for it happened well enough to do what it does? Because what it does is unbelievably complex and it couldn't just happen. It isn't a lack of understanding the theory of evolution.

That is exactly what you don't understand. Perhaps you never took a good look at the history of life history, as paleobiologists understand it, but from what they can see they believe our planet's 4.5 billion year history is quite more than enough time for life to evolve and become just as it is.

It is one of the most basic concepts. I simply don't think it explains the complexity we find on the microscopic level in life. I could easily say that you don't accept intelligent design because you don't understand the structures and the way life functions, but I doubt that would sit well with you. Take a genetics course with the question of design vs. evolution in mind, then tell me you think neo-Darwinian evolution explains it well enough to satisfy your questions.

You say you are a student in your field now, and most of your elders there disagree. You need to listen to them more, and opinionate less.

It's not that I don't understand with their position, it is just that I disagree. It's not that the only two options are agree with evolution or not understand it. It can be wrong. Here's what I'm getting from what you are saying: Don't question any scientific theory even if it is on scientific grounds. You must agree with everything you are told and never look at the evidence for yourself.

[ApeNotKillApe]

The options are either you understand evolution or you don't understand it. It's not about whether you agree with it, it's not a matter of personal opinion.

[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 don't. You'll probably just say that they evolved and that the evidence for that will come later.

I added the "don't" to clarify what I think you meant.


I have a mother and a son.
I am not exactly like my mother because of chance recombinations of genes.
I am not exactly like my son because of chance recombinations.
We represent only three generations out of untold thousands and billions replicated across the globe.

Which of us represents the design of your hypothetical designer?
If you say all of us, you are playing Texas sharpshooter with your data.

Exactly what is the design and how do you know this.
Are you suggesting that the interactions between bio-molecules are the underlying design  with us the result? Between atomic and subatomic particles?  Molecules do what molecules do. At what point do you think we stop being physics and become designed?
I recommend you to study carefully the "Very Strong Anthropic Principle" which states that;

"[T]he entire Purpose of the Universe is to make possible a being that will live in England, an island off the coast of France, and spend his time writing Discworld novels."

Because you have no stronger claim to purpose in molecular activity than does Pratchett.

Rocks and sticks don't have those qualities. You lost all credibility on every scientific topic ever due to your ignorance and false claim. Plus what was false about me saying that you need a system to harness energy in order to work against entropy?

Plenty of dead natural systems fit your description.
As the intention of Gaia is to purify water at the surface of the ocean near the mouths of rivers, energy from the sun is harnessed to remove salt from this water via evaporation which then condenses and falls inland to flow out through the mentioned rivers.  The purified water is of lower specific entropy than the salty ocean.
When you get to pick your desired outcome after the event, it is easy to make observed data fit your preconceptions.  The trick is picking out what is going to happen beforehand.

Why did you add the don't?

I don't know which phenotype is the original design, but the point is that I think the evidence of the genetic code is more consistent with a top down formation of the code than a bottom up. You seem to want me to put forth a completely coherent theory, while your perfectly content holding on to the theory of evolution with its holes.

Yes my description of non-designed things isn't perfect, but I don't think that there are plenty of nonliving things that fit the description.

[AAA]

The options are either you understand evolution or you don't understand it. It's not about whether you agree with it, it's not a matter of personal opinion.

So you're saying neo-Darwinian evolution is 100% fact? From a scientific standpoint, should we discourage people for questioning scientific ideas? If so, do you think this type of thinking will halt scientific progress?

I do understand it, and I think it is not the full explanation for life.

[ApeNotKillApe]

The options are either you understand evolution or you don't understand it. It's not about whether you agree with it, it's not a matter of personal opinion.

So you're saying neo-Darwinian evolution is 100% fact? From a scientific standpoint, should we discourage people for questioning scientific ideas? If so, do you think this type of thinking will halt scientific progress?

I do understand it, and I think it is not the full explanation for life.

Evolution isn't an explanation for life at all, it's the mechanism by which life diversifies. The theory of evolution is the human study of said mechanism.

And yes, evolution is 100% fact by virtue of the fact that something cannot be 99% fact, either it's a fact or it isn't, and evolution has been and can be thoroughly demonstrated to be factually accurate. There are gaps in the fields of study that encompass evolution, but the mechanism of evolution itself is an undisputed scientific fact.

[AAA]

So you're saying neo-Darwinian evolution is 100% fact? From a scientific standpoint, should we discourage people for questioning scientific ideas? If so, do you think this type of thinking will halt scientific progress?

I do understand it, and I think it is not the full explanation for life.

Evolution isn't an explanation for life at all, it's the mechanism by which life diversifies. The theory of evolution is the human study of said mechanism.

And yes, evolution is 100% fact by virtue of the fact that something cannot be 99% fact, either it's a fact or it isn't, and evolution has been and can be thoroughly demonstrated to be factually accurate. There are gaps in the fields of study that encompass evolution, but the mechanism of evolution itself is an undisputed scientific fact.

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

[ApeNotKillApe]

Evolution isn't an explanation for life at all, it's the mechanism by which life diversifies. The theory of evolution is the human study of said mechanism.

And yes, evolution is 100% fact by virtue of the fact that something cannot be 99% fact, either it's a fact or it isn't, and evolution has been and can be thoroughly demonstrated to be factually accurate. There are gaps in the fields of study that encompass evolution, but the mechanism of evolution itself is an undisputed scientific fact.

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

Define 'information' and 'improved'.