Posted on 04/16/2019 5:55:59 AM PDT by Heartlander
“If there is gradual change, there can be no distinct species.”
Gradual but salutatory at the species level.
“If there is gradual change, there can be no distinct species.”
Gradual but saltatory at the species level.
Well, happy to hear that some of the most intelligent
people in the world are now questioning something most
of us ignorant bastards has guestioned all along.
Do you have something to compare it to that wasn't designed?
Furthermore, we know DNA has the following
1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
DNA contains multi-layered information that reads both forward and backwards - DNA stores data more efficiently than anything we've created - DNA contains meta-information (information about how to use the information in the context of the related data). It is a closed system dependent on all operations to be functioning. You have information in a symbolic representation and a reading frame code. Put simply, a message assumes a protocol (agreement, set of rules) between the sender and the receiver, to help correctly encode and interpret the contents of the message. A simple example would be codons, they only represent amino acids if you have the system in place to interpret the functional relationship of the medium (aaRS). This cannot just happen by accident and the design inferences are obvious and inescapable.
Thanks. Does this mean you don't think the rocks or natural mountains had a designer?
There is no such thing as “Darwinism”. Never was, still isn’t. And if you want to poke holes in evolutionary theory, try posing some reasonable alternative mechanism yourselves. You know, one that doesn’t involve saying “God did it!”
Evolutionary theory makes testable predictions. Creationism and Intelligent Design, by their nature, do not.
Evolutionary theory makes testable predictions.
You’re either trolling, or completely ignorant of evolutionary theory and the kind of predictions it makes.
FYI:
… according to the Oxford English Dictionary, Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin’s most famous defender in Britain) used “Darwinism” in 1864 to describe Charles Darwin’s theory. In 1876, Harvard botanist Asa Gray (who despite their disagreement over whether evolution was guided was Darwin’s most ardent defender in America) published Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism, and in 1889 natural selection’s co-discoverer Alfred Russel Wallace published Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection. Two of Wilson’s former Harvard colleagues, evolutionary biologists Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould, used the word extensively in their scientific writings, and recent science journals carry articles with titles such as “Darwinism and Immunology” and ³The Integration of Darwinism and Evolutionary Morphology.”
-uncommondescent
Fair enough, but it seems pointless to call out a designer for the processes that created and evolved living things when you think that same designer is responsible for the processes that created everything.
Why pretend that ID is anything but a theological argument?
Because it is not – but it can be – just like evolution is not necessarily atheistic – but it can be… ID proponents like Berlinski and Denton are agnostic – and Behe (and others) believe in common descent.
Question:If you were to discover a highly efficient motor that performed necessary functions with precisely arranged parts for perfect energy conversion, would you be allowed to infer design? What would prevent anyone from making the inference?
Answer: It would be a commitment to scientism/materialism because I fail to see how the ATP synthase would emerge from a series of happy accidents.
Incredulity is not a scientific stance.
We know that motors are/were designed by humans. We do not know that molecular “motors” were designed, and our lack of ability to see how they might have come about via natural processes is not an argument for a designer, but rather an argument in favour of continuing to seek natural explanations. That’s science. Does ID theory make any testable predictions at all? I mean predictions not like that some “irreducibly complex” structure is exactly what you’d expect to see if it was the result of design?
For example, we know DNA has the following
1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
DNA contains multi-layered information that reads both forward and backwards - DNA stores data more efficiently than anything we've created - DNA contains meta-information (information about how to use the information in the context of the related data). It is a closed system dependent on all operations to be functioning. You have information in a symbolic representation and a reading frame code. Put simply, a message assumes a protocol (agreement, set of rules) between the sender and the receiver, to help correctly encode and interpret the contents of the message. A simple example would be codons, they only represent amino acids if you have the system in place to interpret the functional relationship of the medium (aaRS). This cannot just happen by accident and the design inferences are obvious and inescapable.
Instead, the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer – an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff – hardware – but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.
– Paul Davies
“virtually all of science proceeds as if ID is true – it seeks elegant and efficient models; it reverse engineers biological systems; it describes evolution in teleological terms; it refers to natural forces and laws as if there is some kind of prescriptive agency guiding matter and energy; it assumes that the nature of the universe and human comprehensive capacity have some sort of truthful, factual correspondence.”
– William J Murray
I encourage you to watch this video by respected scientist James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life
(yes, I know Darwinism does not deal with life’s origin – but this is a great video and has implications to the theory regardless)
To exactly the same extent that you could infer design from the extremely complex weather systems that produce hurricanes.
If you want to attribute every complex process that we may not fully understand yet to a designer, fine, but don't single out life and don't call it science.
As I keep repeating, I'll give the ID proponents some respect for intellectual honesty when they identify some things in the universe that they don't think were designed, but until then they're just playing word games about natural forces we don't fully understand.
I’ll ask again - do you believe human conscience and consciousness ultimately emerged from mindlessness?
Perhaps, but they do equally amazing things and produce almost unlimited amounts of information - just ask NOAA. The forces that create weather are immensely complex, which explains our limited ability to accurately model what will happen in the future.
I'm not a physicist or a meteorologist but I know for a fact one could write a description of the processes involved in forming a hurricane that would be as complicated and unlikely-sounding to the layman as any of the descriptions you post of 'motors' or cellular function.
It's relatively easy for a knowledgeable person to make something sound complicated, but scientists have historically tried to measure and understand these processes while the ID folks say "Wow. I don't know how that could have happened naturally so I must have reached the end of Knowledge Road. The Designer did it."
I’ll ask again - do you believe human conscience and consciousness ultimately emerged from mindlessness?
Yes, because I believe there was a time before there were conscious humans and now we're here.
Do you think the universe was formed with conscious humans in place? If not, you think consciousness emerged from mindlessness as well, although we may differ on the process by which it emerged.
flr
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.