Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
The gist of what I'm seeing is that these defective genes present an open question in terms of their suffusion amidst the known universe. And yet I would posit that they manifest themselves only within a small range of the bios. For example, if one were looking for these defective genes one would not expect to find them in a slab of granite, and one could easily predict that 1,000 years from now one would still not expect to find them in a slab of granite.
So already this phenomenon demonstrates a fundamental attribute of design: a degree of consistency as to where it manifests itself throughout time and space. I would imagine there is also some consistency in how it behaves, maybe not much at all, but some.
I believe you when you pass along the information that these genes are considered defective. Obviously I do not have an answer for every case where a substance behaves unpredictably or manifests an apparent defect, but I don't think I would instinctively attribute raw "nothingness" or "chance" to the fact of their occurrence. The question may also be asked whether the presence of defects overrides what appears to be a far greater suffusion of design, purpose, etc. throughout the known universe.
I've been told the Netherlands is boycotting US Grain because we have introduced genetic consistencies to the detriment of biological inconsistencies which, by all appearances are flawed, and yet contribute to the health value of grain. There may be a good reason we do not live in an anti-septic universe.
Back to a quick question: Do you believe pseudogenes to be altogether void of any characteristsics that might apply to design?
I dispute this is an element of design. Water is found in substantial quantity on the earth, but not on Mercury. Design? No, Mercury's so hot water would have ben lost to space eons ago.
Do you believe pseudogenes to be altogether void of any characteristsics that might apply to design?
Their existence certainly is inconsistent with design. Their structure is largely explained by random point mutations acting on a retrotransposed gene. If one insisted the original gene were designed, whic hI don't believe, then the pseudogene would carry whatever residual evidence of design that mutation had not destroyed. But pseudogenes qua pseudogenes are antithetical to the idea of design; they're apparentluy functionless, the result of an accident, and corrupted by further random genetic drift.
As far as I can tell, you've only stated the obvious, namely that water mantains consistency within it's known environment. Even where it is found in different states it retains its molecular composition.
I would maintain there are specific reasons - in fact you've pointed at least one of them out - why water is not found throughout the universe. You've just given another example of intelligent design.
By this time you are probably thinking that it is like grasping at straws to pin me down with an example where the universe exibits, or is controlled by only random events. I have yet to apprehend by my senses anything that does not demonstrate at least some degree or element of design, and even in those cases where corruption or non-design are apparent, they need not be designated as beyond reason, impossible to explain, or unworthy of classroom discussion.
Please allow me to throw another question at you. What is the relationship between design and intelligence?
See #462, paragraph 1. You must be mistaking me for someone else. All my life I have given respect to the work of scientists who truthfully seek out the workings of the universe. As documented in #104, some of the very best have made marvelous scientific contributions without the slightest reference or thought about evolution as a mechanism characterized by "nothingness" and "chance."
Have you heard me pushing for the abolition of evolutionist teaching from the classroom? If so where? If not, why do you accuse me of struggling against those who devote their lives to unraveling natural processes?
It would interest me, however, as to why you struggle so to avoid the obvious, namely that the sheer magnitude of intelligence and design exhibited throughout the universe implies a source or agent(s) other than "nothingness" and chance."
OH??
Is that how YOU 'interpret' it???
I never said that it did.
Junior is a Christian: does it apply to him?
I have no problem with speculating about the source of existence. I have no problem with people who believe they have found that source.
But science is the business of building theories about how the structures you are so impressed with have come about through natural processes. Natural processes are not the same thing as nothingness and chance.
No, they are not. They are to the 'Children of Israel'.
At that level of reasoning, any non-chaotic phenomenon is an example of intelligent design. Sorry; I dispute that simple non-randomness requires an intelligence to create it. Ice crystallizes in beautiful forms from water vapor. It does so by following simple physical laws. Regardless of where you think the physical laws came from, the operation of those laws on a random system creates order from disorder; and in their operation there is no design. Therefore, it is clear that the creation of order does not require intelligence; it simply requires some regularity in the behavior of the system. And there is no evidence that the regularity in the behavior of the universe is designed.
What is the relationship between design and intelligence?
Design could be stupid. Think Edsel.
It's obviuos then, that you do NOT believe this Scripture!
Beginning?
Do you take EVeRYTHING as non-literal?
If not, upon what criteria do you make your selection?
Remember the part about the thorns and thistles?
The PERFECT creation NOW messed up by sin??
Remember the part about the thorns and thistles?
The PERFECT creation NOW messed up by sin??
If you mean "intelligence" as necessarily originating from a personal source I can understand why you would propose this, although it is not necessarily "clear." If you mean "intelligence" as it relates to design, then I beg to differ.
Design could be stupid. Think Edsel.
I was hoping you would consider the question more seriously and expound a bit further than this. If anything, your example only bespeaks your personal bias against a human product that, regardless of its deficiencies, is another clear example where intelligence HAD to be exerted through a personal agent to achieve a desired result.
Of course not. It is the guiding principle, agent, or force, or what have you, that we are concerned about. Not the process itself. There are certain people who are dogmatic in asserting that "nothingness" and "chance" alone are those agents, etc. It is at this point where dogmatism becomes unreasonable at best, and absurd at worst. And to make things worse, these would stifle even the slightest "speculation about the source of existence" as if it is unworthy of discussion in the classroom.
As for the compartmentalization these seem to insist upon when it comes to even raising the connection between the reasonable possibilities of intelligence, design, or even a personal agent involved with universal laws and principles and the natural processes under study, I submit that this compartmentalization is unwarranted, and even damaging, to academic pursuits.
Let me ask you this: How much and what kind of evidence of intelligent design would be sufficient for you to allow it's study in a science class?
I'm not sure what your point was in raising this little spiel, but whoever made this statement errs on at least four of his six propositions. 1.) They DO have something in common (namely a death) because they are all murders, 2.) they DO all have a motive, else they would, by definition, not be murders, 3.) the deaths all occured in the same city, and 4.) he is incorrect in assigning the referents for his enumeration of "three."
I hope that individual was not a detective on any of those cases, because they would very likely all remain unsolved due to his inability to analyze data or make accurate statements about the same. I wonder if he was, perCHANCE, an evolutionist at heart?
But in a world where natural selection, nothingness, and chance rule, what does it matter if a chemically induced, incomprehensible-by-science phenomenon like murder should ever rear its head in the first place?
Beware the madness that doth jar the mind.
;-)
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.