Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Quote:

The human immune system for example and its functionalities from a computational viewpoint

Why is it that the IDers always run to statistical "Impossibilities" when samples of unique immune systems and ther interrelationships among animals can be seen all over the planet. My question was How do you see creation occurring? Is it a unique event for all species or is oit something that allows a shared descendency?

Quote:

By presenting the human body as a set of cells you not only oversimplify the living matter, but present your oversimplified understanding of the world as something based on something objectively existing ... without any verifiable evidences.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

CONTINUING>>>> I HADDA EAT SUPPER

I never, said anything about the body being a group of cells. You are once again trying to spread the big lie. The descendency of organs is a basis of lots of evolutionary study . Your question re: The liver as a an ID orgn is kinda not drawn from any evidence
In lower animals that were living in water, THEY HAD LIVERS but the function of the liver was primarily an orgn for buoyancy maintenance. Oils were stored and collected by the large livers in fish. It also played a role in halomaintenace and ammonia excretion along with kidneys

In humans glucokinase in the liver regulates carbohydrate metabolism by taking glucose and storing it as glycogen (and making it available)
HUMANS and APES have Glucokinase genes and Glucokinase regulatoryprotein genes. 9 lower animal families including all birds have the glucokinase genes (or similar structured genes0 that are INOPERABLE and they do not have the regulatory protein genes. Its an ascendency of functions of livers. You can be totally blown away about how complex the liver is and how it works but I think youd be really blown away of you looked at the developmental relationship among lower animal livers and how they have so much in common yet so much that is deleted in their liver's genetic material.

The liver is one of those organs that has so many different functions on all animals yet there it is. You are guilty of just looking at one specimen and not even considering the relationship among the livers of all organisms.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

... is actually the way that irreducible complexity is defined

The term was coined by professor Michael Behe of Lehigh University in his seminal work Darwin’s Black Box, 1996.
'Irreducible complexity is the characteristic of certain complex systems specifying that they need all of their individual component parts in place in order to function. In other words, it is impossible to reduce the complexity of (or to simplify) an irreducibly complex system by removing any of its component parts and still maintain its functionality.'
Where do you see here 'tracking back'

3 Replies

@Herald,

Behe was confronted with his very statements from "Black Box" and lost. Ken Miller, in cross examination clearly stated that "Irreucible complexity" is neither complex or iirreducible if we can show the same function (but perhaps at a lower level of complexity , in another organism).
Behe was presented with that issue for "blood clotting" which HE presented as an example, and since it occurred in a series of lower animals (in a fashion that used even fewer enzymes in the same clotting chain). This revelation sorta took the wind out of Behe's sails In his own chosen testimony.
He defined t and showed us the example. That example was shown to be just a "step" in the evolution of a biological system in the animal kingdom.
Same thing can be seen with plants where several types of photosynthesis are in effect for algae and a more complex series of photosynthetic processes are in place for higher plants .

BTW, Bhe isn't really a "scientific" IDer, Hes more a "Theistic evolution" dude His form of ID
accepts

1That the earth is exceedingly old
2Life arose from simple chemicals
3All life is descendent from earlier life
4 Descent with modification is the way life evolved

His wordview has, as his chosen Intelligence , is a God of the Bible.

And, where he really screwed up was to agree that natural nd supernatural could both be studied by scientific means (and failed to discuss HOW in cross exam)

Dr Behe provided , along with compelling evidence on the emergence of the "modern ID movement" by Barbara Forrest, the most damaging testimony to the fortunes of the IDers in the DOver P trial in 2005 . It was a bad day at Black Rock for the IDers when it went to court and was championed and defended by the Discovery Institute.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

it is impossible to reduce the complexity of (or to simplify) an irreducibly complex system by removing any of its component parts and still maintain its functionality

That quote makes my point exactly. Blood clotting CAN be still functioning by removing severl of its components in lower animals

Photoynthesis can occur in several simpler and simpler processes

A liver in ascending animals had several functions before it became our organ

"Tracing back" as you call it, has been the main way of showing the fact that Irreducible complexity , isn't.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

It was a bad day at Black Rock for the IDers when it went to court and was championed and defended by the Discovery Institute.

It makes no difference to the concept of intelligent design whether the DI had a bad day in the fee scramble circus at Dover. To think it does raises that pesky little courtroom to the status of arbiter of the Universe. A minor case of American hubris. Jackdaws strutting in peacock's feathers.

If, for understandable personal or commercial reasons, there is a reticence, an Ignore, regarding the easing of Christian sexual morality, it doesn't alter the fact that that is the essence of the matter.

Was it Mr Bryan I once quoted as saying that words can be found to defend anything? Teleological smokescreens mainly. As you amply demonstrate.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Jackdaws strutting in peacock's feathers.

Havent I taught you anything about cladistics spendi? Jackdaws are crows and peacocks are chickens. The two have diverged from their common ancestors back in the Miocene.

More to the point though, at the front end of the trial were all sorts of press releases as to how the IDers would "clean the clock" of the atheistic EVOLUTIONISTS.
They lost it when they began ther religious preaching and forgetting about, in the press, how they reaaalllyyy wanted to be thought of as a valid scientific discipline. No matter what the spendi spin is, the real event was that ID is religion in a labcoat.
They were in a league for which they they were totally unprepared.
The IDesr pushed the deire for a trial, they were certain that they would prevail (and then they began to chew their own legs off in public).

2 Replies

@farmerman,

It doesn't matter what they did. How could it do?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

They were in a league for which they they were totally unprepared. The IDesr pushed the deire for a trial, they were certain that they would prevail (and then they began to chew their own legs off in public).

And what a wonder it was to see Smile

Then the judge's ruling came back in he ripped them to shreds actually using the words "Breathtaking Inanity" in a legal ruling. Thus putting a stake through the heart of the ID Vampire. Makes me want to go back and watch it all over again Smile

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Its interesting, there are several books that have used the case as evidence for their theses. Most of the books, as youd think, were written by scientists (including several IDers). Its almost that each writer was watching a different trial.
The IDers, in typical Mon AM quarterbacking, were stating how they could have easily won the case (much like spendis past preening).
They blame the judge for being "atheistic in his leanings" yet he was an arch Conservative and a practicing Christian. He was limited by the laws directions.

Yeh, I don't see any like cases , except the school book case in Texas and Ive a feeling that the point of "law" wont be followed as strictly as it was in Pa. Texas is another time dimension.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Of course I could have won the case.

Marx said that a man must get his living and how he does so will influence his whole way of life.

Only men practicing celibacy, poverty and obedience are qualified to adjudicate the substance of the case.

Perhaps it would be better if I said that I could have cleared the courtroom. Just as I have produced my happy band of Ignorers and without even talking turkey.

I don't see how an atheist can legitimately take any other position than the sociological one. And that could not be raised in that court. There is no Mon AM quarterbacking involved. That's just an aspect of your teleological smokescreen.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

In 2008, Judge Jones was awarded the American Humanist Association’s Humanist Religious Liberty Award at the World Humanist Congress in Washington, DC.

Say no more Squire. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Say no more Squire. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse.

And your point is?
He also rec'd the Presidents Medal in 2009 from the Geological Society of America at its annual conference .

Are you saying that he was "fishing" for a medal from the atheists?
Hes a Welsh Lutheran an quite devout as I undertand.

SOMETIMES ONE JUST CANNOT AVOID TRUTH OVER FAITH.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

He accepted the award didn't he?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Hes a Welsh Lutheran an quite devout as I undertand.

Which should make him a nut-job in your eyes.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

... when samples of unique immune systems and their interrelationships among animals can be seen all over the planet.

If they are unique this looks like much more ID than evolution.
BTW this 'all over the planet' is nothing. It doesn't prove anything. In several million years some other ILF will find here down on the Earth pieces of glass of any kind and of any shape and of any colour all over the planet ... which might be used for a neo-evolution theory of the universe.
You are not proving any causality. Prove that our DNA goes back to the DNA of the earth worms (as the evolution theory claims). Just trace it back and prove it mathematically ... and avoid telling us fables about rocks at the right age, perfectly matching bones ... and synthesis of polymers as a replacement of organic matter.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

You are not proving any causality. Prove that our DNA goes back to the DNA of the earth worms (as the evolution theory claims). Just trace it back and prove it mathematically

What sort of evidence would you be ready to accept?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The liver is one of those organs that has so many different functions on all animals yet there it is. You are guilty of just looking at one specimen and not even considering the relationship among the livers of all organisms.

Nah, the microprocessor has also 'so many different functions on all' computers, but this does not mean that one processor is evolving from the previous one ... well, at least not literally by means of mutations and natural selections.
Why don't you assume just for several nanoseconds that it might be artificial selection masked in the form of natural and hence looking eactly like something else.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

What sort of evidence would you be ready to accept

Any (except for rocks of the right type and rocks at the right age) ... that can be verified and validated by other sciences as well ... and repeated as logical inference, or test scheme, or whatever it might be.

3 Replies

@Herald,

you are unable (or unwilling to make any investments in time to see the relationhips and easily inferred descendency of structures and organs of organisms. All DNa of a few hundred thousand years that hsnt degraded , does show relationships among the parent and daughter species.
So you want some 'mathematics"(as if direct information int compelling for you) ? Look at the genome project that shows the very relationhips in the genomes between Humans and Pongid apes is so damn compelling (unless of course it hurts your worldview).
I can see what motivates your defiant ignorance. Your religious views, in your mind, would lose their importance.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know