Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@farmerman,

Quote:

This supposed "programming" sounds like it gets in gear only with lots of intervening time between important events. Sounds more like responses to environmental conditions or natural selection.

I'm just gobsmacked by your out of hand rejection of the computational model of biology. Do you realize that the field of computational biology is at the forefront of much of the latest progress in biology? (as demonstrated in the published paper I referenced)

Your out of hand rejection of it is as absurd as the rejection of natural selection. But I'm not aware of anyone here guilty of the latter.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

"computational Biology" is as old as the hills. Its not that it is a conviction about "methodology of life" as it is about the "methoodology used to study it"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

From ID hostile Wikipedia:

Quote:

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome, which links amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. The genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries.[1]
The code defines how sequences of nucleotide triplets, called codons, specify which amino acid will be added next during protein synthesis. With some exceptions,[2] a three-nucleotide codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid. The vast majority of genes are encoded with a single scheme (see the RNA codon table). That scheme is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code, though variant codes (such as in human mitochondria) exist.
While the "genetic code" determines a protein's amino acid sequence, other genomic regions determine when and where these proteins are produced according to various "gene regulatory codes".

If anyone can read that without seeing the obvious parallels to computer science it means one of two things:

1. They are unable to parse that quote, or
2. They don't know anything about computer science.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

. Thats it? ya have any real evidence that ID is in charge?? Many molecular chains and monomers react to coded sequences to form complex polymers made of both aliphatics and aromatics.
If this were under the charge and care of an intelligence, why are so many gene coding steps made up of huge strings of DNA? Im gonna say because of natural selection , not algorithms (or algorisms). Algorisms imply intelligence behind instruction. Come up with some neutral term that has no religious implications, maybe we can discuss this.

You asked before this about how I could not understan ID in charge of nat selection? Right?

Your two concepts seem to be self cancelling.
IF its INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED, can it really be "Natural selection"??
I dont know, maybe Ive been in the field too long .

WAYYY back sometime, I think it was Ros who presented you with a really good definition about how science works with" implied naturalism"
I could only add that it seems non natural to have an Intelligence behind all these environmental cataclysms that cause extinction and rapid evolution (Nat selection occurs to quickly fill in empty niches). Then , what you seemed to espouse is that once these periodic extinctions have occurred some Intelligence continually comes in to leave its paw prints. If I hadda work like that I think Id take up house painting. Remember, nat selection doesnt only react to cataclysms but to ordinary every millenial events like the slow tearing apart of continents or the advance and/or retreat of glaciers and/or water levels, or the fluctuation and density of air.

You seem to be a fan of either

1/ an intelligence thats a continuous "meddler" every time some cataclysm occurs (thus obviating anything "natural" in the selection)

2. Or the intelligence is actually the thing in charge of all the Cataclysms and other environmental changes so it can play with making some change , and thats as freaky as Fundamental Christianity. That would make a Super Universal Intelligence who is like that little kid alien kid in Star Trek who used to futz around with less developed civilizations just because he could.

maybe if I start from a point on my simplest point on the sidewalk rather than us sounding all scientistically magisterial.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Is intelligent design theory a valid scientific alternative to evolutionary theory or is it only a religious view?

Is there a consensus in the scientific community one way or the other on this issue?

This is the OP. There is no mention of abiogenesis.

0 Replies

And you sure can be a stunning hypocrite, farmerman. You insist on science in so many areas but when it comes to the science of 9/11, you will lie, obfuscate, misdirect, lie some more, blur, cloud, do anything to avoid addressing the scientific realities.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Please explain the

Quote:

science of 9/11

?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

is JTT going on about 9/11? Wow, I know shes madly in love with me but I told her that she's bat **** crazy and my only rule regarding relationships with bat **** crazy people is NOT to have relationships with bat **** crazy people. I dont know, maybe theres a TOS thing that can give me advice.

Im being used as a beta test person for the new advanced "ignore" feature where I no longer see anything from people that I ignore unless someone quotes him or her.

Its very restful when someone ,who is bat **** crazy, is completely "Dead" to you.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Farmerman, you suggest you are a scientist.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I think youre gonna get a tiffy becaue I used "coded sequence"> Problem is, when computer guys co-opted the entire English language, there became "hidden meaning" in what theretofore were phrases which everybody understood but had NO religious implication. A "coded sequence" in chemical reactions (to me and a bunch of other guys), is that a valence or covalent state of an atom, its ionic radius and the orbitals that are "titillated" to actually react all get involved into stimulating a reaction (this includes , obviously, the other atomic elements and their similar valence etc states to react WITH.

The thing about uch more complex reactions is that they dont always go to completeness, or there are huge masses of stuff that react in slightly different ways, forming new compounds that are only discovered by research.(Like new minerals and organics that only form in coal mine fires deep underground and crystallize in a string of new compounds that can serve as feed stock for life to use.

I dont see anything that is ID implicit in any of that kind of stuff, so thats why I reject the co-opted vocabulary that 'puter people have used to attempt to carry on th Biblical story of life on the planet.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Thats it? ya have any real evidence that ID is in charge?? Many molecular chains and monomers react to coded sequences to form complex polymers made of both aliphatics and aromatics.

Although you attempt to preempt it in a later post I still must point out that you cannot avoid the use of the terms 'coded sequences. The genetic code IS a code and we have partially deciphered it. It performs repeatable results when translated by the cellular mechanisms that exist to do that. It exactly parallels the processes in a computer so the comparison is valid and many biologists acknowledge that. You saying that I have 'hijacked' the language is - well I don't know what..

Whether such coded sequences and biological processors of it could occur by chance is the subject. We're talking abiogenesis here, no natural selection.

This is not a theological question. The possibility of a coded sequence that kicked off biological life occurring by chance can be looked at using the factors involved: Expected molecular activity rates, volume of media where it takes place, adverse factors (chain damage from UV, chemical attack, climate change, etc) and relatively simple mathmatics. No deity or ET intelligence required here.

Not that the result of that effort would prove anything. You can simply say "Look, it happened, so obviously it's possible". I'm just saying that the numbers do not look plausible to me. It's possible that I might win every power ball lottery during the rest of my life but there is no way I can make myself believe that will happen.

Quote:

Your two concepts seem to be self cancelling.
IF its INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED, can it really be "Natural selection"??
I dont know, maybe Ive been in the field too long .

Maybe that is a problem for both of us. Latest findings in psychology I heard show that the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to change your mind about something. This was found to be true regardless of whether you are right or wrong about it.

With natural selection we are back to evolution which I am much less sure of. It is possible that life was so cleverly designed initially as to not require any intervention afterwards. IDK, but the rate at which things like new body plans emerged tends to support intervention. But maybe not. The genetic information for them could easily have been stuffed into life from the beginning and evolution followed CI's favorite driver - environment. No way to tell since we have not completely 'cracked the code' yet.

Quote:

You seem to be a fan of either

1/ an intelligence thats a continuous "meddler" every time some cataclysm occurs (thus obviating anything "natural" in the selection)

2. Or the intelligence is actually the thing in charge of all the Cataclysms and other environmental changes so it can play with making some change , and thats as freaky as Fundamental Christianity. That would make a Super Universal Intelligence who is like that little kid alien kid in Star Trek who used to futz around with less developed civilizations just because he could.

As explained above, neither of these is true. Assuming there was one, after initial creation of early earth, any ID worth it's salt could have predicted the catastrophic geological and climate events and taken them into account from the start.

Quote:

maybe if I start from a point on my simplest point on the sidewalk rather than us sounding all scientistically magisterial.

I like that idea. Show me your mark!

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

sorry, missed this.
Code" is a word that weve invented. Ill not argue the word with you since it has different meanings to you than to me. In biochemistry several types af reactions are "coded" into specific ions and molecules. Organics can react by several kinds of bonds and when reactions go "chain style" (one step after another), th typ of bonding that take precedent form the resultant new compound or reaction.
We can understand ALL life processes (so far) by virtue of thwr hemical reactions (even something as complicated as mammalian energy relased in mitochondria as being a chain reaction of phosphorus compunds, and cell walls being a kind of polymerization reaction of fatty acids.

Nucleic acids were discovered 10 years after DARWIN published edition 1 of the "Origin...", they are composed of 3 things in a biopolymer fashion (a) a 5 carbon sugar (either a ribose or a deoxyribose), (b) a phosphate group, (b) and aino (Nitrogen) group. It arranges itself , ladder like by the ruls of polymerization.

maybe its just that having spent 40 years in this area, Im not as fascinated as are you by the "improbability" of all this.
Remember when Dr Behe got caught up explaining why blood clotting is such an example of an enzyme reaction which is an irreducible complexity and hence demonstrable of "Intelligent Design"?? Several grad students of Ken Miller came up with a list of enzymatic reactions that extend blood clotting back to a point where the bodily fluid that conveys oxygen wasn even considered to be blood.

Thinking about it Im really amazed at Chlorophyll. It makes meals, does laundry and takes out the trash.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Im friggin amazed at how much Wiki has in its had nowadays. I just wrote pentose sugars and bada -bing.

Heres what we really need to start with understanding the nature of sugar based biopolymers

The 5 C sugar family

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Farmerman Quote:
maybe if I start from a point on my simplest point on the sidewalk rather than us sounding all scientistically magisterial.

I thought you weren't going to get "all scientistically magisterial".

Then you went and did it again, as well as trying to fob off the whole process as a simple chemical reaction. It is not. The reason it's called 'code' is because of the information encoded by the nucleotide sequence.
If you put all the required chemical ingredients into a test tube (or an ocean full of them) the process will never happen if the encoded information is not there.

Here is a plain language explanation of how the process works from a non biased source. I have emphasized a few places that clearly show why it is not purely a chemical reaction but a directed process that requires that coded information.

Quote:

How do genes direct the production of proteins?

Most genes contain the information needed to make functional molecules called proteins. (A few genes produce other molecules that help the cell assemble proteins.) The journey from gene to protein is complex and tightly controlled within each cell. It consists of two major steps: transcription and translation. Together, transcription and translation are known as gene expression.

During the process of transcription, the information stored in a gene's DNA is transferred to a similar molecule called RNA (ribonucleic acid) in the cell nucleus. Both RNA and DNA are made up of a chain of nucleotide bases, but they have slightly different chemical properties. The type of RNA that contains the information for making a protein is called messenger RNA (mRNA) because it carries the information, or message, from the DNA out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm.

Translation, the second step in getting from a gene to a protein, takes place in the cytoplasm. The mRNA interacts with a specialized complex called a ribosome, which "reads" the sequence of mRNA bases. Each sequence of three bases, called a codon, usually codes for one particular amino acid. (Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins.) A type of RNA called transfer RNA (tRNA) assembles the protein, one amino acid at a time. Protein assembly continues until the ribosome encounters a “stop” codon (a sequence of three bases that does not code for an amino acid).

The flow of information from DNA to RNA to proteins is one of the fundamental principles of molecular biology. It is so important that it is sometimes called the “central dogma.”

Here is the source (it's not Discovery Institute)
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/howgeneswork/makingprotein

Keep in mind that manufacture of the protein is not yet complete at this point. Yet another molecular machine then takes the string of amino acids and folds it into the proper shape. If not properly folded, the protein does not work. There are THOUSANDS of different proteins requiring a different string of amino acids and each must be folded differently in order to work.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I thought you weren't going to get "all scientistically magisterial".

farmerman has a strong tendency to do that when he gets caught up a stump.

0 Replies

It occurred to me that people might be confused by the term 'protein'.

The term protein here is different than the same word as used in nutrition, as in "Meat is high in protein.".

A protein in molecular biology is a small molecular machine that performs a specific function. One of the 'simplest' converts glucose into ATP (adenosine triphosphate) a simpler sugar which is the fuel that cells run on. There are thousands of different functions done by these molecular machines.

Here is one of my favorites, the 'kinesin' or motor protein. Its job is to move materials around within the cell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-uuk4Pr2i8&feature=youtu.be

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

If interested, here is more detail on kinesins. There is one comment near the beginning that I thought was especially interesting. When these things were initially discovered scientists were amazed and used highly emotional language to describe what they were seeing. But, as the narrator says, now they take it for granted (like farmer does)
That is a shame since (IMHO) they are missing what ought to be obvious:

This **** just couldn't happen by accident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RUHJhskW00

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Not by accident; it's by nature (natural).

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I know little of the details of protein function, but the concept of 'happening by chance' is a straw man when we take into account recent developments in theoretical biochemistry such as the autonomous principle of 'Dynamic Kinetic Stability'. e.g.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3843823
ID-ers have a vested interest in accounting for 'life' by assuming it points to 'an intelligence' when in essence there is no evidence that life has any 'purpose' whatsoever. 'Purposes' and 'goals' are mere anthropomorphisms in the minds of individuals. The DKS principle cited above implies that individuals have no existential status in their own right relative to total 'life process'.

4 Replies

@fresco,

True: We are but a speck in time.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know