Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Yeah, the aspect of sexuality in the universe is a ************. Hard to explain in any context. I mean, that was one hell of a lucky mutation on the first cell to have a sex. He or she must have sat around a long time thinking
“What the **** am I supposed to do with this.”

Hahaha! You haven't changed at all Leadfoot you've always got a creative reply for everyone, especially your colourful vocabulary, I think thats why farmerman and his buddies like talking to you, because you talk their 4 letter language as well haha!

Like the Beatles said, All you need is love.

Yup aint that for real for us humans, because we're actually just sooky babies behind our unemotional killing machine masks.
I'm a Christian and when it comes to intelligent design and evolution theories, I think they're both right in some ways, and both wrong in other ways, but solid proof is still always supreme. I did see some news article on evolution hoaxes, someone messing around with the bones etc. I'll have to look it up again on the internet.
But I do have more of a metaphysical approach to this creation stuff, we are just merely representatives of our environment, male sky, female earth, positive for females perhaps and negative for the males when it comes to atoms maybe, we seem to keep each other moving anyway...

Just curious if anyone has thought about this flaw in evolution theory.

Does it bother believers of macro evolution that even after sequencing the entire human genome we currently have no idea where the instructions are for how to layout and build the body design of animals (or plants for that matter)? I ask because that suggests at the very least another level of encoding that we have no clue about. I mean Zero idea.

DNA turns out not to be the 'instructions on how to build an animal' as is popularly thought. It’s not even the materials, not even the bill of materials. DNA is the instructions on how to build the materials on that list - proteins mostly. It does not tell the developing animal which and where to send the various materials and how to put them together.

Doesn’t this negate all the presumed DNA 'evidence' for correlating to the fossil record? DNA says nothing about the structure of the only thing we have to study - their skeleton (usually small fragments in the case of Homo S' ancestors.).

Since we know virtually nothing about how or where body plans originate from or how they are stored, how can we conclude much from looking at their fossilized remains? And there is even less to be learned from DNA since the answer to body plans does not seem to be there.

Evolution is presumably all about mutation and natural selection of DNA based characteristics resulting in all these different creatures. But again, as far as we know, DNA has nothing to do with the body plans.

welcome aboard! we discussed this many topics. When youre done reading Quammens new book. ( I havent read it yet , but since youve jumped on its bandwagon without question, Ill have to read it on the boat heading N)

"bauplans" are a happy Leonardo -like cartoon. As evolution has been good at showing us by many many many examples, "EVOLUTION of life requires that we take something that we have and do something new with it"
Im a fan of why it took almost 2 BILLION years to go from prokaryota to Ediacaran organisms (hich predate the Cambrian "Explosion") I dont think anyone in the business, has ever used DNA to say something about the fossil record. Ive been busy making fun of such indiviuals whenever they show up. We once had a guy here who was explaining that , as inferred from T rex DNA we could see that ID was involved. I merely questioned him "who has any T rex DNA"??

I guess you maybe be referring to some type of CPU or brain station that memory-stores and processes all these bio-chemicals?

True, unless you count the efforts to figure out the 'fossil DNA' in current species, a la Woese. But DNA is what we are hanging the theory of Neo Evolution on.

We seem to be ignoring the fact that we have no mechanism for evolution to come up with entirely new body plans if it isn’t in DNA and as you point out, the only thing we have to study are the body plans based on very old bones.

We define new 'species' based on the tiniest differences in bodies (Finch beaks anyone?) and yet we do not know where these body plans come from.

If DNA doesn’t define the skeleton, we don’t even have a viable theory of Evolution.

I'd be lying if I said I knew where or what.

What I’m saying is that no one seems to have any evidence at all. And yet we are expected to believe that science understands the mechanism for Evolution.

This is not a new idea to me but suddenly I’m focusing on it and wondering why the full significance of it didn’t hit me sooner.

HOX Genes. Identified in 1980. I assume a few things have happened since them. Homeobox was 1983...

Ed Lewis, Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and Eric F. Wieschaus identified and classified 15 genes of key importance in determining the body plan and the formation of body segments of the fruit fly D. melanogaster in 1980. For their work, Lewis, Nüsslein-Volhard, and Wieschaus were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1995.

In 1983, the homeobox was discovered independently by researchers in two labs: Ernst Hafen, Michael Levine, and William McGinnis (in Walter Gehring's lab at the University of Basel, Switzerland) and Matthew P. Scott and Amy Weiner (in Thomas Kaufman's lab at Indiana University in Bloomington).

These men were very good at discovering and explaining what part of the biological system guided body growth and development. They did not explain how. The system is to complex of an algorithm to figure out the details of how the system works so precisely.

They did explain how. Search the deep web for scholarly articles. You will find excruciating detail available.

HOX genes are interesting but hardly the answer. HOX genes basically direct the the axial order of gross anatomy - head, then neck, then arms, torso, legs, etc. That works great if you are making paper dolls.

I’m looking for the detail explaining how all the millions of details are documented. How do you describe something as complex as just a human hand, let alone a brain.
This and how we could work on them like a biological CAD program was what was promised by the human genome project but it hasn’t delivered much yet, certainly not those blueprints to the human body we expected.

What we got from HOX was how to **** up a fruit fly with an extra pair of non functional wings. Interesting but no cigar.

HOX is not the answer. It might be a clue on where To look next. I’m not saying it’s not there, it may be encoded so deeply that it will take another century to find it. But that level of sophistication and cryptography also points to an intelligent designer.

That’s all you think we got from HOX, “how to **** up a fruit fly”? That’s a bit funny and a bit sad. Sorry.

Just an example of an actual lab experiment and a comparison of what we know compared to the complexity behind the body's design. You may substitute 'evolution' for design if it helps.

If you want to trivialize what I said, that’s sad too.

You equated the discovery of the HOX Genes and HomeoBox to nothing more than "a way to **** up fruitflies", and you accuse me of trivializing? Ha, you've got some stones on you brother, I'll give you that Those guys only won a Nobel Prize for that discovery. Yeh, no big deal.

Obama won one for peace. Go figger.

Likewise, for pretending that’s the only thing I said.

Those damn young bucks ay Leadfoot! always tryna pull those wise cracks on you,
But I do find it ironic though that if you say an Intelligent Designer to an atheist, their minds will automatically imply that you are referring to a magical anthromorphic physical being, but does an Intelligent designer have to necessarily be anthromorphoric if it created us and all other lifeforms? I think the physicality of an Intelligent designer or designers would be more in the realm of male and female, positive and negative which has always been the idea of physical creation. To assume a singular Intelligent designer would be an asexual being.
But as a Christian, I think the spirit of God or an Intelligent designer takes precedence rather than the physicality. When I say the spirit, I mean the morality and psychology of the Intelligent designer or God which I obviously learn from Lord Jesus...