Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

proteins only do three things and all those things are based on messaging. the courses of digestion, movement, respiration , and cellular structure and density are other important functions.


the fact that we see species, both plant and animal that do same things with different genes and all these differences are TIME DEPENDENT and you grow harder and harder clinging to ID I kinda find interesting because you only seem to focus on one aspect of th progression of life yet youve come up with absolutely no mechanism involving it.
howbout Dr Behe's belief in Irreducible Complexity?, even tough thi hypothesis has been solidly debunked. behe has not been able to show any examples of it


You dont seem to deny volution(At lest I ont think you o), you seem to accept spiiation and comon ancetry (YES?)

Holy **** farmer, that’s the most inane simplification I’ve ever seen.

Do you really know what is involved in even the simplest of those things (movement)?

What I’ve been talking about is so many levels 'below' that, that it tells me you must know nothing about molecular biology. I’m not trying to be insulting but you can’t refute an argument about rockets without knowing Newton’s laws of motion.

Nothing you have said addresses 'my' protein argument.

But you did single out 'syntax'. I didn’t get what you were driving at. Are you saying there is no syntax in DNA/RNA code as I claimed?

Sorry, I was giving you a pass understanding the FUNCTIONS of the various molecules (speciiclly the big polymers like RNA. Functions that include the growth, respiration, digestion, movment etc. Youve seemed to obsess only upon the information and informational transmission processing. I was mrely referencing functionaries among an organims " molecular "parts" that carry out th electron transport chain (like the mitochondrion)

mutations can and do occur anywhere in a tissue, organ , or cellular function and the result has absolutely nothing to do with an "intelligence" behind it all. The latst viral and bacterial and rickettsial disease mutations sem to bar this observation out.

Ive used an referenced several functions that weve been able to "track" the origins of macro an micro evolution at cellular to organismal lvel. Like the inabilty to produce Vitamin C , was a protein function in a single digestion pathway that arose from changes in th GULO about 6 my ago (AND for the most part, how thy show up as extant as well as "Pseudogenes" from PCR DATA genomes studied between monkeys (old worlD) and the'great apes. Weve been able to trace the evolution of recent human iseses from a genomic stanpoint o that the "Biological history" of covid 19 is bginning to sho us an wvolutionary pathway of mutations an related outomes much like weve been able to trace the development of :beneficial" results from mutation of uch bacteriological diseases lik MALARIA. , mot by gene transfer at the chromosomal level


Sorry if you dint pick up what Ive been saying an differentiating between SOMATIC and GENETIC structures,

I think th GULO story will provide some answers to how a genic mutation can occur and how this can occur at the microcellular lvel.
You wre trying to explain some point lat yar in which you were using the ork ofKArl Woese. I added Lynn Margulis (a more controversial prson who Creationists love to flog for some "Wilder Ideas") to te list and I thought you were up to speed about gene transfer and acquisition of ntire genomes.

Remember, this i supposed to be a dsicusion re: ID v SCience or Religion. ou seemingly have been stuck on one function and transmission . Youve ignored much of hat science has been finding and Ill go out on a limb to say that youve been obsessing (like all the DI staffrs), that wvolution i only a fact if an IDer i incharge.
Actually, to science, if it shows up thar real data supports Intel Design, it woulnt rally matter to science, it woul still try to fin out ho hit happns only now then woul there be a"Intelligent Origins" dept be added to biology an geosciences . I am obsessed with what I consider a FACT, that no credible evidence (other than evidence -free philosophical discussions have ensued)

Specified Complexity _a Demski point, has, in my mind been dbunked because all our rcent mutational and evolutionary information sees no ANAGENETIC direction of evolution (conier covid, GULO and covi19). The IDer would, were any of these be proof of a god incharge (Or an a-religious based IDr) , this organism or whatever, would be one callous dude

Irreducible Complexity- so far, very attempt at validating this big idea has crashd and burnt.

ANAGENESIS-rnt Mayr was quite succesful at debunking this idea more than 45 years ago.


Sorry that I was unclear in my failure to istinguish the functions of proteins and aminos an my ol fav s ,purines an pyrimidines.

I need to slow down. I meant to say that, th syntax you claim is not outside any easily unerstood chemical binding knowledge. Purines an pyrimidins which are the bases of nucleic acid BASES, are also bases of amino acids and proteins so the chemical binding (and therefore structure of this "Tetradecimal" syntax, is nothing mor than ionic hydrogen bonds (purines) nd Covalent peptide bonds (Pyrimidines).

My firt MS thesis, when I wass studying to be a chemist as all about alpha -helix structures of inorganic minerals , so Ive kept a working knowledge of the chemical bond and its prosaic space in the dictionary of phenomena

If you dont unerstand the significance of that, you ned to get ome papaers on the history and pplication of our knoolege of bonding

THERE! THIS! LOOK!

If you’re not just jerk'n my chain, or building straw men, THIS illustrates your precise misunderstanding of one of the main points in the protein argument.

I have NEVER denied that the chemical bonds in either proteins or DNA can’t happen naturally. What kind of idiot would? They are there in front of us!

The point is that there is NO PREFERENTIAL ORDER IN THE CHEMICAL BONDS (between the molecules under discussion) They form completely randomly depending on mainly proximity.

It is the ORDER in which the molecules are arranged that determines the functionality of the protein and the information about that order in the case of DNA.

These are examples of unbelievable functional complexity (which you falsely claim is no problem), but this still does not touch the core of my protein argument. You FIRST have to understand that there is a complex language in DNA before you understand the impossibility of it being a 'natural' phenomenon. It’s NOT just a complex molecule.

A blank USB drive is 'complex', but useless. But a USB drive can contain all the scientific knowledge we have gained so far if the complex array of bits/'bonds' are arranged properly.

If you can agree on these basic science facts then we can get to the real core of my argument. That is the part that I don’t think the Discovery Institute and Meyer has hit upon yet.

If you can’t get this, I cannot help you.

actually it is the genetic material that turn genes off n on that makes all the difference, Theres a lot of info for that subject because we see many equences with almost like strucure among pcr's of Denisovans, Neanderthals, Homo s, idaltu and Homo s.. There are somewhwre like 15K control epigenes that actually control function, and less than 500 in the genome itself.

Nothing incorrect in what you said there except for number of genes in our genome (there are about 25,000) but instead of going 'down' several levels of cellular hierarchy to get to the protein theory, you jumped up yet another level.

But while you’re on the subject of epigenetics, this is an opportunity to clear up another common misconception, the bs about our DNA being 98% the same as monkey's.

The misunderstanding comes from the early days when we first sequenced the human genome (or thought we did). It was assumed that the only meaningful parts were the exons, the parts of the DNA that code for proteins, which only makes up about 2% of the DNA. The rest (interons) were at the time considered inert, or the so called 'junk' in our DNA.

It is true that our protein coding genes are 98% the same as some monkeys DNA. But remember, that’s only 2% of our DNA. The rest of our genome (98% , the epigenetics/interons) is unique to humans.

As you correctly point out, it is this FAR larger part of our genome 'that makes all the difference'. And we are a long way from unraveling all the workings of the epigene.

your argument has changed markedly then.. Ive said all along that the hem bonds were an easily understood series based on two simple styles, one a H bond (ionic). The other covalent.
Unique "Syntax" youve spoken of is not unique at all, It is a well understood process that form th basis of pwptie linkag (two series of a molecule, twO COMMON BONDS.
tHE Structur and bonding of Alpha -helices are nothing that, (To most of science ) neither INDICATES NOR SUPPORTS , an Intelligent Designer.

You seem to be adopting Myers argument against "prebiotic "evolution". both you and he seem to be on a course that . I suggest that you till hammr down a cours in molcular Bio or at last get a post 2005 text on the subject.


Im not sure where youre going re; THE assertions that th human, bonobo, and chimp genomes arent related by common sequence and assembly. tart at the chromosomal lvel and deny that. All youve pointed out is that chimps ar not THE common anctors of humans, but that bonobos DO share a common ancestor with chimps

I skipped ahead to the Craig Vnter backgroun info and got timed out. SO ,the backgroun gnomic information (according to Venters work crew) is that human genomes and bonobos are a few percent and tenths of a percent closer in both sequences and assmbly in genic alignmnt (1,9%), substitution,(2.7%), error similarity (Unsure , they arent fully computed but humans and bonobo are a bit less than chimps), uplication (2.7%) and retro transposons (a few tenths of a percent between bonobos and humans, indicating less time to present target sites for these "gypsy segments of movable DNA "chunks)

So far as I know, science hasnt rediscovered its evidence about ancestry commonality between bonobos an human, in fact, I believe the Venter organization has a lot mor data today than it id when it first made these actual "genomic Titanium PCRs " ten yers (or more) ago.

They only had the genomes of on chimp and bonobo each at the time.


It seems that verything from genetics too paleo-anatomy , geology, isoopic dating,fossil assemblages, paleo-geography, and environmntal edaphics , doesnt much support your ID world.

PS I read that BEHEs ,"I complxity" belief took another hit this past summer .

No it hasn’t.


I can’t tell whether you are really that obtuse or just spouting chemistry jargon to convince others of your expertise.

But in any case, these statements of yours should prove to anyone knowledgeable about DNA and genomes that it is one of those two. But I will indulge you anyway.

The chemical bonds between the four different types of DNA nucleotides are indeed the same, I never disagreed with that. But just to make sure you don’t think I’m changing my story, I’ll repeat it here:

It is not the chemical bonds between the four DNA nucleotides that contains the design information. IT''S THE ORDER THEY ARE IN, STUPID!

Here is the proof of that from 'your' POV.

If the order of DNA sequence made no difference, there would be no possibility of 'evolution'. The only reason there is any difference between biological organisms is the difference in the order/sequence/syntax of their DNA nucleotides. (The chemical bonds between them are irrelevant in this discussion.)

If nucleotide order didn’t make any difference, the theory of evolution would be totally unsupportable after the discovery of DNA.. What you call 'Evolution' are changes in the ORDER OF DNA NUCLEOTIDES. No change in order, no 'Evolution'.

After thinking about it, this is too simple for you to NOT understand. You are definitely just putting me on or pandering to you fan club.

For me, if I had to choose one way or the other I would say that electromechanical systems are designed as I find it very difficult to accept the other possibility that they have happened by chance.There is no doubt in my mind that electromechanical systems are the common denominator which connects our physical body workings and the workings of the cosmos.

Science..Religion…well ….the question probably needs to be asked….what is the difference if everything is interconnected?

All this emphasis on time dependence.

I don't see what time has to do with anything, aside from time being required to have a cause and effect. I mean, if I make a toaster strudel, it nonetheless is one whether I do it 300 on 45 minutes, or 450 in 20 minutes.

However, if globs of primordial ooze attempt to make a toaster strudel using eldritch and random ingredients, said "toaster strudel" might attack me before it is ready for the toaster. If it's not outright mush.

Intelligence and design are what is important for ID. Not time.

I don't pretend to be an expert in DNA stuff. I know that I stay away from it, because it seems to be the study of retroviruses altering genes and no thanks, not putting that in my bodty if I can help it.

But I know that the fact that it exists suggests a pretty clear blueprint of traits and behavior. A plan.

life is not a toaster strudel.

Thats one of my biggest frutrations with these guys. All the ones here are ill equipped to even ngage in a reasonable exchange
Bulma "Time has nothing to do with anything"

Leadfoot: "Chemistry has nothing to do with it ,"

(Holds up toaster strudel)

Life is a toaster strudel. It is dry and flaky on the outside and soft and warm on the iside.

I think you're frustrated more because you lack insight into the religious/symbolic universe. You see a tree or a horse as a tree or horse, and don't understand that a tree can call memories of the Buddha sitting under it. Or that a horse reminds us of Sleipnir or whatever. Or how a certain movie carrying someone can reference back to this.



People who don't believe in any kind of religion are a bit like colorblind animals. I remember this commercial in the 80s or 90s, and this guy was talking about "The colors, man! The COLORS!" and his dog told him that he was colorblind. That's what it feels like at our end. To have someone completely fail to get even basic ideas.

Okay, forget red-green colorblindness, imagine if you can only see black and white, like a small minority. How would anyone explain what color is?

You think you're frustrated? Imagine the frustration of deaing with someone who can't (or won't) see what is blatantly obvious to me.

Aside from misquoting me (I never said any such thing) you are obviously the one ill equipped to discuss origin of life theory and chemistry.

You have yet to present a credible counter argument against my 'protein argument'.

But carry on for your fans, they eat your **** up.

dim.

Yes, you are. You cannot see God when he is all about you.

Shall I tell you?
1. The sky and its weather runs under complex equations of moisture and heat, air pressure, and so on. We have so called weather forecasters with degrees in meteorology. They still get it wrong. But yes, "We understand everything about weather, so it is not necessary to invoke God." (Liar) So, if a freak snowstorm hits your house?
2. The movement of the stars. Stephen Hawking as brilliant as he was, never managed to figure out everything about the universe. There is no theory of everything. And I can make a case that some of astronomy is lies (don't trust NASA, kids!)
3. The movement of the earth. Geology and tectonics is alwats going on, and we end up with green lands rather than fields of molten lava everywhere or gaping holes.
4. Interconnection of life in a way that is mutually beneficial. Did you know that without predators (which we humans see as a nuisance), things like soil erosion occurs? And one guy killed a bunch of elephants (asshole environmentalism) because he decided they were likely to overgraze. He later realized they also replenish the soil, as that area quickly became a desert.
https://www.fastcompany.com/2681518/this-man-shot-40000-elephants-before-he-figured-out-that-herds-of-cows-can-save-the-planet
We try to save the environment? We fail miserably. But animals do it instinctively. What we call the natural world.
5. Which leads us to the next one, biology, chemistry, and genetics. I believe Leadfoot is already handling this.
6. But let's talk about microscropic matter holding everything together. How atoms and quarks and other **** acts as building blocks for everything from trees to we ourselves to fish in the sea to tiny bacteria.
7. There are the many laws of science and many many more theories. There are probably still more to learn if we stopped being woke. But more importantly, there are four major physical forces, and many minor forces. Gravity (I don't personally believe gravity exists, so I'm merging that into other forces), electromagnetism, weak attraction, and strong attraction. These make the universe run as it should. There's also friction, momentum, centrifugal force, equal and opposite force, forces governing the behavior of heat or water, and many others that I dunno or can't think of offhand.

The point is that even a blind idiot should be able to see this as proof of God, so either you are being willful, or legit cannot see something plain to the eyes of others. It shouldn't be this hard to explain this. No, my argument is not "these things are too complicated for me to understand, so it must be God." The God of the Gaps theory is a strawman presented to explain away a theist's real arguments. It's that all of these things are literal physical manifestations of God.

None of your arguments reveal anything other than ignorance of bio;ogy, geology, chemistry and physics and what can happen with a A FEW BILLLION YEARS, WHICH IS TIME BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENASION, FOR IT ALL TO PLAY OUT. nO GOD INVOLVED. damned capslock/ it was defonote;y satan who invented capslock.