Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

RL, you missed something in between the dots......

With the advent of RNA replication, Darwinian evolution was possible for the first time. Because of the inevitable copying mistakes, a number of variants of the original template molecules were formed. Some of these variants were replicated faster than others or proved more stable, thereby progressively crowding out less advantaged molecules. Eventually, a single molecular species, combining replicatability and stability in optimal fashion under prevailing conditions, became dominant. This, at the molecular level, is exactly the mechanism postulated by Darwin for the evolution of organisms: fortuitous variation, competition, selection and amplification of the fittest entity. The scenario is not just a theoretical construct. It has been reenacted many times in the laboratory with the help of a viral replicating enzyme, first in 1967 by the late American biochemist Sol Spiegelman of Columbia University

real life wrote:

timber wrote:

... Now, if you wish to wrap yourself in the comfort of anthropic arrogance through assaying to assign causality to some independent, supernatural, external-to-the-universe thing, condition, or state of being, fine, go right ahead; there is a "chance" that is so, however slight the probability. Please, though, don't attempt to dignify any such notion through implying it has any logical, scientific basis.

timber,

Even the author of your article seems to admit that there is scant to no evidence that the pre-RNA world that you wish to invoke actually existed.........

Quote:

As certain as many people are that the RNA world was a crucial phase in life's evolution, it cannot have been the first. Some form of abiotic chemistry must have existed before RNA came on the scene. For the purpose of this discussion, I shall call that earlier phase "protometabolism" to designate the set of unknown chemical reactions that generated the RNA world and sustained it throughout its existence......What can we conclude from this scenario, which, though purely hypothetical, depicts in logical succession the events that must have taken place if we accept the RNA-world hypothesis? And what, if anything, can we infer about the protometabolism that must have preceded it?.........

..............he apparently is very convinced that it did. (Saying these fantasies are in 'logical succession' Ow, oh my sides hurt. Yer killin me, timber)

I can just see you doubled over with maniacal laughter. That would be consistent with the stereotypical religionist reaction to anything inconvenient to the religionist proposition - "if you don't/won't/can't recognize, understand and accept it, laugh at it."

real life wrote:

I thought wishful thinking, according to you, was only the province of the religious?

('We don't know HOW it happened , we just KNOW that it did' ----from the tomb of the Unknown Evolutionist In fact the author candidly admits that he has no clue how, because any chemical pathways to his Nirvana are completely unknown.)

Scientific conjectures acknowleding gaps in data render a suggested hypothesis merely plausible and subject to further investigation are the absolute antithesis of the wishful thinking that is the whole of the religionist proposition.

real life wrote:

Since life from non-life generation won't work ( he admits ) with RNA or with DNA, he speculates that there just HAD TO BE (oh please there just had to be he he) a precursor which COULD and DID spontaneously generate living organisms from dead chemicals.

Straw man. While I have little reason to suspect you'll figure out neither how nor why your duplicitous mischaracterization creates the fallacy, I'll leave you to it.

Quote:

I thought you were for science based on evidence?

Precisely - and conjecture along plausible lines of inquiry develops evidence, one way or the other. The point is the inquiry.

Quote:

As the author gives the altar call, his theology is fully unveiled

Quote:

I have tried here to review some of the facts and ideas that are being considered to account for the early stages in the spontaneous emergence of life on earth. How much of the hypothetical mechanisms considered will stand the test of time is not known. But one affirmation can safely be made, regardless of the actual nature of the processes that generated life. These processes must have been highly deterministic. In other words, these processes were inevitable under the conditions that existed on the prebiotic earth. Furthermore, these processes are bound to occur similarly wherever and whenever similar conditions obtain.......It also seems likely that life would arise anywhere similar conditions are found because many successive steps are involved..........All of which leads me to conclude that life is an obligatory manifestation of matter, bound to arise where conditions are appropriate.

Your "altar call/theology" objection is yet another straw man. The author unambiguously differentiates between fact, fact-based finding, and plausible conjecture, logically, compellingly and validly arguing for the proposition that the emergence and development of life is not merely dependent upon but consequent to conditions and circumstances known to occur naturally throughout the observable universe irrespective of and regardless as-yet-undetermined particulars of the process. Science doesn't much give a **** concerning any metaphysical, ultimate WHY of any process, it concerns itself only with the discoverable, verifiable, proximate HOW. Only the religionist perceives this total disinterest in the metaphysical to be an "assault" on religion - the religionist's closed-ended need to believe stands in diametric opposition to science's open-ended drive to discover and understand. In short, science's open, honest thirst for understanding trumps belief's frightened, superstitious need for comfort.

The world isn't laughing with you, rl, its laughing at your proposition and the manner in which you present and defend that proposition.

Neither RNA nor DNA can be produced without the actions of the proteins, especially enzymes.

Scientists question deletions
(By Patrick Cain, Akron Beacon Journal, September 13, 2006)

COLUMBUS - A State Board of Education proposal that critics say could bring creationist teaching into science classrooms appears to be stalled. Meanwhile, evolution backers raised questions Tuesday about the board altering records to remove traces of its involvement in the potentially explosive issue.

On Monday, a board subcommittee did not vote as scheduled on the ``Controversial Issues Template'' as the proposal is known, although the issue could come up for a vote at next month's regularly scheduled board meeting.

The proposal provides guidelines for discussion of controversial topics, but evolution backers say it is a smoke screen to get intelligent design into classrooms. Intelligent design, or ID, is a controversial alternative to evolution that teaches life is so complex it could only have begun with divine intervention.

The full board could have weighed in Tuesday, but a two-hour time limit on the issue expired before the roll was taken.

Patricia Princehouse, evolution advocate and professor at Case Western Reserve University, said the achievement committee didn't run behind schedule by accident.

Princehouse said the committee ate up the two hours by rewriting minutes from July to remove from the public record any direct mention of intelligent design.

Steve Rissing, an Ohio State University professor and evolution backer, said the changes in the minutes are significant.

``The corrected minutes bear no resemblance to what I saw and what I heard,'' Rissing said.

The template's author, Colleen Grady, a board member from Strongsville, pushed during Monday's meeting to remove language referring to evolution, global warming, stem-cell research and cloning technologies that were in the original standards introduced in July.

The two scientists maintain Grady introduced these specific ideas in July and they were contained in the minutes assembled then, but the board's rewriting of those minutes has deleted references to these controversial ideas.

Grady could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

A review of a tape recording of the board's July meeting indicates Steve Millett, a member from Columbus, said the new curriculum should not challenge specific topics like evolution.

According to the tape recording, made available by the evolution backers, no members discussed global warming, cloning and stem-cell research during the July meeting, yet those issues appeared in the July minutes.
References to these ideas in the July minutes were removed by the board at Monday's meeting.

Grady refers to the controversial ideas without naming them during the July meeting.

``Some of the items that were thrown out here are straw men with this language -- some of them have generated far more interest than evolution,'' Grady said, according to the tape recording of the July meeting.

She went on to say there's an argument to be made whether the board should specifically address evolution when discussing controversial issues, but ``I think we'd be dodging it. It'd be the elephant in the corner'' if left unmentioned.

How very odd that you would chide me for 'not understanding and accepting' what the author clearly states is unknown to him.

It's a plausible hypothesis if you can set forth a method by which it could have happened.

Stating 'the process by which this took place is unknown' does not qualify as a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested.

You have no explanation set forth, just an assertion that it MUST have happened.

You're not even on first base, and you're claiming to be rounding third headed for home.

On the contrary , you show precious little concern for the HOW[/i], being very content to accept a comforting (to you) conclusion only with no HOW[/i] indicated.

The world isn't laughing with you, rl, its laughing at your proposition and the manner in which you present and defend that proposition.

You are so enamored of his prose that you parrot his lines without any qualms, but it takes more than a flowery sales pitch to make a good case.

real life wrote:

Neither RNA nor DNA can be produced without the actions of the proteins, especially enzymes.

How many times do I have to tell you that there are such things as enzymes made out of RNA. They're called ribozymes. They can catalyse their own cleave or that of other ribozymes.

Ribozymes don't need proteins and since RNA can also act as genetic material, RNA *IS* the xNA precursor you speak of.

It can also, catalyse its own formation, you know.

You'll probably stick your fingers in your ears once again and ignore the existence of these ribozymes.

1. Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
2. Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
3. Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
4. Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
5. Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.

Lawmakers get more time to weigh in on science standards
(BY TIM MARTIN, ASSOCIATED PRESS, September 13, 2006)

LANSING -- State lawmakers will get more time to weigh in on what the state's public schools science curriculum should be and how it should approach the teaching of evolution under an agreement reached Tuesday.

The state Board of Education agreed to delay adopting new science guidelines -- part of Michigan's new high school graduation standards -- until its October meeting. That gives lawmakers a couple of extra weeks to present suggestions to the state board, which has the final say on what the curriculum should be.

State Superintendent Mike Flanagan told the board that his recommendations for the science curriculum would not change. But he said it's an important part of the process to give lawmakers time to make their suggestions to the board.

The law that called for legislative input on the curriculum standards did not specify how the comments from lawmakers is supposed to be gathered.

The delay was granted after the state board received letters requesting more time from Republican leaders on legislative education committees, Rep. Brian Palmer of Romeo and Sen. Wayne Kuipers of Holland.

"We have had a good relationship with them, and we want to continue having a good relationship," said board President Kathleen Straus, a Democrat.

The motion to delay action on the science curriculum passed by a 6-2 vote. Elizabeth Bauer and Marianne Yared McGuire, both Democrats, voted against it.

Critics of the delayed vote, including a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union, said some Republican lawmakers are trying to weaken state standards to allow some instruction about intelligent design in science classes.

Intelligent design's proponents hold that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms. Some want science teachers to teach that Darwin's theory of evolution is not a fact and has gaps.

Shelli Weisberg, ACLU of Michigan legislative director, urged the state board to adopt the science curriculum as recommended Tuesday, rather than grant the delay.

Palmer did not cite evolution or biology specifically Tuesday, but said that language adopted in curriculum standards should be broader rather than narrower to allow for changes in theory. As an example, he noted the recent demotion of Pluto from planet status by the International Astronomical Union.

"The bottom line is we want to make sure that the language is in there regarding critical thinking on all theories that are evident in science today, so that we are not blanking out any new theories that are coming along," Palmer said.

The state board already has passed some of its new curriculum standards, including those for math.

The board still must adopt standards for social studies and a few other subjects. Tuesday's agreement will set up a method to allow formal comments from the state Legislature on those standards.

I found Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?[/u] in particular quite interesting.

Palmer did not cite evolution or biology specifically Tuesday, but said that language adopted in curriculum standards should be broader rather than narrower to allow for changes in theory. As an example, he noted the recent demotion of Pluto from planet status by the International Astronomical Union.

Boot Pluto? Astrology's dismay off the charts

real life wrote:

I found Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?[/u] in particular quite interesting.

What did you find interesting about it?

Many evolutionists now state that the eye has evolved dozens of times independently, some say 40 or more times.

I think it not farfetched that they may soon claim DNA evolved, not twice, but numerous times independently[/u].

This line of reasoning could become necessary as more is learned about differences in the DNA that cannot be reconciled any other way.

Instead of questioning the basic premise of evolution, a larger shoehorn must be applied to keep the hypothesis 'intact'.

How many times do you think it possible for DNA to have 'evolved' independently?

real life wrote:

Many evolutionists now state that the eye has evolved dozens of times independently, some say 40 or more times.

Based on evidence to that effect.

real life wrote:

I think it not farfetched that they may soon claim DNA evolved, not twice, but numerous times independently[/u].

This line of reasoning could become necessary as more is learned about differences in the DNA that cannot be reconciled any other way.

Or as the evidence begins to indicate that it happened.

real life wrote:

Instead of questioning the basic premise of evolution, a larger shoehorn must be applied to keep the hypothesis 'intact'.

You have a twisted view of things. There is no reason to question the basic premise of evolution, any more than to question the basic premise of a Sun centered solar system.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Many evolutionists now state that the eye has evolved dozens of times independently, some say 40 or more times.

Based on evidence to that effect.

What evidence is there that the eye evolved 40 times?

There are many types of eyes in different organisms. It is clear that they cannot have evolved from a common eye.

Why does that indicate that they evolved at all? It doesn't. It is the assumption of evolution which forces this conclusion, not evidence.

The sun can be observed to be at the center of the solar system. Evolution cannot be observed.

You insist that in science observation is not necessary, but yet you are the one twisting these examples to try to make them analogous. They are not.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Many evolutionists now state that the eye has evolved dozens of times independently, some say 40 or more times.

Based on evidence to that effect.

What evidence is there that the eye evolved 40 times?

You're the one who stated that "evolutionists" (ie, mainstream science) claimed it evolved 40 times or more, don't you know your own sources? Look it up.

Quote:

Again, similarities indicate homology, and thus common descent, except for when they don't.[/u]

I couldn't have said it better myself ( a rare occurrence )

To have one's cake and eat it too is essential for the evolutionist.

Quote:

Palmer did not cite evolution or biology specifically Tuesday, but said that language adopted in curriculum standards should be broader rather than narrower to allow for changes in theory. As an example, he noted the recent demotion of Pluto from planet status by the International Astronomical Union.

Funny.

Stupid, but funny.