The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

[Admiral_Bobski]

That's like saying that an Intel 4 processor has the potential emulation architecture to simulate a ZX Spectrum. The ALU\registry potentiality is there....but its an Intel processor, not a ZX Spectrum.

Apparently we share over 80% of our DNA with a cauliflower....but we are human beings, far more complicated and advanced.

You're missing the point entirely - the point is that if my previous question proved true then it rather puts paid to your assertion that adaptation is not the same as evolution.

You argue that "observed evolution" is only adjustments within the confines of a predefined genome, and that it doesn't count as genuine Evolution because no speciation occurs.

If, however, the basic human genome actually contains inert coding for a variety of (or indeed all) species then it allows for alternative human forms to arise that would qualify as a separate species.

Does that make some kind of sense?

CB

[PersianPaladin]

You're missing the point entirely - the point is that if my previous question proved true then it rather puts paid to your assertion that adaptation is not the same as evolution.

You argue that "observed evolution" is only adjustments within the confines of a predefined genome, and that it doesn't count as genuine Evolution because no speciation occurs.

If, however, the basic human genome actually contains inert coding for a variety of (or indeed all) species then it allows for alternative human forms to arise that would qualify as a separate species.

Does that make some kind of sense?

CB

Inert coding? What do you mean?

A piano has the potential coding to play Mozart....doesn't mean that every piano notation will turn into mozart...by accident or chance perturbations.

Again, its back to the monkeys and shakespeare problem.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Inert coding? What do you mean?

A piano has the potential coding to play Mozart....doesn't mean that every piano notation will turn into mozart...by accident or chance perturbations.

Again, its back to the monkeys and shakespeare problem.

Errrr....no.

By Inert coding I mean specifically Non-Coding DNA. I read that Non-coding DNA can be extracted from one species and inserted into another species for which that string does code and it will successfully generate whatever it is that it codes for.

So, although a particular part of the DNA strand may be inert (non-coding) in one species it does not mean that that part is entirely inactive or useless.

If that non-coding strand were to be activated in a human then it could potentially cause spontaneous speciation.

It's a rather different concept from a "piano coding to play Mozart" - a piano no more "codes to play Mozart" than a mound of adenine, guanine, cytosine and thiamine codes to create a person.

A more apt comparison would be the music roll in a Player Piano coding for a particular song - you can start the tune half way through and you'll never hear the first half, but that doesn't mean that the first half isn't on the roll.

CB

[SP1986]

For a quick way of ending the thread: (not locking it)

We're human beings, we live on this world governed by its limitations and the factors from which we can survive. We should not be considering intelligent design, meaning of life, etc etc, it's not our place to know as we are mere fragile mortals!

[Admiral_Bobski]

For a quick way of ending the thread: (not locking it)

We're human beings, we live on this world governed by its limitations and the factors from which we can survive. We should not be considering intelligent design, meaning of life, etc etc, it's not our place to know as we are mere fragile mortals!

Party Pooper!

CB

[PersianPaladin]

For a quick way of ending the thread: (not locking it)

We're human beings, we live on this world governed by its limitations and the factors from which we can survive. We should not be considering intelligent design, meaning of life, etc etc, it's not our place to know as we are mere fragile mortals!

I agree with that to a considerable extent.

We can investigate the origins and the dynamics, but we all risk falling into the trap of arrogance and over-humanising the source of creation. When It is probably not very much like us at all.

[SP1986]

I agree with that to a considerable extent.

We can investigate the origins and the dynamics, but we all risk falling into the trap of arrogance and over-humanising the source of creation. When It is probably not very much like us at all.

Aye this outcome of this thread is like going into a corporate business asking how they run it, then arguing about the validity and usefulness of it's existence.

If this was anyones company they would be seething.

As this is the planet Earth if there was or is a creator im sure she/he/it would be scratching its proverbial head right now seeing this thread.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I agree with that to a considerable extent.

We can investigate the origins and the dynamics, but we all risk falling into the trap of arrogance and over-humanising the source of creation. When It is probably not very much like us at all.

That's one way to evade a debate!

CB

[PersianPaladin]

Errrr....no.

By Inert coding I mean specifically Non-Coding DNA. I read that Non-coding DNA can be extracted from one species and inserted into another species for which that string does code and it will successfully generate whatever it is that it codes for.

So, although a particular part of the DNA strand may be inert (non-coding) in one species it does not mean that that part is entirely inactive or useless.

If that non-coding strand were to be activated in a human then it could potentially cause spontaneous speciation.

It's a rather different concept from a "piano coding to play Mozart" - a piano no more "codes to play Mozart" than a mound of adenine, guanine, cytosine and thiamine codes to create a person.

A more apt comparison would be the music roll in a Player Piano coding for a particular song - you can start the tune half way through and you'll never hear the first half, but that doesn't mean that the first half isn't on the roll.

CB

Unlikely.

The theory of human evolution has a serious issue. Such roles of mutation, crossover and activation of dna strands\genes cannot be random in themselves. In the case of a certain species evolving to a human....it would require that the first mutation in one gender occur at the same time as the other and that they are in symbiosis otherwise they would not be able to mate. And if they did manage to mate...lord knows what mess the genome would end up in without any inherent balancing intelligence entering the system.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

We can investigate the origins and the dynamics, but we all risk falling into the trap of arrogance and over-humanising the source of creation. When It is probably not very much like us at all.

What's arrogant about believing we've evolved from monkeys? Come to Appleby and I'll show you plenty of evidence.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Unlikely.

The theory of human evolution has a serious issue. Such roles of mutation, crossover and activation of dna strands\genes cannot be random in themselves. In the case of a certain species evolving to a human....it would require that the first mutation in one gender occur at the same time as the other and that they are in symbiosis otherwise they would not be able to mate. And if they did manage to mate...lord knows what mess the genome would end up in without any inherent balancing intelligence entering the system.

Why would they not be able to mate?

There may be the possibility that they would be unable to mate, in which case the "selection" process would reject that mutation, but equally they may be able to mate and the mutation (alteration, adaptation, whatever you want to call it) would pass on to the next generation.

The most common cause of an inability to mate is a mismatch in the number of chromosomes of the male and female of two different species. Why should particular pieces of a DNA strand becoming active necessarily alter the number of chromosomes?

And why would the genome end up in a mess? After all, the partner who hasn't "changed" would still have the same DNA as the other, just the relevant portion of theirs would still be dormant.

CB

EDIT - The ID argument seems to impose illogical restrictions on what can and can't take place at the cellular (and sub-cellular) level, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[PersianPaladin]

What's arrogant about believing we've evolved from monkeys? Come to Appleby and I'll show you plenty of evidence.

custard we evolved from monkeys.

I want to climb and swing from trees, and where's my tail? And why am I so weedy?

:lol:

[Admiral_Bobski]

custard we evolved from monkeys.

I want to climb and swing from trees, and where's my tail? And why am I so weedy?

:lol:

Have you not heard of the human "vestigial tail"?

CB

[PersianPaladin]

Why would they not be able to mate?

There may be the possibility that they would be unable to mate, in which case the "selection" process would reject that mutation, but equally they may be able to mate and the mutation (alteration, adaptation, whatever you want to call it) would pass on to the next generation.

The most common cause of an inability to mate is a mismatch in the number of chromosomes of the male and female of two different species. Why should particular pieces of a DNA strand becoming active necessarily alter the number of chromosomes?

And why would the genome end up in a mess? After all, the partner who hasn't "changed" would still have the same DNA as the other, just the relevant portion of theirs would still be dormant.

CB

EDIT - The ID argument seems to impose illogical restrictions on what can and can't take place at the cellular (and sub-cellular) level, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Natural selection inherently does not create anything new...it simply passes on code that already exists.

And the whole idea that such random mutations occurring within the genome (vast majority which are unbeneficial and phased out) ordering themselves into synch with the existing set defies the principle of logic.

[SP1986]

Apparently there was one particular time that bore the change of human evolution, on one string Homo Sapiens, on the other Neanderthal. I have no idea how Homo Sapiens came about as their (our) gene string was so much different from neanderthals. Neaderthals were a direct descendent of the Monkey world and from the Austrolepethicus branch, but Homo Sapiens were different. Perhaps there was a monkey-like creature that developed into Homo Sapiens. Any Evolution that has taken place has been borne of mutation. There is no one string evolution of the human species.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Natural selection inherently does not create anything new...it simply passes on code that already exists.

That's precisely my point! The code already exists but remains inert (non-coding) for the most part. Should a piece of non-coding DNA suddenly become Coding DNA, for whatever reason, then it could lead to speciation.

No new code required!

CB

[PersianPaladin]

Have you not heard of the human "vestigial tail"?

CB

Most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the "inescapable fact" of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum.

Source: gennet.org

[Osbourne One-Nil]

custard we evolved from monkeys.

I want to climb and swing from trees, and where's my tail? And why am I so weedy?

:lol:

At the end of your coccyx.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I should also add quickly that biologists still don't actually know what vast swathes of the DNA strand actually do...

CB

[PersianPaladin]

That's precisely my point! The code already exists but remains inert (non-coding) for the most part. Should a piece of non-coding DNA suddenly become Coding DNA, for whatever reason, then it could lead to speciation.

No new code required!

CB

Wow!

It's magic!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Source: gennet.org

I was trying to avoid the word "coccyx" :lol:

So the coccyx still serves some function, but it is essentially the same structure that forms the monkey's tail.

CB

[PersianPaladin]

I should also add quickly that biologists still don't actually know what vast swathes of the DNA strand actually do...

CB

Hence the arrogant assumptions that they are 'useless'...because they don't fit or conform with pre-existing neo-darwinian or positivistic constructs.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Wow!

It's magic!

Now you're just being facetious.

CB

Hence the arrogant assumptions that they are 'useless'...because they don't fit or conform with pre-existing neo-darwinian or positivistic constructs.

No - I think I intimated above that it was wrong to claim that they are "useless". How DNA's ability to change can be dismissed when so much of it isn't understood is beyond me...

CB

Edited July 10, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[PersianPaladin]

I was trying to avoid the word "coccyx" :lol:

So the coccyx still serves some function, but it is essentially the same structure that forms the monkey's tail.

CB

Well, a mammal has mammorial glands like the human female. Doesn't mean that they evolved from each other.

Principles are distributed in nature, but not randomly, by chance or by species evolving magically into each other.

[SP1986]

Hence the arrogant assumptions that they are 'useless'...because they don't fit or conform with pre-existing neo-darwinian or positivistic constructs.

Aything we dont need just shrinks doesnt it. For example now we have clothes, we dont need body hair. Fully formed organs that we seemingly 'dont use' I suppose in theory may have a use that we dont understand.