Thank you Elizabeth for this opportunity-
Good day- Over the past many, many years, IDists have been telling people that intelligent design is not anti-evolution. Most people understand and accept that, while others just refuse to, no matter what.
With that said, in this post I will provide the evidence (again) that firmly demonstrates that ID is not anti-evolution. I will be presenting several authoritative definitions of “evolution” followed by what the ID leadership has to say about evolution. So without any further adieu, I give you-
Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution
”.
In order to have a discussion about whether or not Intelligent Design is anti-evolution or not we must first define “evolution”. Fortunately there are resources available that do just that.
Defining “evolution”:
Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”
Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable’ via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans. Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley
In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10
Those are all accepted definitions of biological “evolution”. (Perhaps someone will present some definitions that differ from those. Most likely I will only comment on any differences if the differences are relevant.)
With biology, where-ever there is heritable genetic change there is evolution and where-ever you have offspring that are (genetically) different from the parent(s) you have descent with modification.
Next I will show what Intelligent Design says about biological evolution and people can see for themselves that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution:
Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism (MAY 2000)
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.”- Dr Michael Behe
Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.
Then we have:
What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?– a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.
Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of “The Design of Life”
and
And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life). Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142
And from one more pro-ID book:
Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.– page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”
That is just a sample of what the Intelligent Design leadership say about biological evolution- they are OK with it. And the following is from “Uncommon Descent”:
9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it.
ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence. To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID.
However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.
They go on to say:
10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.
CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that. ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.
And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison)- both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.
Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, ie they evolve by design. That is by “built-in responses to environmental cues” ala Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolution hypothesis” being the main process of adaptations.
As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution- the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)
Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic.
Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case.
So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?
Hey Rich, guess what? that is what science is for- to help answer those questions.
So thanks for proving that ID is not a dead-end
GAs are just one possible design mechanism- one that we have experience with.
Nice strawman- there are many ways to reach one answer and with bacteria only ONE has to find any given solution. And soemtimes a solution is out of reach due to random effects.
What, exactly, is this alleged misconception mr false accusation guy?
Let me try to articulate what I think I have been able to glean from Joe’s brief assertions.
I am pretty sure Joe doesn’t understand what this particular statement of his reveals of his understanding of even basic high school chemistry and physics. As I said on my previous comment, this is the fundamental misconception that runs through all of ID/creationist writings.
“Things breaking” seems to mean for ID/creationists what those of us in the sciences would refer to as a plasma state; ionized atoms and molecules just randomly banging into each other and coming right back apart again. How could evolution occur in something like that?
I am quite sure that Joe does not exist in a plasma state. I am fairly sure his computer keyboard, the chair he sits on, the walls, the floor, the ceiling of the room he sits in are not in a plasma state. I am quite sure that the ground and the rocks under the building he is in are not in a plasma state.
So why do atoms, molecules, rocks, water, solids, liquids and all the things around us not come all apart? ID/creationists point to iron rusting as an example of all the “decay” we see around us. But iron rusting is a classic example of the atoms of iron and oxygen coming together to form a more complex system with properties nothing like those of the constituents from which it is comprised. The pure iron we see in our technological civilization since the Iron Age comes from taking iron apart from the other atoms with which it had combined. It’s simpler stuff now.
If everything is being “broken,” why are there still things left to “break?”
This is why I have suggested that Joe doesn’t even have a basic understanding of high school chemistry and physics. Had he even paid attention in any of those classes – assuming he even took such classes – he would learn words like solid, liquid, gas, plasma, phase changes, chemical reactions, condensation, evaporation, temperature, energy, binding energies, chemical bonds, adhesion, cohesion, mixtures, compounds, and all the basic terminology and concepts that high school students learn.
Those science words refer to concepts; and those concepts refer to how matter interacts with matter and why it takes on the various forms it does depending upon things like kinetic energy, potential energy, and temperature (basically a kinetic energy).
So, to simply assert that things “break” as fast as they are formed reveals a profound misunderstanding of chemistry and physics at the most basic level. The “spontaneous molecular chaos” of David L. Abel is extremely revealing of Abel’s conceptual level of understanding of chemistry and physics and, by extension, biology.
This level of naiveté about even the most basic ideas of chemistry and physics is not only surprising in some way, but its persistence has to be reinforced within a culture of distain for what scientists know and understand. I think we all know what that culture is; and ID/creationist misconceptions, no matter how much they will deny it, originate in a set of sectarian beliefs that are threatened by real science.
Me asking Joe G questions about his GA claims:
“Lots of questions for you Joe. Do you have any answers besides your normal evasion of “that’s what science is here to investigate”?”
Joe G’s answer:
“Hey Rich, guess what? that is what science is for- to help answer those questions.
…can I call ’em or what?
It is what I have found out- you know the new stuff you keep asking about after the design was detected.
Ya know if evos could answer my questions I would still be an evo. But all I get are promissory notes tat someday they may have the answers I seek.
Joe. I’m going to have to press you specifics. You’re suggesting there might be a GA. Okay – show us where it is. Do some work. Blurting ideas out is not science. If you want to support ID, do some work. This “GA” is fast becoming another “CSI”; its existence is asserted, but never supported.
Great Rich- I keep pressing evos for specifics yet none ever come.
Why is that?
What have you found out about GAs in the genomes of living creatures Joe? You can’t provide a single bit of information about them. Just things you made up and *hope* science finds someday.
Why should science be based upon your pulled-out-of-your-butt fantasies?
Tu Quoque wont float here, Joe. You’ve made claims. Support them, or retract them. Where is this GA? If you can point me at it, *I* can do the rest. there you go, 99% of the effort from me. Bu this is essentially a monster under the bed, eh?
This is from Rudolf Clausius in Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Vol. 125, p. 353, 1865, under the title “Ueber verschiedene für de Anwendung bequeme Formen der Hauptgleichungen der mechanischen Wärmetheorie.” (“On Several Convenient Forms of the Fundamental Equations of the Mechanical Theory of Heat.”)
It is also available in A Source Book in Physics, Edited by William Francis Magie, Harvard University Press, 1963, page 234.
(Note: Q represents the quantity of heat, T the absolute temperature, and S will be what Clausius names as entropy)
…
We obtain the equation
∫dQ/T = S – S0
which, while somewhat differently arranged, is the same as that which was formerly used to determine S.
If we wish to designate S by a proper name we can say of it that it is the transformation content of the body, in the same way that we say of the quantity U that it is the heat and work content of the body.
However, since I think it is better to take the names of such quantities as these, which are important for science, from the ancient languages, so that they can be introduced without change into all the modern languages, I propose to name the magnitude S the entropy of the body, from the Greek word η τροπη, a transformation.
I have intentionally formed the word entropy so as to be as similar as possible to the word energy, since both these quantities, which are to be known by these names, are so nearly related to each other in their physical significance that a certain similarity in their names seemed to me advantageous.
…
Clausius apparently translates η τροπη from the Greek as Umgestaltung and not Umdrehung. However, this doesn’t matter because he modified the word to entropy for the reasons he indicated.
Compare this withe Henry Morris’s “scholarship.”
Joe said:
I asked how Joe knows this and he said:
Joe, this sounds revolutionary. If you have discovered evidence of genetic algorithms embedded as programs in DNA guiding how the organism reacts to environmental cues at the DNA level (and more?) then I’ll personally write the letter to the Nobel team recommending you for a prize.
Could you perhaps go into a little detail as to exactly how you found this out and some details on the program itself? Or are you keeping the details close to your chest as you want to publish something based on this groundbreaking research?
Joe,
In this case, if the tape was rewound it would play out differently. If ID was true, it would play out the same.
Try to tailor my answer to adjust to your specific needs.
Then what does it matter if ID is anti-evolution or not?
Except that “science” is not interested in finding answers to those questions therefore those questions will remain unanswered forever. Unless, that is, you do something about it personally.
That is, of course true. Like many of the things you say. Also like many of the things you say it’s totally irrelevant. I just noted how you claimed to have discovered evidence of GAs in organic beings or DNA. Now you are claiming that is “just one mechanism” when asked specifically if ID predicts GAs. Funny thing is that a moment ago you were claiming that you’ve discovered such already!
Yes, but if the entire possible set of mutations has happened in a generation, due to it’s size…
You really don’t know what Lenski did do you?
No doubt you’ll get them when you answer the specifics of your claim about having found evidence of GAs. What you discovered after you determined design, remember?
As you scroll down the thread you might notice something. Apart from the posts where Joe C+P some screen in, his answers are typically limited to a sentence or two. You don’t need many words when you simply ignore almost everything somebody has said or asked.
Whereas his opponents are much more voluble. And yet in those dozen or two words he manages to exclaim how specious Darwinism is and how empty it s.
How deliciously ironic.
I find this slightly strange, Joe. The reason being that “the programming” in a GA doesn’t “guide the mutations “, except in the sense that the programmer provides a fitness landscape – provides a virtual world that which the virtual critters evolve to thrive in. In life, that landscape is provide by the real world. The virtual environment in a GA is just a crude approximation.
What I thought you were going to say (and I think this is Behe’s position) is that the role of the designer is to make sure that certain variants do actually turn up. After all, if a variant on the pathway to efficient vision turns up, it will tend to be selected – no programming is needed, other than an environment in which proto-vision is useful. Wouldn’t you want to invoke your designer at the variance-generation part, rather than at the selection part? After all, you agree that natural selection does actually work (that variants that work better will become more prevalent).
Lizzie – isn’t the who thing a rather Rube-Goldberg way of getting to a desired result? Why not just make the desired thing in totality?
This is why the ID quotes you started with are just a version of the God-of-the-gaps argument. First it was the eye and blood clotting and the immune system, but as the evolutionary picture clarified on these, the Designer shifted over to being responsible for body plans, the genetic code, and OOL. If we know how it happened, that’s just those acceptable random mutations. If we don’t know how it happened, the Hooooly Spirit was using some zero-wavelength energy to push those recalcitrant atoms into place.
I guess all those angels put out of work when they didn’t need to nudge the planets around anymore traveled back in time to take up jobs creating life.
For those familiar with Duane Gish’s debating tactics, you will remember that it was all taunting assertions in rapid-fire.
By the time the debate was over, any opponent could only elaborate on one or two issues and totally demolish Gish on these.
To which Gish would respond, “Well, you couldn’t answer ninety percent of my arguments!” Gish’s audience would go wild with ecstasy.
Joe G. is after celebrity. The taunts are to make himself the center of attention as he imagines himself getting “evos” to scurry all around, pee their pants, and lather all their attention on him. He just wants people to jump when he says jump. And we have already seen from his demand to Elizabeth about censorship that he wants power
Knowledgeable individuals can make specific refutations of every coy assertion he hints at; but he doesn’t read, let alone comprehend them.
It’s standard ID/creationist street theater. Joe G. has been trolling the internet for a number of years now. He has his own blog, but he is always infesting other blogs because nobody pays any attention to his. His shtick hasn’t changed.
Well, I’m not the one proposing a who 🙂
It’s a shame Joe didn’t give more depth on his last visit. I for one would like to see an ID ‘mechanism’, it would put them on the map and we’d have competing hypothesis.
Well, yes – but I’d hoped for a clearer idea of WHAT was done by this designer, as well as how ’twas done
Is there anyone in the ranks of ID proponents better at explaining the position, and able to answer straight questions about it?
The GA/ program is in the cell/ organism.
How can we find out where? Well Venter already started by replacing an organisms DNA with his synthesized DNA and the organism was viable- that tells me the GA/ program is not in the DNA.
What tells me there is a GA/ program? For one transcription and translation- both require knowledge and neither occurs if we dump the contents of a cell into a test tube. That alone suggests living organisms are not reducible to matter and energy.
Oops- what Venter started can be finished by some other lab- just remove and synthesize what you can to see if you still get a viable cell.
Up to now biological information has always been related to the DNA sequence (sequence related). IOW the information depended on the sequence.
I do not believe this is a tenable position. I say that because in biology we observe that DNA just doesn’t replicate itself, it does so with the help of other molecules in the cell. Those molecules are constructed by the information stored in the DNA. That’s right- stored in- as in the data that is stored in a computer’s hard drive, ROM and RAM.
And this is my point- that DNA, RNA and other cellular components are actually data carriers just like the computer components I just mentioned.
IOW the sequence is not the information. The sequence is important to carry out the instructions, that is the information embedded in the DNA (and perhaps other cellular components).
As I said in an earlier entry– Just for a eukaryotic cell to make an amino acid (polypeptide) chain-
Transcription and Translation:
You start with a tightly wound piece of DNA. Enzymes called RNA polymerases, along with transcrition factors, begin the process by unwinding a portion of DNA near the start of a gene, which is specified by sequences called promoters. Now there are two strands exposed. One strand is the coding strand- it has the correct sequence information for the product- and the other strand is the non-coding strand. That strand contains the complimentary layout.
At this point decisions have to be made. Where to start, where to stop and although it may seem counterintuitive the mRNA goes to the non-coding strand in order to reconstruct the proper codon sequence (nucleotide triplets which code for an amino acid) for the protein to be formed. Both sides of the parent DNA are exposed yet the mRNA “knows” to only form on one.
This process is unidirectional (5’-3’). There is only one start codon which also codes for an amino acid (met) and therefore all amino acid sequences start with methionine. The stop codons don’t code for an amino acid. Transcription actually starts before the “start” codon and continues past the stop codon. Before the mRNA leaves the nucleus any/ all introns are cut out and the remaining exons spliced together. A chemical cap is added to the 5’ end, the non-coding stuff at the end is cut off by a special enzyme (endonuclease) and a string of A’s is added in its place. You now have a processed mRNA.
So now we have this piece of processed mRNA which leaves the nucleus and has to rendezvous with a ribosome-the protein factory within the cell.
A ribosome consists of over 50 proteins and 3-4 different kinds of rRNA (ribosomal), plus free-floating tRNA (transfer). Each tRNA has a 3 nucleotide sequence- the anti-codon to the mRNA’s codon plus it carries the appropriate amino acid molecule for its anti-codon. To attach the appropriate amino acid to the correct anti-codon an enzyme called amino-acid synthetase is used.
And then the chain starts forming until the stop codon terminates the process.
Next is the folding process. That is what allows the protein to be useful- its spatial configuration.
That is just the basics of what one is introduced to when reading biology textbooks. And it doesn’t include the proof-reading and error correction that accompanies the process.
So this is how I envision DNA- both sides of the ladder carry redundant information. One side does the work, that is transfers programming data to other molecules it contacts (mRNA for example) and the other side is a template for DNA replication.
Once DNA replication is complete the program is transferred to the newly constructed side via the hydrogen bonds that connect the two sides.
When other molecules are made- mRNA for example- they are given their instructions via the same hydrogen bonds. That information consists of editing instructions, as well as configuraion/ assembly instructions and destination instructions.
These instructions are not the sequence, rather they are embedded on the sequence, just as computer data is embedded on the disk.
Perhaps your messed-up version of science isn’t interested.
GAs have a goal Elizabeth- a target, so the mutations would be directed towards that.
The programming is definitely required just for transcription and translation- or do you really think that “just happens” given the right chemicals?
The vision system, blood-clotting and the immune system are all still in ID’s corner- you don’t have anything that demonstrates accumulations of random mutations can construct such things.
How can I put this kindly? I don’t think you know what a GA is. Feel free to point me to the code. You’re suggesting the code is in there – let’s have it.
Umm in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
So now we are trying to deal with the “what”- but again none of this would even matter if any evo could just produce 1- a testable hypothesis and 2- supporting evidence that the blind watchmaker didit.
Dude if I could do that then ID would be a given- I take it that you have no idea how science operates.
A GA is a genetic algorithm, that is a program/ process designed to solve a problem.
Doesn’t Lenski’s experiment show random variation and slection supporting ‘blind watchmaker’ adaption? Isn’t your *cough* GA ‘blind watchmaker’?
It shows it doesn’t do very much.
But only by the fitness landscape itself, and it doesn’t have to have any ulterior goal. You could write a GA in which the fitness landscape was randomly generated and the critters would still evolve to thrive in it. You can also set up GAs with competing populations, and they themselves become part of the fitness landscape. The programmer doesn’t know in advance what the “goal” is – because there isn’t one. There are just evolving populations, learning, as it were, to thrive in whatever landscape turns up.
Well, I certainly think that transcription and translation are physical/chemical processes. So, I’d say, is variance generation, but I guess that’s the part you’d call “programming”
Joe,
It’s not there at all Joe, ever considered that?
No, it suggests that if you chop up a cell you’ve chopped up a cell. Cells are not like Sponges you know Joe. You can sieve a Sponge and it’ll reassemble, but sieve a Sponge and then divide it’s cells? Not so much. So your “evidence” is the fact that cells don’t self assemble when the individual component pieces are present? Nonsense.
Strawman. Next!
Not sure what you mean there Joe. Remove what? Synthesize what?
When you first posted this, 4 odd years ago, did it elicit much response back then?
It appears you’ve used this several times in various places.
http://tinyurl.com/7rgsaax
And I doubt you wrote it in the first place TBH.
This snippet
http://tinyurl.com/7cckjbh
Has been used by you no less then 13 times! Do you, like BA77, just have a library of prewritten responses that you pull out when you need to show the “science” card Joe?
http://tinyurl.com/7cckjbh
So in essence, there’s a monster under your bed that we can’t see, you’re sure its there but can’t point us to exactly where it is. You can perhaps understand our skepticism: how would we separate your claims from unverifiable nonsense?
Obvioulsy you are too something to even get the point- if living organisms were reducible to matter and energy then what i said should work.
Ya know you could always step up and demonstrate that the blind watchmaker can do it.
But you can’t.
We exist dude. and your position can’t explain it.
Then it should be “speaking to true assholes”
Seems to me Joe cribbed this entire thing from this book:
http://tinyurl.com/7zfk4v3
Slightly rewritten to avoid exactly this, but not enough Joe, not enough.
1- GAs have goals- all algorithms have at least one goal, that is the reason to write an algorithm- you do know what an algorithm is, right?
2- Transcription and translation require knowledge. They are as reducible to physical/ chemical processes as a computer program is reducible to electricity.
But it does work! It’s well know that if you take a virus and chop it up into it’s component pieces it can self (re)assemble.
If you chop a 747 airliner into it’s component pieces, which after all is less complex then a cell, does it assemble itself back into a working 747?
I guess that means 747s are not reducible to matter and energy!
Eh? What would explain the designer’s existance? ID can’t explain it. That line of argumentation (flawed as it is) doesn’t help you either. You think there’s a GA in DNA. Okay – stop trolling blogs, get into the lab and prove it. Nobel prize woudl be an understatement. Or do you not really believe it *that* much?
Yeah evos should get into a lab a do something to. But they don’t.
Why is that?
Do what Joe? You’ve already accepted that “the blind watchmaker” can make watches (i.e. evolution happens) and the only thing you are disputing is if the parts available to the watchmaker were designed or not. Which is a distinction without a difference and one that simply makes you a TE.
But you do have one thing right. I cant explain your existence!
They do. Remember, you’ve previously claimed that all biologists are doing ID anyway. Yet now they are not in a lab at all. How many people are in there with you Joe?
You can’t explain anything and your position is as much shit as it is anything.
That’s a very poor, very obvious dodge, Joe. Please engange what I say, less Gish Gallup. Thanks in advance.