For the Science Room, No Free Speech

The Chronicles Magazine ^ | Wednesday, December 28, 2005 | William Murchison

[A. Pole]

Scientists DO look for the rates of ERV insertions; they are a lot less common then mutations.

Do you have sources for this comparison?

"I doubt that such research (excluding any interraction between spermoplasma and egg) was done."

It has been.

Interesting. Could you list the sources, if it is not too much work?

[A. Pole]

"Why do you expect the directed variations to be obliged to see the future?"

In order to be useful they would have to be. The designer would need to know what to design for. Otherwise, the changes would be indistinguishable from random mutation.

It is strange what you are saying. Let me give the example - the new toxin enters the environment so:

Then the new generation of organisms get their DNA modified accordingly to provide the resistance and different species share the solutions.

Or random process of mutations has to take place until some lucky organisms gets it and than the descendants of this one organism are lucky to survive and take over. Other species have to do the same or die out.

Which is more efficient? Why the more efficient way would be prevented from being the norm? Mind you - this did not require knowing the future!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Let me give the example - the new toxin enters the environment so:

Then the new generation of organisms get their DNA modified accordingly to provide the resistance and different species share the solutions."

That's not what happens. The mutations are ALREADY there; those that have the right one will have resistance. Those that don't will die. There won't BE another generation if you dont have the mutation already. If some unknowable *designer* is going to change the DNA of the next generation after the toxin is introduced, it will be a generation too late.

" Which is more efficient?"

Random mutation plus selection.

"Mind you - this did not require knowing the future!"

Yes it did, because the example you used would not work. The designer has to put the resistance gene in BEFORE the toxin enters the environment.

[A. Pole]

Yes it did, because the example you used would not work. The designer has to put the resistance gene in BEFORE the toxin enters the environment.

There is another possibility - toxins can be completely new, but there can be some intelligent already existing mechanism for CREATING the new method of neutralising the toxin, SAVING this method in genetic library and SHARING it with other organisms.

It would be the analogy with the immunological system that can cope with the NEW antigens.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There is another possibility - toxins can be completely new, but there can be some intelligent already existing mechanism for CREATING the new method of neutralising the toxin, SAVING this method in genetic library and SHARING it with other organisms."

We already have a mechanism, it's called mutation. It's not an intelligent processes.

[A. Pole]

We already have a mechanism, it's called mutation.

Yes, "we have it". So should we stop considering other possibilities?

It's not an intelligent processes.

No. But what about process of creating the antibody to a new antigen? Do you consider it to be intelligent?

Hey, do you consider your own mind/brain functions to be intelligent? :)

[MEGoody]

I personally haven't seen any evidence to convince me that ID is a scientific theory.

Perhaps you haven't looked. But that is irrelevant to my point.

Just because YOU haven't seen any evidence that convinces YOU means that a mere statement that competing ideas exist cannot be made? Is that REALLY what you mean to communicate?