Skip to comments.Surprises in sea anemone genome (More Vindication for Intelligent Design/Creation Science)
Posted on 07/06/2007 11:20:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
I'm certain that the song was "Intelligently Designed"
GGG, I think it’s fair to assume you are versed in Intelligent Design, yes? Would you mind answering a question that’s been nagging me?
What, exactly, are the practical goals of Intelligent Design?
So then you accept common ancestry for animals generally?
From “Predictions of Intelligent Design”
Information infusion and/or Front-loading
Informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found.
(One of the only ways to gain greater understanding of the abilities of chance and forces is to study them and test their limits. This prediction is one of the many reasons that research into contingency and forces, including natural selection and random mutation, is absolutely and indispensably necessary in the design paradigm.)
Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
That's a new one.
Hardly an original comparison; such comparisons are made every day about the places I mentioned. Not only are such comparisons made, they are afar more apt. Washington is full of Grecian temples housing statues of culture heroes. A US President declared Gettysburg to be consecrated and hallowed ground. Traditional cult activity takes place at Graceland -- processions, offerings made to the dead, the sale of mementos, etc.
Why, then, is Darwin's house alone among these examples a literal religious shrine?
(Aside: I'm glad you noticed he was only comparing it to religious shrines. Think back to middle school English: What do you call a comparison of two unlike things?)
==What, exactly, are the practical goals of Intelligent Design?
It would totally change the way we think about biology, origins, disease, etc.
We already think a thousand ways about these things, including ID. Nothing will change.
Geology is all wrong too - diamonds are really the tears of Jesus.
Many very smart Freepers keep telling me that my Intelligence can alter his DNA, and insure that he will adapt and survive.
HOW CAN I USE MY INTELLIGENCE TO ALTER HIS DNA?
Many Freepers tell me that the concept of evolution is false, and that his talents to eat were only obtained because some intelligence was able to tailor his abilities.
So, are Freepers lying to me and my Chameleon only has his inherited DNA abilities, or can I do something to alter his DNA to make him adapt better?
==Why, then, is Darwin’s house alone among these examples a literal religious shrine?
These statements are being made by hardcore materialists who have let their gaurd down (I thought the Dawkins’ quote was even better in terms of unmasking their religious devotion to their natural selection god). I wouldn’t have such a problem with it if the Darwinists allowed their so-called theory to be tested in the free market of scientific ideas. But as it stands now, the Church of Darwin is relying on the force of government to control the ideology of science. Indeed, I find this to be one of the most important aspects of the current war between ID/CS and the Church of Darwin.
What does that mean? Everything we are currently doing is wrong? Please be more specific.
There is a basically wrong assumption here, and reflects the bias of the investigator. Highly evolved does not necessarily mean highly complex. Sometimes simplification is the improvement over the previous highly complex organization.
Improved almost always beats out the primitive.
I do not think that “Intelligent Design” means what you think it means.
==HOW CAN I USE MY INTELLIGENCE TO ALTER HIS DNA?
Darwin on progress:
“After long reflection, I cannot avoid the conviction that no innate tendency to progressive development exists”
Charles Darwin, December 4 1872.
Letter to the American paleontologist Alpheus Hyatt.
I am referring to Darwin's idea that beneficial genetic mutations to a species are completely random, rather than an act of God.
Thunder is the angels bowling.
This (the present article) doesn't. This only makes sense as an argument for "front loading" if you first accept that animals ARE all related by common descent, which contradicts "Creation Science". If you reject common descent then this only shows that the "designer" reused code in some particular pattern. But a priori the designer might have reused code in any particular pattern, or multiple patterns, or no particular pattern.
And what would you have them do. Ignore the facts when they contradict the theory? This is the scientific process at work. Theories are constantly tested and when evidence supports a new theory then that is accepted.
How do you test intelligent design anyway?
Did you read my most recent posts? I was asking our smartest Freepers on how to apply the concept of Intelligent Design to best help my baby Chameleon alive in his new environment.
I learned from Wicca over 35 years ago, how I can cure a critter from an illness and keep it alive. Yes, I strongly believe (and know) that intelligence can be used to help a critter that is sick.
I WAS CURIOUS, IF YOU KNEW HOW TO DO THAT ALSO?
As I have said many time, I remain neutral on this issue, but demand that everyone keep their facts honest.
Finding fossils sorted in the strata according to density rather than in a pattern that supports descent with modification. That would be good evidence against evolution.
Yeah. I get the impression you're a special creationist type, i.e. one who thinks that most "kinds" of living things were separately created, but you keep posting these articles, like the present one, that only provide evidence of anything on the premise that common descent is true.
So I just wondered. Maybe I read you wrong and you do believe in common descent.
I don’t want to put words in their mouth, but I imagine that creationists would contend that the created kinds were frontloaded (complete with the capacity for variation) at the time of their creation.
Biologist also believe that the earliest living things (however they arose) had the capacity for variation.
I WANT the theory of "Intelligent Design" to be true!
You are right. I am a creationist. Not necessarily a YEC, but I don’t rule that out either (but either way, I’m most definitely a Young Creation Creationist). I have long been leaning towards the notion that God created the “kinds” and the rest is just variation within frontloaded genetic/epigenetic parameters.
“What, exactly, are the practical goals of Intelligent Design?”
To glorify the Creator. God.
Yes. Many do. But in the context, for instance, of proposing that a "horse kind" was "frontloaded" to produce, say, horses, zebras, asses and donkeys; or a "cat kind" to produce tabbies, leopards and lions.
By the logic of the present article, however, if you want to use it the way you are using it, you have to accept a single "animal kind" which produced everything from anemones to lizards to apes to humans. Do you?
Well, what it suggests is that 600 million-year-old organisms were similar in complexity to more “advanced” organisms that are current than they are to 3 billion-year-old organisms. Not sure why anyone would be surprised by that.
But what IS interesting (even if I can’t see how it is relevant to an ID discussion) is that vertebrates have removed far fewer introns than annelids and arthropods. I wouldn’t read too much into it, however: Such organisms (the little guys) have far fewer mitotic divisions (enlarging a given organism) per meiotic division (enabling sexual reproduction) than vertebrates. I could easily imagine how it gives them more opportunity to clean up the excesses, and maybe provides more evolutionary pressure to do so.
And by logical conclusion, every flaw in the original design, was intended?
There’s a big difference between “variation” and tracing all living things back to a single common ancestor.
Incidentally, I'm quite sure that it will "prove" meany anatomical/paleontological phylogenies very "wrong"... but only in the same sense that early explorer's maps were very, very "wrong."
==By the logic of the present article, however, if you want to use it the way you are using it, you have to accept a single “animal kind” which produced everything from anemones to lizards to apes to humans. Do you?
No, I do not. The article was written by evolutionists. Their interpretation is their own. I am only interested in the data, which is much more in keeping with the notion that the created kinds were frontloaded.
So, you now accept the concept of variation? That every critter, over time, will develope variations?
Shooting is too good for some people...
Yes, but I think the evidence points to said capacity for variation being limited by the frontloader.
That just proves the earth is really flat.
Those aren't flaws, they are design features < /microsoft>
==It’s actually kind of sad to see that this very interesting breakthrough is immediately used to score points in the ID vs. evolution vs. creationism debate.
But you have no problem with “breakthroughs” that claim to support Darwinian evolution?
>> this is completely contrary to what Charles Darwin himself expected; viz., that such complex regulatory functions developed in so short a period of time. <<
Uh, no. This all happened in the last fifth of organismal development. Nearly all changes among animals are primarily structural, and involve very minimal changes in cell chemistry. What the earliest multicellular organism represented was, essentially, a complete unit of metabolic functioning.
It’s like building with Legos. While I can construct legos into many different form, a Lego is a Lego is a Lego.\
The challenge that this creates for evolutionary theory is that it reminds evolutionists that they have accomplished almost nothing when they describe how, for instance, legos (cells) arranged into fish evolve into legos (cells) arranged into dinosaurs or legos (cells) arranged into monkeys. The tricky part is how legos (cells) appeared in the first place.
And that’s what the sciences of paleontology and anatomy have previously been nearly entirely useless in doing.
Once again, a very smart Freeper has demonstrated that magic is real and that my teachings from Wicca were true.
Yes, even humans were given a small protion of God's abilities, and if properly directed, that power can influence the life of another critter.
As I have said many time, I WANT the concept of "Intelligent Design" to be proven as a fact,
However, that will never happen until people stop spouting ignorance and begin to provide factual information to support the concept.
I said practical goals. Not spiritual. Unfortunately, GGG has not responded.
I responded in post #59
Did you see my follow up request?