Actually, most software provides services, not simulations. It is routine, ordinary software that can self-evolve, too. One need not limit one's thinking to esoteric simulations to understand what software already accomplishes.
Posted on 08/30/2002 4:19:55 PM PDT by jennyp
That does not make me an atheist. It does make me a skeptic. As for inaction, you make assumptions, and you are incorrect.
Actually, most software provides services, not simulations. It is routine, ordinary software that can self-evolve, too. One need not limit one's thinking to esoteric simulations to understand what software already accomplishes.
Very good! Perhaps now you can understand the power of my analogy.
A future society would have to examine layers of buried cars very carefully to finally conclude that the slight enhancements to each model over time were implemented by intelligent designers, rather than resulted from the cars self-evolving.
It is easily deniable. For one thing, programs are always read and interpreted by a finite state machine. DNA is expressed in a chaotic fluid environment. There is no way to predict the exact expression of a DNA sequence.
You really do not know what you are talking about. Protein formation is strongly regulated. In fact the expression of genes is the basis of most research nowadays. Genes are very tightly controlled as is their protein production. Here's a very good example:
The entry of cells into the cell cycle from a quiescent state and the progression of cells around the cycle are precisely controlled events. This assures that cellular growth and the coordination of DNA synthesis with cell-size increase and cytokinesis are monitored and do not fall out of regulated synchrony. Once a cell progresses past a certain point in late G1, called the restriction point, it becomes irreversibly committed to entering the S phase and replicating its DNA (see Figure 13-29 ). Cyclins, cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdks), and the Rb protein are all elements of the control system that regulate passage through the restriction point. The ability of these proteins to check cell-cycle progression, and hold cells in quiescence or even lead cells to commit suicide unless conditions are appropriate, means that they can prevent cells from becoming cancerous. Altered regulation of expression of at least one cyclin as well as mutation of several proteins that negatively regulate passage through the restriction point can be oncogenic
From: Mutations Causing Loss of Cell Cycle Control .
You really need to read what you just wrote. Slowly and carefully.
Is your statement supposed to be a refutation? If you have one, then let's hear it, else your statement is just a very lame example of desperate rhetoric.
Cut the bluffing, let's hear the story, we have time.
Then viruses were discovered, objects that replicate, but lack full cellular organization.
Viruses do not self-replicate. They use the replication mechanism of the host. Interestingly, even though viruses are 99% of the way to being living organisms, in spite of all the attempts at mutating them, all the money spent studying them, not a single virus has ever become a self replicating organism. Shows really how hard it is for life to arise.
Anybody can read the Bible. All it takes to interpret it correctly is to have an open heart which many do not.
In regards to item 1, I responded with Cognitive Science.
An aspect of cognitive science is philosophy. Now sure, philosophy deals with religious implications, but it is not limited to material constraints either.
Oh and by the way, intelligent design theorists publish peer-reviewed articles under philosophy. (J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig are even in college text books)
Before you start to criticize IDers for only publishing in philosophy, remember – Darwin did not have a degree in biology or anything of the sort. Darwin’s only degree was in theology and he was a hired ‘naturalist’ aboard the H.M.S. Beagle.
Beyond this, mathematics is not bound by material constraints. Pi as an approximal value expressed as a rational number with a decimal fraction may be arbitrarily long (within the limits of the physical possible). This number, however, is not pi-in that sense, no human being have ever `seen' pi. Infinity (no beginning or end) could be argued impossible to exist in the material realm.
Morality is not a physical/material thing is it? Good is not a material is it?
Now in regards to item 2:
…the forensic scientist and the historian know going in, as a matter of mundane reality, that intelligent agents exist in the natural world who regularly kill/rape/rob people or who regularly become president/fight wars/start companies, but you want biologists to accept the existence of a specifically supernatural intelligent agent.
“…kill/rape/rob people… become president/fight wars/start companies” - See, now you are bringing morality into the conversation.
OK. You have continually brought this word supernatural into the conversation, and you are correct by noticing I have been avoiding ‘the word’. This is what intelligent design does and should do in my opinion. ID does not and should not specify a designer (as relating to biology) it should only determine design beyond natural explanations.
Design theory asserts the following:
(1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design.
(2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
(3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
(4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
“…both creationist and evolutionary theories make historical claims about past causal events, both theories offer causal explanations that do not explain by natural law. The theory of common descent, a central thesis of Darwin's Origin of Species, does not explain by natural law. Common descent explains by postulating hypothetical historical events (and a pattern of events) which, if actual, would explain a variety of presently observed data. The theory of common descent makes claims about what happened in the past-namely, that unobserved transitional organisms existed forming a genealogical bridge between presently existing life forms. Thus, on the theory of common descent, a postulated pattern of events, not a law, does the main explanatory work.” -Dewolf
ID makes no specific claims to the past, it simply looks at the empirical data and says, “look an extremely complex machine and software that is beyond our ability and natures ability to design”. It is true religious aspects can be drawn from this but so what… This potential for religious extrapolation does not make design theory a religious doctrine. At the same time a Darwinist can say, “look at the watch that nature built against all odds” and religious and philosophical aspects can be drawn from here as well.
For example - Stephen Jay Gould’s greatest hits:
Track 1 "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God. . . ."
Track 2 "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us."
Track 3 "Why do humans exist? . . . I do not think that any 'higher' answer can be given. . . . We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes-one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximal freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."
Track 4
Contrary to the popular "just-the-facts" stereotype of science, many scientific theories have larger ideological and religious implications. Origins theories in particular have unavoidable philosophical and religious overtones. Theories about where the universe, life, and humanity came from invariably affect our perspectives about human nature, morality, and beliefs about ultimate reality. As many prominent evolutionary biologists have made clear, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory does not maintain strict neutrality on such questions.
Apologize for the lengthy delay but this is just an interesting hobby for me when time permits.
... and I say the claim that it's beyond nature's ability to design hasn't been supported by any means. But we'll have to agree to disagree, since I feel we're sinking into quicksand. :-) Thanks for the reply.
Have you investigated any of the mathematical proofs against Evolution, yet? All DNA is encrypted in Base-4 math, after all, so the exploration of mathematical proofs and attacks would seem to make some sense...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.