American scientific enterprise can be leader to the world is because she can take on new paradigm again and again, openly argue on the controversy and fine tuned it, thus progress on it. So, in this new paradigm of intelligent design in biology, if American scientific community can't take the lead, then American will become the follower.
@Seigu007 You learn about the designer by the nature of the effects? How does that make sense, and how does that pwn anyone?
What effects? The majority of species going extinct? Diseases and design defects that cause miserable suffering and death? A lifeless void where this life "design" can only survive at all in one minuscule pinpoint in a universe supposedly created just for us?
@Seigu007 That comment is as empty of meaning and as ridiculous as your cult beliefs.
Cry creatard tears, stupidly wondering how you could ever have believed in magic.
If you aren't murdering people who work on the Sabbath, you are disobeying your invisible, magical friend. Are you wicked and sinful for disobeying a direct commandment, or are you aware, deep down, that it's absurd to believe in biblical nonsense?
@ndrthrdr1 Like a monkey petitioning to join a tribe you've come flinging your crapola and expecting hospitality. Have you consulted with the condo board's directors on owning primates in the building?
@ndrthrdr1 Dear Stooge, Convieniently distorting the facts, and omitting relevant information makes you a model God-hating anti-theist so kudo’s for helping me prove my point when I state that you God-Hating anti-theists are simpletons, and need to be treated as such. I am an expert in the care, and feeding of you fools and am obliged to help you where, and when you seek my guidance.
@Seigu007 You're obviously no expert in spelling, punctuation, grammar or logic, so it's good to hear that you're a (self-proclaimed) expert in at least that one area.
The more you religiotards talk, the more foolish you look.
@ndrthrdr1 It seems you have trouble grasping my infinite dominance over you like other witless Troglodytes that hate God. By the time I’m done with you, your rusty metal is going to end up even more rusty than before with more than just a hint of structural fracturing.
@alachabre You of all people should understand what Meyer is saying. When you design complex machines, you never even give a thought to "how in the world did that thing come about by all these little parts coming together by themselves, work in uniformity to perform a common function?!" You don't, because you or someone else designed it and put it together. How is that no acceptable? It takes more faith to believe that all the pieces came together by themselves than it does the opposite.
@TheBloodPardon Hi - Just because Ward wasn't eloquent, doesn't lend veracity to the position of his opponent (Meyer). Meyer speaks very eloquently and clearly describes his position... But his position is still built on a foundation of logical fallacy. In actual fact, this debate shouldn't really have taken place. There is no controversy in the veracity of Evolutionary Theory, and ID is not a scientific argument, as it is based on non-falsifiable premise'. I just wanted to point that out.
@ThatOneQuestion MAGIC NOBODY DUN IT Is not science either, in fact, it's not logic or anything.
And, "I don't know" is good enough. However, if the question is "How did life begin on it's own?" Then It's not good enough. You first have to show that life can begin on it's own.
That life comes from life is natural. That life comes from non life is not natural. It seems to me that you are the one who believes in fairy tales and the supernatural.
@ThatOneQuestion Kid....I like you more and more as you compliment me.
"We arn't the arrogant fucks...."
I haven't said that either. However, it would seem you are saying that matter itself is so special that it can invoke some sort of mysterious force on it's own in order to bring itself to life........well, of course, if science knew how this happened you may have a case. But since "I dunno" is good enough for you, then I shal take your faith in the past, on your words of faith, kiddo . :)
@gcnengineer You fucking simpleton. Abiogenesis is the leading scientific idea on the subject, and there are a number of convincing experiments that have and continue to demonstrate it.
Its not about finding something that sounds like what I want to hear, you fucking imbicile. Its all about VALIDATION and what you can prove.
I dont give a fuck what that is. If we can actually prove your specific flavor of a monotheistic Abrahamic god poofed life into being, well so be it. I might not agree with the shit this Magic Man of yours has done, but if thats what we find, then thats what we find.
I doubt you are so honest, and it seems to me that you are simply frightened of losing your "chosen of god" status. Fucking coward.
@ThatOneQuestion I see someone didn't take their medication this afternoon.
Leading? If a theory with no answer is your leading theory, it's no wonder you are so angry and foul, your entire case is based on a theory no scientist will write down and teach to high school students,.....for there is none with an answer.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!! Well no wonder you are so lost, you dont even know about the experiments! Ignorant fools talking about what they dont know... thats awesome.
Hide from the point, you fucking coward, go right ahead. I guess you are so fucking blinded by these scary words that you didn't actually see "VALIDATION" or the whole "what you can prove" bit, did ya?
Oh and by the way, intellectual insect, I'm "foul" because I see self-proclaimed "adults" pretending they have a fucking clue about what they are talking about while all they are doing is lying to my face.
You cant validate anything in your faith, thats why its called "faith", moron.
You can pretend everyone else operates on this blind faith of yours as well, but that would be deluding yourself.
You are a weak fool who needs a god to make sense of things. I pity you.
@TheSeventhSon: You arent fully listening to meyer. He plainly states that he agrees that random mutation both occurs and provides benefits for an organism
I am an engineer, a bioengineer, actually. If I were taught that biological systems were intelligently designed, it would do nothing to make me a better engineer. It would only deprive me of evolutionary theory which is something we can test. Meyer refuses to accept evolution as an unguided process, but evolution is all about random mutations that provide new, functional proteins that are advantageous for an organism.
Random mutation cannot explain the origins/source of intelligence. A mindless slime of mindless molecules will remain mindless and will not develop into coded life without some kind of a driving force redsiding outside or within it. Nor can natural selection (a mere survival guideline for molecules) explain the source of intelligence. A development process, evolution - is just a process. The process can explain the different types of eyes in different creatures, but not the eye as an instrument.
Random mutation doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, but intelligence really is up to the capacity of the brain which is governed by chemical reactions. Since genes are responsible for how everything works in your body, and since genes are susceptible to random mutation, random mutation can account for intelligence. Genes are just that, genes. So evolution can explain how genes developed over time.
Exactly, the point Meyer made about the list of scientists he has and that most of them happen to be engineers is irrelevant. As an aircraft engineer I don't even feel remotely qualified to even give my opinion on if biological systems are designed or not, that's a completely different field of science to what I'm studying. His point is null and void.
@geedup415 Me too. Richard Dawkins is much more eloquent than Ward and would probably destroy Meyer based on the fact that Meyer has really proposed nothing other than "I think I see a designer". That is not empirical data which is why it's not a scientific theory.
Yeah, too bad it's not going to happen. Would be cool, though, since Ward didn't do a good job at refuting Meyer's arguments. Like "happened by accident" (it doesn't) or "Cambrian explosion" (it was some hundred thousand or million years long which is only an explosion in geological terms). Meyer is also no scientist, he is just talking and not doing any lab work. I can't stand it when people repeat the same old "arguments" all the time.
NO IT"S NOT!!! and if you continue to say that I'll do everything to keep you from spreading your ideas
Scientists don't have agendas because they're not human...They don't care about money. And they definately don't e-mail each other about how to make people feel responsible for things that aren't really happening!
Ward kept defaulting back to "show me the designer". Its irrelevant bc the same is true for evolution. If you work back far enough you come to a point at which you must ask, where did the matter come from? the universe? life?
Forgive my "juvenile" mind. Please enlighten me concerning the "tests for matter" and what are these "things" of abiogenesis we know and have detected?
"I don't believe ID bc it involves things we don't know"
does science know everything? No? And u believe in it?:)
Do you see an invisible sky daddy running around creating things through magic?
That is what i mean by it involves things we dont know.
I KNOW you do see matter and energy creeating things every day though.
This is why ID is religion or philosophy at best and not science. Sciece does not delve into, and can not delve into, magical forces that shoot out of imaginary sky daddy fingers...
By saying we came from god is the same as saying rainbows come from god. both explain nothing.
If we followed the logic of ID then Psychology would say that mental disease is spirit posession & natural disasters happen because god is pissed off.
When you dont look for the mechanism cause and effect then you dont explain anything. ID looks for no mechanism.
Look at history, time and time again what god was responsible for, lack of understanding really, science found a natural mechanism for.... What makes you think ID is any different?
I think the point Ward was making with the question was that Meyer was not putting forth an testable claim- that the claim of intelligence is not something that can be verified in the material world through observation or experimentation.
Evolutionary theory does not answer questions about the begginning of life, or the universe- but rather the changes that occured in life on Earth. Scientific theories dealing with the other topics include abiogenesis and cosomology.
@9pt9 Evolution is the explanation for the change in allele frequency over time. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or of life, which are explained by the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Abiogenesis respectively. It is the same thing concerning the question of where the matter of the universe came from. As for the identity of designer, without it, the designer's role in the outcome of any experiment cannot be determined.
@topdogtomiii The designer's role in this case, is not at issue as much as a role at all. That is to say, there is no more importance in ID if there were a single, or a multitude of designers. Although I would agree you have a case in saying the big bang explains the origins of the universe, abiogenesis is yet to explain life origins.
@9pt9 Oh really?...thanks for correcting me..there was me listening to all those pesky scientists with all their IQ's and study when all I really needed was to listen to you...now it's all clear.
@pieter292 You're quite welcome. Can you ask the scientists for evidence showing how the human brain evolved over time in tiny steps from zero? Oh I forgot, this is evolution. You NEVER question evolution. It's a sham.
Atheism dies a little more every time stephen meyers speaks. Evolution was just demolished. Ward was abused in this debate all he could do was sit back and act like he didnt take it the evidence serious, make personal attacks, and try to misconstrue the evidence. Typical deception. His only mechanisms were ignorance, stupidity, pescism, and if every one believes in it its true. He had no scientiffic arguent or evidence.
@leeroynaggins - I dont know man, there seems to be more to it than that. I am fascinated how hard the atheist try to push evolution as the only thing that matters.
@TodaysThought It's like someone finding an orange seed,not knowing it is an orange seed. Then spending a year looking at that orange seed, studying its insides, outsides, the earth around it, where it may have come from. They say, I believe this is an orange seed and this is the evidence. Then someone comes by and in a week says I think it is an apricot seed, because I looked at the shape and they look the same. If you know it is an orange, you fight. Those who know the evidence fight, not aths
@cemarz - fight what? I don't think your analogy works. I don't think Meyer is saying that its not an orange seed or that it is an apricot, I think he saying when you look closely at the orange seed and the orange itself, it appears that the origin of the information in the DNA is not explained by the seed itself or evolution. He argues that intelligence is the only known source of information that we observe. Science makes inference all the time.
@cemarz - Evolution itself is based on inference of an unobservable reality. I think this whole debate is political, not scientific. And don't start hitting me with the evidence for evolution, I see it and accept it myself. Meyer accepts that things evolve. Just not how they evolve.
What blows my mind is why don't all things (biological creators) evolve? Also the quantum level of all this...
@TodaysThought You say biological creators like it is a fact. Not only that, but, that you know that one wouldn't evolve.
As for my first post. I was referring to your atheist comment. Explaining why someone would argue as people do for evolution. There is a full range of understandings. Deep and complex for it. Not for ID. ID picks and chooses crumbs from evolutions cookie jar. If you know what they're not eating, you'll talk. And don't single out atheists. It's ridiculous and unfounded.
@cemarz - are you saying that you have not seen the evidence for life forms that do no evolve? Its out there... but thats not what I'm on about, Atheist deserve our scrutiny. They are disingenuous
@TodaysThought No I don't know about any lifeforms that don't evolve. And I'm only slightly intrigued. It means nothing, and would be next to impossible to prove. If you showed me a life-form that has never has and can not evolve, we're talking. Though, no such thing exists.
I have heard the argument of irreducible complexity and that's been proven wrong. So I hope you don't refer to that.
Atheists are not disingenuous, people are. All people. Don't try to pull that phrasing bit on me.
@TodaysThought Bullshit! Just because there are more theists in the audience than non-theists doesn't mean anything. Meyer has NO EMPIRICAL DATA or peer-reviewed scientific papers whatsoever to back up his nonsense claims.
@TodaysThought Are you sure you want me to answer? Ok, here goes. In regards to the claim of irreducible complexity and the bacterial flagellum, the b flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). Cont.....
@TodaysThought One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins.....
@TodaysThought ....are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favourite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999). What about peer-review? There are more peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology published every WEEK than there are for the whole of ID. Why? BECAUSE IT IS NOT SCIENCE!!!
@TodaysThought And when I say that ID has some peer-reviewed backup I am being extremely generous. Some papers have even been reviewed by philosophers etc.
@TodaysThought Are you mental? I think you'll find that flat earth theories were around a long time before peer-reviewed modern science appeared you moron. Creationism is the modern equivalent of flat-earthism. Meyer and his deluded cronies make bold assertions, claim that they're scientific but have no way of testing (let alone proving) them, which is totally UNscientific. Prove me wrong. I guarantee that ANY "scientific" claim they make I can refute. Try me.
@TodaysThought I said "scientific" claims that THEY make. NOBODY knows how life started. There are some great theories but making a leap from there to "god or a designer did it" is a huge logical fallacy. That is the great thing about the scientific method because it never makes that mistake. Why do we have sex? Sorry, I don't quite grasp the grammar of your question. Fine tuning? Hmmm...I think you'll find that life is fine-tuned for existence in the universe. cont....
@TodaysThought ...cont The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos. We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity....
@TodaysThought ...would make life impossible. Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes. If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it? How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgement call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument. The fine-tuning claim is weakened...
@TodaysThought ...by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window...
@TodaysThought ...for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible. 6.Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000)....
@TodaysThought ...In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it. DNA? This question is based on some major misconceptions. Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer. Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply...
@TodaysThought ...any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information. Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, ...
@TodaysThought ...such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment. Life may have been seeded here by a comet or meteor. We may never know. Anything else?
@crabbit101 - And would you stop with all this copy paste BS. You did not even answer one of TT questions. All you did was google and rant. Most BS and assumptions of the egg heads you rip it from. I found them all.
And yes, life may have been seeded here and come here in one way or another. Probably did. Life may not even require anorganic compound.
@crabbit101 - oh would you just stop this stupid shit. There is no evidence that everything is made of parts. You a-hole atheist need to get a F grip. Stop arguing shit that make no sense. You sound so emotional ("prove me wrong", bla bla bla.). Lets get behind this BS and start making some sense. The more with think we understand the more don't understand what reality IS.
@BeatleEDs What the fuck are you gibbering about? Making sense? How about using a scientific basis for arguments and not creationism disguised in a lab coat? Just because it doesn't make sense to you and you don't understand it is precisely why pimps like Meyer and Behe have the air of respectability they do. They blind those who don't understand science with bullshit pseudoscientific claims. Do you think it's a coincidence that they have no respect within the scientific community?
@crabbit101 - "How about using a scientific basis for arguments and not creationism disguised in a lab coat? "
WTF are you talking about? I mean all these responses. Proves my point. You are emotional. I dont give two shits about Meyer or you and you BS. Anything and everything is possible. Thats the only thing I go by.
@BeatleEDs Theists constantly make arguments from ignorance and incredulity. "You can't tell me how we got here, therefore it must have been god" is the usual shite.
well if you listen to Meyer and realize what he's saying doesn't make sense, in a scientific sense, then you realize that he's just spouting bullshit.
@TodaysThought Hi - Just because Ward wasn't eloquent, doesn't lend veracity to the position of his opponent (Meyer). Meyer speaks very eloquently and clearly describes his position... But his position is still built on a foundation of logical fallacy. In actual fact, this debate shouldn't really have taken place. There is no controversy in the veracity of Evolutionary Theory, and ID is not a scientific argument, as it is based on non-falsifiable premise'. I just wanted to point that out.
@galactica0775 That creation needs a creator. Meyer's idea of intelligent design is this "A 2 thousand year old book is the foundation for a 15 billion year old universe", this is the same mindset as Kurt Wise "...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." this is opposite of the scientific method and is not worthy of respect.
@TodaysThought That is precisely WHY you felt that Peter was being "destroyed" by Meyer; because you were new to it. Hopefully after a year you are no longer 'new' to the ID debate and can now see that contrary to his ability to "sound" intelligent, Stephens agruements fail miserably. If not, hang in there, you wil.
2) Mutation is caused by an error in the copying of genetic code (except with controlled mutation in the immune system, which is not passed to the offspring).
3) If I encrypt a file with a non-reversible algorithm (e.g. change every second letter to 'a'), information is lost. Without the original, you can't work out what was originally in the file.
4&5) At the north pole, all directions become south. You eventually run out of information.
1) if you can't find examples, it's just your ignorance to blame
2) mutation may be caused with no "error" in the copying of the genetic code. nucleotide T 3 sudden bond bridges due to raditation, where the pair is deleted (just an example).
3) but the genetic code is not an algorythm.(even though a lot are trying to find one).
4&5) reach northpole and eventually you will figure out that a south pole must exist in order to make sense the northpole.
"People who actually have to build things are much more sensitive to the case for design than [those] who can simply wave their hands and claim "mutation did it!"".
As one of those people who actually have to build things, I agree. For how many years have proponents of macro evolution yelled "you can't just say God did it!", all the while expecting everyone to swallow the just-so story that "mutation did it!". Too long.
This was admittedly my mistake. The catch cry is usually "but with enough time...!" rather than "mutation did it". Yes mutation does happen, but what does it do?
I'm a computer science major, I have been recently working on information compression, I personally have experimented with the concept of information loss and gain. If mutation actually corrupts and destroys the information in genetics, no amount of time helps.
If you only travel north, you will never reach the south pole.
1) biology is to complex to put it simply in simple math notions.
2)Mutations happen - fact, you even have genes who control any mutation that might happen in your genome (and this happens every single second)
3)"corrupts" and "destroys" the information, is a line that does not exist in biology.3.1- "corrupt"!?!?! 3.2.- information might be deleted or changed, there is no "destruction" of info.
4) time is related to number of generations
5) keep going north and round the globe and you hit sp
Instead of attacking evolution you should try to prove creationism or intelligent design.
Also, please name one evolutionary biologist that claims that "mutation did it".
Furthermore, please provide evidence that god did it. If you provide scientific evidence then the proponents of evolution will have to believe you. No such evidence has been provided therefore we see the lack of acceptance of an unproven claim.
LOL, is Meyer on crack? I'm studying computer science and it sounds like he's not talking about biological sciences but, something defined... moreso an assertion because, actual evidence is evident when Meyer's is just using a lie and straight out assertion.
All you have to do to understand the ID movement is to examine their DNA. (and follow the money) The ID movement, and the Creation - ooops, I meant Discovery Institute absolutely have dogmatic, fundamentalist evangelists as their granddaddies. In other words, they are still sneaky, superstitious rattlesnakes - they've just evolved to be even more sneaky with all this ID crap.
"running down informationally". gene duplications increase the actual quantity of the information. gene duplications are very common. once you have 2 copies of a gene, you have a spare one that can "run wild" with mutations and add totally novel information without any ill effect. see nylonase =) duplication followed by a frame shift mutation, and some subsequent replacement mutations.
". gene duplications increase the actual quantity of the information."
A beneficial point mutation in duplicated dna is observed but the overall effect of point mutations within any dna is genome degradation. read "genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome" by sanford. You're missing the point. A. it's very rare B. overall effect is genome entropy.
not sure i get what you mean by entropy, since the dna does not at all violate entropy (energy is added during the copying process - thats how it works). second, more than 100 mutations from the second any human is conceived seems not very rare to me. Then during cell divisions you take on more mutations. The only ones that are passed on are the ones in gametes. entropy just doesnt apply. if you mean "fitness" of the gene, that is only determined by the selective pressures. most are neutral.
entropy is the loss of information within any system, you have the physics def., this is about information. See the comments in "genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome" in the amazon book review page. It's a book.
see: nylonase, and tell me how it has "information" "loss" according to your definitions. new, novel gene which does a brand new function AND is an increase in size of the genome. also see italian wall lizards. new functioning organ in a macro-organism caused by genetic mutation (we know this because we put the lizards there and 30 years later those non-native lizards have a new organ, different from the parent stock)
loss is it's losing it's protein directing functions due to mutations
There's several facets to this that make it near impossible for beneficial results due to ran mutation/natselec to cause change. You have real life heredity not being one for one due to environment, good mutation swamped by bad and near neutral mutations and more points.
The examples you gave were pre programmed in some way which isn't elaborated on in the ref. I gave. Read the reviews it'll explain.
actually any mutation within the coding section of a gene, unless it removes an amino acid coding by adding a premature stop code, or its a deletion, doesnt "remove" anything. it changes which amino acid is coded, which MODIFIES the protein produced. and the examples i gave are both valid. you decided they were preprogrammed but you give no evidence. nylonase was created by a gene duplication and a subsequent frame shift mutation. new novel gene, new novel enzyme and new quantity of information.
and "gene info" is not very descriptive. "gene info" as in the length of the gene? and let me guess, if i ask you what a "kind" is, you cant be specific either :)
"information is 'gene info'" is like saying "sandwich is 'bread sandwich'". simply is of no use since the word is in the definition. "whats the sky? oh, its the sky we see around us". totally useless :)
Maybe something different is going on in junk dna than we know of, but it's definately not random muts. It can't be, and this is what the book is about. Gene info as in gene sequences which benefit survival. It's not length it's info. Does a gene give info or not? Come on. You have to actually read the reference there's no way you have with these questions. Your description of protein changes aren't anything different than what I said. Actually read it and this'll be easier.
you just dont answer the question "what is information" by saying "info". you realize nylonase IS a mutation (we know what gene was duplicated, and we know where the frame shift mutation happened in the copy of the gene, and we know the function of the new gene, and we know its a beneficial trait) and nylonase is beneficial for survival. and as for junk dna, an experiment removed million letters of junk dna and the mouse was as healthy as non-modified mice. so it seems it doesnt do anything.
"humbly offered ... that we were created by a special creation, by God."
and said the earth is "Between 5[,000] and 100,000" years old
thats science :) inject god and reject accepted dates (which by the way, it is by all known physics (including the field of thermodynamics) for the earth to be anything shy of 10+ million years with no radioactive decay...which there is so its billions - and radiometric dating, and h:h1 ratio of our sun point to 4.5 or so. :) science ftw
and, as a scientist, he should know better than thinking he can claim God using magic created everything by a non-natural process even if he proved evolution to be incorrect. that is a purely non-natural, and hence non-scientific claim. he can believe that all he wants, but it cannot influence your science work. i might actually read the book but $20 seems a bit high for a paper weight. to his credit, 2 papers published on the subject but neither paper can make the conclusion that god did it
and the number of papers which show specific mutations increasing the survival capability of different organisms, to put it into perspective, are dozens or hundreds. if he is right, keep publishing. vindicate your ideas! the idea that our mitochondria were separate organisms which were "consumed and integrated" by other organisms and are now part of all eukaryotes was unpopular. but the science was good and is now accepted by biologists across the board. but papers > answersingenesis book sales
It seems as if he's jumping the gun to you but he's allowed to infer whatever he wants this book doesn't get peer reviewed. This is a problem I see with scientists. There's no dilemma here anymore than dawkins has one, even typing this seems like a waste of time. This is one of the top geneticists in the world presenting a very good case and this book is ignored for four years, he's more than capable of having his faith and his science. I didn't buy it either read the reviews
Information is data. Any arrangmeent of objects is composed of parts which we qualtify and qualify in informational terms. For example "Information Theory" from Wiki...
"is a branch of applied mathematics and electrical engineering involving the quantification of information. Historically, information theory was developed to find fundamental limits on compressing and reliably storing and communicating data. "
The physical world and all that is it is universally related- therefore ID treats all things as information. Information theory uses "bits" as its standard unit of information.
Nylonase is a misnomer. The enzyme doesn't digest nylon, but rather it digests some chemical used to make nylon. It's relatively easy to find proteins that do simple hydrolysis reactions, so the hubbub over this one and its relevance (or lack thereof) to evolution is very much overblown.
Nylonase refers to the enzymes used to break down byproducts of nylon 6 (according to wikipedia)
It's not that it breaks down nylon exactly, but the byproducts of it, which are man made. The releveance to evolution, as i'm sure you know, is that there was a, or many, mutation(s) that helped the organism adapt to the environment.
The argument of ID as far as the mutational dimension of evolution, is that there aren't enough probabilistic resources in geological time, to purchase the kind of specified complexity found in living things. This is like saying some intelligence had to match the organism in space/time with the required fitness landscapes and generous factors. Physics argues for a multi-universe theory that makes evolution more probable but there is no evidence for this, nor a mechanism capable or producing it.
Meyers would be more than happy to. But I don't think Dawkins or Hitchens would have the guts to defend evolution on scientific grounds. They have no interest in science. They only know how to rail against religion.
huh?? you ARE aware that dawkins is a biologist right?? they wouldnt have the guts?? ive never heard anyone say something like that about chris hitchens; the worlds most abrasive polemic... further more, hitchens and dawkins are now (or were on) cross country tours debating all comers on the issue.. neither have shied away from a debate over the issue EVER to the best of my knowledge.. they just wouldnt.. maybe im misunderstanding you..
dawkins... i think he was or is a professor of biology at a major university.
i'm sure you're right and that has no interest in science. that connection between between being a biologist and having an interest in science is non-existence.
yeah sure...
besides they haven't shown any actual science behind ID. they've made arguments for it but our world has been based on testable hypothesis for 100s of years.
.... Gut? Have you ever listened to Dawkins in a debate. He doesn't give debates to b.s.. His reason is that it gives them a foot in the door and gives them credibility that doesn't have.
Dawkins refuses to debate ID proponents because it would give them credibility they don't deserve - eh? Yeah right.
But of course, he spend most of his time writing articles and popular books against ID and its supporters. He has no problem with that! But when it comes to meeting his opponents face to face, he....er....does not want to give them credibility. Very brave of him *sneer*
But obviously the very bad mutations won't be passed on because individuals with bad genes are very unlikely to produce healthy offspring (or any offspring at all for that matter). So bad mutations will appear frequently but rarely will they become prolific within a species, so there will ultimately be no downhill slope. Only the good genes will become prolific, since individuals with good mutations will be more likely to produce lots of healthy offspring. That's how natural selection works...
Peter Ward isnt very smart.
iSiNiCaL 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
American scientific enterprise can be leader to the world is because she can take on new paradigm again and again, openly argue on the controversy and fine tuned it, thus progress on it. So, in this new paradigm of intelligent design in biology, if American scientific community can't take the lead, then American will become the follower.
yohanesmalaysia 3 months ago in playlist More videos from djarm67
Comment removed
yohanesmalaysia 3 months ago in playlist More videos from djarm67
2:12 You can actually pinpoint the moment the atheist gets pwned
Seigu007 3 months ago
@Seigu007 You learn about the designer by the nature of the effects? How does that make sense, and how does that pwn anyone?
What effects? The majority of species going extinct? Diseases and design defects that cause miserable suffering and death? A lifeless void where this life "design" can only survive at all in one minuscule pinpoint in a universe supposedly created just for us?
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1 cry
Seigu007 1 month ago
@Seigu007 That comment is as empty of meaning and as ridiculous as your cult beliefs.
Cry creatard tears, stupidly wondering how you could ever have believed in magic.
If you aren't murdering people who work on the Sabbath, you are disobeying your invisible, magical friend. Are you wicked and sinful for disobeying a direct commandment, or are you aware, deep down, that it's absurd to believe in biblical nonsense?
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1 Like a monkey petitioning to join a tribe you've come flinging your crapola and expecting hospitality. Have you consulted with the condo board's directors on owning primates in the building?
Seigu007 1 month ago
@Seigu007 You believe that monkeys petition to join tribes?
You believe that I am seeking hospitality?
You believe that I live in a condo?
You believe that I own primates?
Your delusional thinking is showing.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1 Dear Stooge, Convieniently distorting the facts, and omitting relevant information makes you a model God-hating anti-theist so kudo’s for helping me prove my point when I state that you God-Hating anti-theists are simpletons, and need to be treated as such. I am an expert in the care, and feeding of you fools and am obliged to help you where, and when you seek my guidance.
Seigu007 1 month ago
@Seigu007 You're obviously no expert in spelling, punctuation, grammar or logic, so it's good to hear that you're a (self-proclaimed) expert in at least that one area.
The more you religiotards talk, the more foolish you look.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1 It seems you have trouble grasping my infinite dominance over you like other witless Troglodytes that hate God. By the time I’m done with you, your rusty metal is going to end up even more rusty than before with more than just a hint of structural fracturing.
Seigu007 1 month ago
Ok, I'm an engineer, and I'm throwing in against Meyer, because his work is not robust and I won't accept his design.
alachabre 6 months ago
@alachabre You of all people should understand what Meyer is saying. When you design complex machines, you never even give a thought to "how in the world did that thing come about by all these little parts coming together by themselves, work in uniformity to perform a common function?!" You don't, because you or someone else designed it and put it together. How is that no acceptable? It takes more faith to believe that all the pieces came together by themselves than it does the opposite.
1222iceman 5 months ago
@1222iceman Is there a cogent argument in there somewhere?
alachabre 5 months ago
@alachabre Yep its pretty clear there. You sound like Ward when responding to Meyer and that's not a counter argument either.
1222iceman 5 months ago
Wow, this discovery institute guy is a moron.
jib1000 7 months ago
Was this debate in a church or what
MrLuiS3rd 7 months ago
how the hell is ID not antropocentric driwel?
DNA looks like it was designed by a software engineer. therefore the superengineer did it.
tippi toeing around the peer reviewed, DUPLiCATED experiment question... geezus!
EsenHanIm 7 months ago
4:52 Rephrased: "Did any of you brainwashed hillbillies unzombify yourself tonight?" Noooooo! LOL!
sownzgr8 8 months ago
Wow Peter Ward really needs to stfu
EDIT: i really want to beat his ass
TheBloodPardon 10 months ago
@TheBloodPardon Hi - Just because Ward wasn't eloquent, doesn't lend veracity to the position of his opponent (Meyer). Meyer speaks very eloquently and clearly describes his position... But his position is still built on a foundation of logical fallacy. In actual fact, this debate shouldn't really have taken place. There is no controversy in the veracity of Evolutionary Theory, and ID is not a scientific argument, as it is based on non-falsifiable premise'. I just wanted to point that out.
Vortex42 9 months ago
Wow Peter Ward really needs to stfu
TheBloodPardon 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Intelligent Design will destroy the myth of EVOLUTION.
algadykhalifa 1 year ago
"ID" is nothing more than a copout for research and understanding.
All of Meyer's arguments fail horribly under the mildest scrutiny. Saying 'an intelligent designer best explains X" is not an explanation or inquiry.
"ID" is dieing, and not a minute too soon.
judoyodan 1 year ago
Peter Ward "show me the designer" Lame. Show me the working valid abiogenesis theory Peter.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer Okay, so "I dont know" isn't good enough for you.... what are you going to say in response?
"MAGIC MAN DUN IT!!!" Is not science, little one.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion MAGIC NOBODY DUN IT Is not science either, in fact, it's not logic or anything.
And, "I don't know" is good enough. However, if the question is "How did life begin on it's own?" Then It's not good enough. You first have to show that life can begin on it's own.
That life comes from life is natural. That life comes from non life is not natural. It seems to me that you are the one who believes in fairy tales and the supernatural.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer Sure, kid, whatever you say. No matter how you try to justify or rationalize it, YOU are the insure fool invoking magic.
"I dont know" is a fine answer, especially given how limited we are in just about everything.
We arn't the arrogant fucks trying to say we are the "chosen" of some Magic Man out of the entire universe. What a fucking ego.
Get over yourself and grow up, kid.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion Kid....I like you more and more as you compliment me.
"We arn't the arrogant fucks...."
I haven't said that either. However, it would seem you are saying that matter itself is so special that it can invoke some sort of mysterious force on it's own in order to bring itself to life........well, of course, if science knew how this happened you may have a case. But since "I dunno" is good enough for you, then I shal take your faith in the past, on your words of faith, kiddo . :)
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer How much of a fucking moron are you?
Show me where non-Young Earth Creationist fucktards actually demonstrate this bullshit magic you are talking about, THEN you can make your claim.
Its funny how you retards keep trying to say we have as much faith as you do, just to make yourself feel better. How fucking pathetic.
What amuses me more is that you mentally masturbate over the fact that we dont know everything, but then assert YOU know it all. Nice job, dumbfuck.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
No fucking shit we dont know how the universe began, you fucking simpleton, we havn't even gotten a human beyond our own god damn moon!!
Are you really this intellectually dishonest and retarded normally, or is this a special occasion for you to defend ID?
Stupid fucking idiot. Use your brain.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion We say you have faith because you have no known theory of abiogenesis, yet you believe it is the answer. Takes very few brains.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer You fucking simpleton. Abiogenesis is the leading scientific idea on the subject, and there are a number of convincing experiments that have and continue to demonstrate it.
Its not about finding something that sounds like what I want to hear, you fucking imbicile. Its all about VALIDATION and what you can prove.
God damn, you really are fucking stupid.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
What I actually want to hear is the honest truth.
I dont give a fuck what that is. If we can actually prove your specific flavor of a monotheistic Abrahamic god poofed life into being, well so be it. I might not agree with the shit this Magic Man of yours has done, but if thats what we find, then thats what we find.
I doubt you are so honest, and it seems to me that you are simply frightened of losing your "chosen of god" status. Fucking coward.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion I see someone didn't take their medication this afternoon.
Leading? If a theory with no answer is your leading theory, it's no wonder you are so angry and foul, your entire case is based on a theory no scientist will write down and teach to high school students,.....for there is none with an answer.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer A "theory with no answers"???
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!! Well no wonder you are so lost, you dont even know about the experiments! Ignorant fools talking about what they dont know... thats awesome.
Hide from the point, you fucking coward, go right ahead. I guess you are so fucking blinded by these scary words that you didn't actually see "VALIDATION" or the whole "what you can prove" bit, did ya?
Fucking idiot.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Oh and by the way, intellectual insect, I'm "foul" because I see self-proclaimed "adults" pretending they have a fucking clue about what they are talking about while all they are doing is lying to my face.
You cant validate anything in your faith, thats why its called "faith", moron.
You can pretend everyone else operates on this blind faith of yours as well, but that would be deluding yourself.
You are a weak fool who needs a god to make sense of things. I pity you.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
The list of 600 is useless. Talk Origins has thousands of people named 'Steve' that have more than the 600 list.
ThieleM 1 year ago
Of course you'll get engineers to sign up for ID, that's how they see the world.
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
Oh, so the mutation is running downhill...
Why doesn't the designer jump in and make some adjustments??
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
Courage and Cowardice.
TheFreebourne 1 year ago
Ward appears drunk, and almost intentionally resembles Steve Martin
harvkeitel 1 year ago
hahaha i dont notice. Now that i see it tho it makes it even harder for me to take him seriously lol
glabblegill 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon: You arent fully listening to meyer. He plainly states that he agrees that random mutation both occurs and provides benefits for an organism
glabblegill 2 years ago
I am an engineer, a bioengineer, actually. If I were taught that biological systems were intelligently designed, it would do nothing to make me a better engineer. It would only deprive me of evolutionary theory which is something we can test. Meyer refuses to accept evolution as an unguided process, but evolution is all about random mutations that provide new, functional proteins that are advantageous for an organism.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
Random mutation cannot explain the origins/source of intelligence. A mindless slime of mindless molecules will remain mindless and will not develop into coded life without some kind of a driving force redsiding outside or within it. Nor can natural selection (a mere survival guideline for molecules) explain the source of intelligence. A development process, evolution - is just a process. The process can explain the different types of eyes in different creatures, but not the eye as an instrument.
johnnyone9 2 years ago
Random mutation doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, but intelligence really is up to the capacity of the brain which is governed by chemical reactions. Since genes are responsible for how everything works in your body, and since genes are susceptible to random mutation, random mutation can account for intelligence. Genes are just that, genes. So evolution can explain how genes developed over time.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
Exactly, the point Meyer made about the list of scientists he has and that most of them happen to be engineers is irrelevant. As an aircraft engineer I don't even feel remotely qualified to even give my opinion on if biological systems are designed or not, that's a completely different field of science to what I'm studying. His point is null and void.
MusicHypno 2 years ago
I would love to see Stephen Meyer debate Richard Dawkins.
geedup415 2 years ago 4
@geedup415 Me too. Richard Dawkins is much more eloquent than Ward and would probably destroy Meyer based on the fact that Meyer has really proposed nothing other than "I think I see a designer". That is not empirical data which is why it's not a scientific theory.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
Yeah, too bad it's not going to happen. Would be cool, though, since Ward didn't do a good job at refuting Meyer's arguments. Like "happened by accident" (it doesn't) or "Cambrian explosion" (it was some hundred thousand or million years long which is only an explosion in geological terms). Meyer is also no scientist, he is just talking and not doing any lab work. I can't stand it when people repeat the same old "arguments" all the time.
Fragenzeichenplatte 2 years ago
@geedup415
A+++! It would be an absolute slaughter. Richard Dawkins is almost as unsystematic and intellectually dishonest as Peter Ward is.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
This guyWard is everything but scientist.
levonet33 2 years ago
True!
geedup415 2 years ago
Evolution is a communist ideology.
levonet33 2 years ago
NO IT'S NOT.
gotnatas 2 years ago
NO IT"S NOT!!! and if you continue to say that I'll do everything to keep you from spreading your ideas
Scientists don't have agendas because they're not human...They don't care about money. And they definately don't e-mail each other about how to make people feel responsible for things that aren't really happening!
tchristian04 2 years ago
evolution is a theory no more no less
imis23 2 years ago
DO YOU KNOW WHAT A "THEORY" EVEN IS???
gotnatas 2 years ago
Ward kept defaulting back to "show me the designer". Its irrelevant bc the same is true for evolution. If you work back far enough you come to a point at which you must ask, where did the matter come from? the universe? life?
9pt9 2 years ago 2
9pt9
Im curious, do you see matter?
Do you see god?
SHOW ME THE DESIGNER!!!
GIVE ME A TEST FOR GOD!!
True, no one knows how the universe began, however, we have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for god.
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
Tmonkey: " do I see matter?"
yes, tiny units of electrical energy demonstrating mind boggling organization and complexity.
"do I see God?"
no: I see the inescapable conclusion that all matter is INTELLIGETLY DESIGNED. So God is logically inferred.
You see non empirical theories of abiogenesis and believe them on faith. The same way I believe in God.
9pt9 2 years ago
What god are you inferring? Pantheism? Allah? YWH?
I believe in abiogenesis because the theory is composed of things we know and have detected.
I dont beleive in intelligent design because it involves things we dont know and cant detect...
Your mind is so jouvenile as to suppose everything needs some kind of mind behind it.... Do you see gods finger coming out of magnets?
"This is terribly complex"... "Therefore my brand of god exists"... You are a joke.
We have tests for matter.
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
Forgive my "juvenile" mind. Please enlighten me concerning the "tests for matter" and what are these "things" of abiogenesis we know and have detected?
"I don't believe ID bc it involves things we don't know"
does science know everything? No? And u believe in it?:)
9pt9 2 years ago
Do you see an invisible sky daddy running around creating things through magic?
That is what i mean by it involves things we dont know.
I KNOW you do see matter and energy creeating things every day though.
This is why ID is religion or philosophy at best and not science. Sciece does not delve into, and can not delve into, magical forces that shoot out of imaginary sky daddy fingers...
By saying we came from god is the same as saying rainbows come from god. both explain nothing.
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
If we followed the logic of ID then Psychology would say that mental disease is spirit posession & natural disasters happen because god is pissed off.
When you dont look for the mechanism cause and effect then you dont explain anything. ID looks for no mechanism.
Look at history, time and time again what god was responsible for, lack of understanding really, science found a natural mechanism for.... What makes you think ID is any different?
Or am I just demon posessed?
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
I think the point Ward was making with the question was that Meyer was not putting forth an testable claim- that the claim of intelligence is not something that can be verified in the material world through observation or experimentation.
Evolutionary theory does not answer questions about the begginning of life, or the universe- but rather the changes that occured in life on Earth. Scientific theories dealing with the other topics include abiogenesis and cosomology.
InterludetoPeace 2 years ago
@9pt9 Evolution is the explanation for the change in allele frequency over time. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or of life, which are explained by the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Abiogenesis respectively. It is the same thing concerning the question of where the matter of the universe came from. As for the identity of designer, without it, the designer's role in the outcome of any experiment cannot be determined.
topdogtomiii 1 year ago
@topdogtomiii The designer's role in this case, is not at issue as much as a role at all. That is to say, there is no more importance in ID if there were a single, or a multitude of designers. Although I would agree you have a case in saying the big bang explains the origins of the universe, abiogenesis is yet to explain life origins.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@9pt9 No it's fucking not the same you moron...there is proof for one,none for the other
pieter292 5 months ago
@pieter292 Proof? no. There is some evidence for evolution but it doesn't at all fit the theory. Pure conjecture. Sorry :(
9pt9 5 months ago
@9pt9 Oh really?...thanks for correcting me..there was me listening to all those pesky scientists with all their IQ's and study when all I really needed was to listen to you...now it's all clear.
pieter292 5 months ago
@pieter292 You're quite welcome. Can you ask the scientists for evidence showing how the human brain evolved over time in tiny steps from zero? Oh I forgot, this is evolution. You NEVER question evolution. It's a sham.
9pt9 5 months ago
@9pt9 Scientists question it all the time...that's how they know it's fucking true!...it must be hard being that dumb...goodbye and good luck.
pieter292 5 months ago
@pieter292 Good luck to you too.
9pt9 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pieter292 Sore loser. Are you mad that your atheist pal got ass raped?
Seigu007 3 months ago
Atheism dies a little more every time stephen meyers speaks. Evolution was just demolished. Ward was abused in this debate all he could do was sit back and act like he didnt take it the evidence serious, make personal attacks, and try to misconstrue the evidence. Typical deception. His only mechanisms were ignorance, stupidity, pescism, and if every one believes in it its true. He had no scientiffic arguent or evidence.
JGULIZIA3545 2 years ago
Wow, I'm new to the ID debate but this guy for ID is destroying Peter.
TodaysThought 2 years ago 15
@TodaysThought
Because he's a skilled public speaker and paid public relations expert...
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
@leeroynaggins - I dont know man, there seems to be more to it than that. I am fascinated how hard the atheist try to push evolution as the only thing that matters.
TodaysThought 1 year ago
@TodaysThought It's like someone finding an orange seed,not knowing it is an orange seed. Then spending a year looking at that orange seed, studying its insides, outsides, the earth around it, where it may have come from. They say, I believe this is an orange seed and this is the evidence. Then someone comes by and in a week says I think it is an apricot seed, because I looked at the shape and they look the same. If you know it is an orange, you fight. Those who know the evidence fight, not aths
cemarz 1 year ago
@cemarz - fight what? I don't think your analogy works. I don't think Meyer is saying that its not an orange seed or that it is an apricot, I think he saying when you look closely at the orange seed and the orange itself, it appears that the origin of the information in the DNA is not explained by the seed itself or evolution. He argues that intelligence is the only known source of information that we observe. Science makes inference all the time.
TodaysThought 1 year ago
@cemarz - Evolution itself is based on inference of an unobservable reality. I think this whole debate is political, not scientific. And don't start hitting me with the evidence for evolution, I see it and accept it myself. Meyer accepts that things evolve. Just not how they evolve.
What blows my mind is why don't all things (biological creators) evolve? Also the quantum level of all this...
TodaysThought 1 year ago
@TodaysThought You say biological creators like it is a fact. Not only that, but, that you know that one wouldn't evolve.
As for my first post. I was referring to your atheist comment. Explaining why someone would argue as people do for evolution. There is a full range of understandings. Deep and complex for it. Not for ID. ID picks and chooses crumbs from evolutions cookie jar. If you know what they're not eating, you'll talk. And don't single out atheists. It's ridiculous and unfounded.
cemarz 1 year ago
@cemarz - are you saying that you have not seen the evidence for life forms that do no evolve? Its out there... but thats not what I'm on about, Atheist deserve our scrutiny. They are disingenuous
TodaysThought 1 year ago
@TodaysThought No I don't know about any lifeforms that don't evolve. And I'm only slightly intrigued. It means nothing, and would be next to impossible to prove. If you showed me a life-form that has never has and can not evolve, we're talking. Though, no such thing exists.
I have heard the argument of irreducible complexity and that's been proven wrong. So I hope you don't refer to that.
Atheists are not disingenuous, people are. All people. Don't try to pull that phrasing bit on me.
cemarz 1 year ago
@TodaysThought Bullshit! Just because there are more theists in the audience than non-theists doesn't mean anything. Meyer has NO EMPIRICAL DATA or peer-reviewed scientific papers whatsoever to back up his nonsense claims.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 - what do you have to counter his claims or prove your own? Anything?
TodaysThought 1 year ago
@TodaysThought Are you sure you want me to answer? Ok, here goes. In regards to the claim of irreducible complexity and the bacterial flagellum, the b flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). Cont.....
crabbit101 1 year ago
@TodaysThought One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins.....
crabbit101 1 year ago
@TodaysThought ....are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favourite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999). What about peer-review? There are more peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology published every WEEK than there are for the whole of ID. Why? BECAUSE IT IS NOT SCIENCE!!!
crabbit101 1 year ago
@TodaysThought And when I say that ID has some peer-reviewed backup I am being extremely generous. Some papers have even been reviewed by philosophers etc.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 Yea, like when the flat earth theory was peer reviewed. right
TodaysThought 1 year ago
@TodaysThought Are you mental? I think you'll find that flat earth theories were around a long time before peer-reviewed modern science appeared you moron. Creationism is the modern equivalent of flat-earthism. Meyer and his deluded cronies make bold assertions, claim that they're scientific but have no way of testing (let alone proving) them, which is totally UNscientific. Prove me wrong. I guarantee that ANY "scientific" claim they make I can refute. Try me.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 - So you think after 150 - 200 years of MODERN science and we got it figured out? Funny. Creationism, WFT is that?
Meyer is not deluded but you might be.
Why dont we start by you telling me how life got started on earth, why we have sex and why the universe appears fine tuned for the existence of life.
Than you can explain the origin of digital information found in DNA.
Explain to me why life could not have come here from somewhere else in the universe. Watch NASA conf on Dec 2.
TodaysThought 1 year ago
@TodaysThought I said "scientific" claims that THEY make. NOBODY knows how life started. There are some great theories but making a leap from there to "god or a designer did it" is a huge logical fallacy. That is the great thing about the scientific method because it never makes that mistake. Why do we have sex? Sorry, I don't quite grasp the grammar of your question. Fine tuning? Hmmm...I think you'll find that life is fine-tuned for existence in the universe. cont....
crabbit101 1 year ago
@TodaysThought ...cont The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos. We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity....
crabbit101 1 year ago
@TodaysThought ...would make life impossible. Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes. If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it? How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgement call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument. The fine-tuning claim is weakened...
crabbit101 1 year ago
@TodaysThought ...by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window...
crabbit101 1 year ago
@TodaysThought ...for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible. 6.Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000)....
crabbit101 1 year ago
@TodaysThought ...In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it. DNA? This question is based on some major misconceptions. Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer. Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply...
crabbit101 1 year ago
@TodaysThought ...any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information. Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, ...
crabbit101 1 year ago
@TodaysThought ...such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment. Life may have been seeded here by a comet or meteor. We may never know. Anything else?
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 - And would you stop with all this copy paste BS. You did not even answer one of TT questions. All you did was google and rant. Most BS and assumptions of the egg heads you rip it from. I found them all.
And yes, life may have been seeded here and come here in one way or another. Probably did. Life may not even require anorganic compound.
BeatleEDs 1 year ago
@crabbit101 - oh would you just stop this stupid shit. There is no evidence that everything is made of parts. You a-hole atheist need to get a F grip. Stop arguing shit that make no sense. You sound so emotional ("prove me wrong", bla bla bla.). Lets get behind this BS and start making some sense. The more with think we understand the more don't understand what reality IS.
BeatleEDs 1 year ago
@BeatleEDs What the fuck are you gibbering about? Making sense? How about using a scientific basis for arguments and not creationism disguised in a lab coat? Just because it doesn't make sense to you and you don't understand it is precisely why pimps like Meyer and Behe have the air of respectability they do. They blind those who don't understand science with bullshit pseudoscientific claims. Do you think it's a coincidence that they have no respect within the scientific community?
crabbit101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crabbit101 - "How about using a scientific basis for arguments and not creationism disguised in a lab coat? "
WTF are you talking about? I mean all these responses. Proves my point. You are emotional. I dont give two shits about Meyer or you and you BS. Anything and everything is possible. Thats the only thing I go by.
BeatleEDs 1 year ago
@BeatleEDs Theists constantly make arguments from ignorance and incredulity. "You can't tell me how we got here, therefore it must have been god" is the usual shite.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@BeatleEDs Who said I was an atheist
crabbit101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crabbit101 - "Who said I was an atheist"
You did, so to speak. You're not?
BeatleEDs 1 year ago
@TodaysThought
well if you listen to Meyer and realize what he's saying doesn't make sense, in a scientific sense, then you realize that he's just spouting bullshit.
Timmay123456789 11 months ago
@TodaysThought Hi - Just because Ward wasn't eloquent, doesn't lend veracity to the position of his opponent (Meyer). Meyer speaks very eloquently and clearly describes his position... But his position is still built on a foundation of logical fallacy. In actual fact, this debate shouldn't really have taken place. There is no controversy in the veracity of Evolutionary Theory, and ID is not a scientific argument, as it is based on non-falsifiable premise'. I just wanted to point that out.
Vortex42 9 months ago
@TodaysThought hahahahahaha you think Meyer is wining? that's so funny Id is based of a fallacy.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild Which fallacy is that?
galactica0775 6 months ago
@galactica0775 That creation needs a creator. Meyer's idea of intelligent design is this "A 2 thousand year old book is the foundation for a 15 billion year old universe", this is the same mindset as Kurt Wise "...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." this is opposite of the scientific method and is not worthy of respect.
pandorachild 6 months ago
One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".
pandorachild 6 months ago
@TodaysThought That is precisely WHY you felt that Peter was being "destroyed" by Meyer; because you were new to it. Hopefully after a year you are no longer 'new' to the ID debate and can now see that contrary to his ability to "sound" intelligent, Stephens agruements fail miserably. If not, hang in there, you wil.
aburling7 5 months ago
Ward is dumb. asking dumb question. Asking scientist religious questions. what a piece of shit he is.
wandp7782 2 years ago
Wow, the cdesign propenist calling the real scientist naive about science? That is rich.
Jugglingbuffoon 2 years ago 2
whatttt!!!!!! Meyer just housed this guy.
JGULIZIA3545 2 years ago
1) is only valid if you provide an example.
2) Mutation is caused by an error in the copying of genetic code (except with controlled mutation in the immune system, which is not passed to the offspring).
3) If I encrypt a file with a non-reversible algorithm (e.g. change every second letter to 'a'), information is lost. Without the original, you can't work out what was originally in the file.
4&5) At the north pole, all directions become south. You eventually run out of information.
fatalglory777 2 years ago
1) if you can't find examples, it's just your ignorance to blame
2) mutation may be caused with no "error" in the copying of the genetic code. nucleotide T 3 sudden bond bridges due to raditation, where the pair is deleted (just an example).
3) but the genetic code is not an algorythm.(even though a lot are trying to find one).
4&5) reach northpole and eventually you will figure out that a south pole must exist in order to make sense the northpole.
no sense at all? that's how creationism sounds
transtlantic 2 years ago
"People who actually have to build things are much more sensitive to the case for design than [those] who can simply wave their hands and claim "mutation did it!"".
As one of those people who actually have to build things, I agree. For how many years have proponents of macro evolution yelled "you can't just say God did it!", all the while expecting everyone to swallow the just-so story that "mutation did it!". Too long.
fatalglory777 2 years ago
it's not a question of "mutation did it".....
Mutation is a molecular process that can be observed and described, the methods of observation able to be replicated by anyone in the world.
There is even evidence of its existence - we are all different
ID is the result of gross bad intelectual behaviour and should keep being exposed as such, loudly
transtlantic 2 years ago
This was admittedly my mistake. The catch cry is usually "but with enough time...!" rather than "mutation did it". Yes mutation does happen, but what does it do?
I'm a computer science major, I have been recently working on information compression, I personally have experimented with the concept of information loss and gain. If mutation actually corrupts and destroys the information in genetics, no amount of time helps.
If you only travel north, you will never reach the south pole.
fatalglory777 2 years ago
1) biology is to complex to put it simply in simple math notions.
2)Mutations happen - fact, you even have genes who control any mutation that might happen in your genome (and this happens every single second)
3)"corrupts" and "destroys" the information, is a line that does not exist in biology.3.1- "corrupt"!?!?! 3.2.- information might be deleted or changed, there is no "destruction" of info.
4) time is related to number of generations
5) keep going north and round the globe and you hit sp
transtlantic 2 years ago
Instead of attacking evolution you should try to prove creationism or intelligent design.
Also, please name one evolutionary biologist that claims that "mutation did it".
Furthermore, please provide evidence that god did it. If you provide scientific evidence then the proponents of evolution will have to believe you. No such evidence has been provided therefore we see the lack of acceptance of an unproven claim.
Jugglingbuffoon 2 years ago 2
@fatalglory777
Right as an engineer, everything around you with structure looks like it was built.
Who builds the intricate structures of snowflakes?
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
LOL, is Meyer on crack? I'm studying computer science and it sounds like he's not talking about biological sciences but, something defined... moreso an assertion because, actual evidence is evident when Meyer's is just using a lie and straight out assertion.
Entertainmentwf 2 years ago
All you have to do to understand the ID movement is to examine their DNA. (and follow the money) The ID movement, and the Creation - ooops, I meant Discovery Institute absolutely have dogmatic, fundamentalist evangelists as their granddaddies. In other words, they are still sneaky, superstitious rattlesnakes - they've just evolved to be even more sneaky with all this ID crap.
47f0 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, admits
"Not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has changed.'
evoloution is FAILS a LIE just an excuse LUSTS -- SIN
a way to settle their consience
that our loving GOD put in them
evoloutionists just want to satisfy thier LUSTS greedy sexual evil they hate the GUILTY feelings
GOD sees their deeds and will broadcast all in font of the whole world SHAME will overtake them
ARE YOU SAVED?
valu777 2 years ago
sounds more like he believes in the matrix not god lol
ericpao81 2 years ago
"running down informationally". gene duplications increase the actual quantity of the information. gene duplications are very common. once you have 2 copies of a gene, you have a spare one that can "run wild" with mutations and add totally novel information without any ill effect. see nylonase =) duplication followed by a frame shift mutation, and some subsequent replacement mutations.
Neeboopsh 2 years ago 2
Neeb,
". gene duplications increase the actual quantity of the information."
A beneficial point mutation in duplicated dna is observed but the overall effect of point mutations within any dna is genome degradation. read "genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome" by sanford. You're missing the point. A. it's very rare B. overall effect is genome entropy.
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 2 years ago
not sure i get what you mean by entropy, since the dna does not at all violate entropy (energy is added during the copying process - thats how it works). second, more than 100 mutations from the second any human is conceived seems not very rare to me. Then during cell divisions you take on more mutations. The only ones that are passed on are the ones in gametes. entropy just doesnt apply. if you mean "fitness" of the gene, that is only determined by the selective pressures. most are neutral.
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
entropy is the loss of information within any system, you have the physics def., this is about information. See the comments in "genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome" in the amazon book review page. It's a book.
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 2 years ago
define "information". and then define "loss".
see: nylonase, and tell me how it has "information" "loss" according to your definitions. new, novel gene which does a brand new function AND is an increase in size of the genome. also see italian wall lizards. new functioning organ in a macro-organism caused by genetic mutation (we know this because we put the lizards there and 30 years later those non-native lizards have a new organ, different from the parent stock)
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
information is gene info
loss is it's losing it's protein directing functions due to mutations
There's several facets to this that make it near impossible for beneficial results due to ran mutation/natselec to cause change. You have real life heredity not being one for one due to environment, good mutation swamped by bad and near neutral mutations and more points.
The examples you gave were pre programmed in some way which isn't elaborated on in the ref. I gave. Read the reviews it'll explain.
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 2 years ago
actually any mutation within the coding section of a gene, unless it removes an amino acid coding by adding a premature stop code, or its a deletion, doesnt "remove" anything. it changes which amino acid is coded, which MODIFIES the protein produced. and the examples i gave are both valid. you decided they were preprogrammed but you give no evidence. nylonase was created by a gene duplication and a subsequent frame shift mutation. new novel gene, new novel enzyme and new quantity of information.
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
and "gene info" is not very descriptive. "gene info" as in the length of the gene? and let me guess, if i ask you what a "kind" is, you cant be specific either :)
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
"information is 'gene info'" is like saying "sandwich is 'bread sandwich'". simply is of no use since the word is in the definition. "whats the sky? oh, its the sky we see around us". totally useless :)
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
Maybe something different is going on in junk dna than we know of, but it's definately not random muts. It can't be, and this is what the book is about. Gene info as in gene sequences which benefit survival. It's not length it's info. Does a gene give info or not? Come on. You have to actually read the reference there's no way you have with these questions. Your description of protein changes aren't anything different than what I said. Actually read it and this'll be easier.
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 2 years ago
you just dont answer the question "what is information" by saying "info". you realize nylonase IS a mutation (we know what gene was duplicated, and we know where the frame shift mutation happened in the copy of the gene, and we know the function of the new gene, and we know its a beneficial trait) and nylonase is beneficial for survival. and as for junk dna, an experiment removed million letters of junk dna and the mouse was as healthy as non-modified mice. so it seems it doesnt do anything.
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
Don't read the easy reference I gave you it sucks
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 2 years ago
so this guy Sanford:
"humbly offered ... that we were created by a special creation, by God."
and said the earth is "Between 5[,000] and 100,000" years old
thats science :) inject god and reject accepted dates (which by the way, it is by all known physics (including the field of thermodynamics) for the earth to be anything shy of 10+ million years with no radioactive decay...which there is so its billions - and radiometric dating, and h:h1 ratio of our sun point to 4.5 or so. :) science ftw
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
and, as a scientist, he should know better than thinking he can claim God using magic created everything by a non-natural process even if he proved evolution to be incorrect. that is a purely non-natural, and hence non-scientific claim. he can believe that all he wants, but it cannot influence your science work. i might actually read the book but $20 seems a bit high for a paper weight. to his credit, 2 papers published on the subject but neither paper can make the conclusion that god did it
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
and the number of papers which show specific mutations increasing the survival capability of different organisms, to put it into perspective, are dozens or hundreds. if he is right, keep publishing. vindicate your ideas! the idea that our mitochondria were separate organisms which were "consumed and integrated" by other organisms and are now part of all eukaryotes was unpopular. but the science was good and is now accepted by biologists across the board. but papers > answersingenesis book sales
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
It seems as if he's jumping the gun to you but he's allowed to infer whatever he wants this book doesn't get peer reviewed. This is a problem I see with scientists. There's no dilemma here anymore than dawkins has one, even typing this seems like a waste of time. This is one of the top geneticists in the world presenting a very good case and this book is ignored for four years, he's more than capable of having his faith and his science. I didn't buy it either read the reviews
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 2 years ago
Information is data. Any arrangmeent of objects is composed of parts which we qualtify and qualify in informational terms. For example "Information Theory" from Wiki...
"is a branch of applied mathematics and electrical engineering involving the quantification of information. Historically, information theory was developed to find fundamental limits on compressing and reliably storing and communicating data. "
frost122585 2 years ago
The physical world and all that is it is universally related- therefore ID treats all things as information. Information theory uses "bits" as its standard unit of information.
frost122585 2 years ago
Nylonase is a misnomer. The enzyme doesn't digest nylon, but rather it digests some chemical used to make nylon. It's relatively easy to find proteins that do simple hydrolysis reactions, so the hubbub over this one and its relevance (or lack thereof) to evolution is very much overblown.
frost122585 2 years ago
Nylonase refers to the enzymes used to break down byproducts of nylon 6 (according to wikipedia)
It's not that it breaks down nylon exactly, but the byproducts of it, which are man made. The releveance to evolution, as i'm sure you know, is that there was a, or many, mutation(s) that helped the organism adapt to the environment.
Timmay123456789 2 years ago
The argument of ID as far as the mutational dimension of evolution, is that there aren't enough probabilistic resources in geological time, to purchase the kind of specified complexity found in living things. This is like saying some intelligence had to match the organism in space/time with the required fitness landscapes and generous factors. Physics argues for a multi-universe theory that makes evolution more probable but there is no evidence for this, nor a mechanism capable or producing it.
frost122585 2 years ago
id love to see meyer debate someone like dawkins or hitchens...
ward does NOT make a convincing case, even though hes right...
TheRealDarthCosby 2 years ago
Meyers would be more than happy to. But I don't think Dawkins or Hitchens would have the guts to defend evolution on scientific grounds. They have no interest in science. They only know how to rail against religion.
Jesrael1986M 2 years ago
huh?? you ARE aware that dawkins is a biologist right?? they wouldnt have the guts?? ive never heard anyone say something like that about chris hitchens; the worlds most abrasive polemic... further more, hitchens and dawkins are now (or were on) cross country tours debating all comers on the issue.. neither have shied away from a debate over the issue EVER to the best of my knowledge.. they just wouldnt.. maybe im misunderstanding you..
TheRealDarthCosby 2 years ago 2
dawkins... i think he was or is a professor of biology at a major university.
i'm sure you're right and that has no interest in science. that connection between between being a biologist and having an interest in science is non-existence.
yeah sure...
besides they haven't shown any actual science behind ID. they've made arguments for it but our world has been based on testable hypothesis for 100s of years.
geolab101 2 years ago
.... Gut? Have you ever listened to Dawkins in a debate. He doesn't give debates to b.s.. His reason is that it gives them a foot in the door and gives them credibility that doesn't have.
Entertainmentwf 2 years ago
Dawkins refuses to debate ID proponents because it would give them credibility they don't deserve - eh? Yeah right.
But of course, he spend most of his time writing articles and popular books against ID and its supporters. He has no problem with that! But when it comes to meeting his opponents face to face, he....er....does not want to give them credibility. Very brave of him *sneer*
Jesrael1986M 2 years ago
Excellent point
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
Comment removed
transtlantic 2 years ago
But obviously the very bad mutations won't be passed on because individuals with bad genes are very unlikely to produce healthy offspring (or any offspring at all for that matter). So bad mutations will appear frequently but rarely will they become prolific within a species, so there will ultimately be no downhill slope. Only the good genes will become prolific, since individuals with good mutations will be more likely to produce lots of healthy offspring. That's how natural selection works...
BrokenBassBin