Intelligent Design and the Origin of Life (A Response To HonestTechnoAtheist)

This is a video response to HonestTechnoAtheist's video which can be accessed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-CcvumsMxs&feature=channel_video_title

Disclaimer: The video is a bit glitchy particularly towards the end where clips appear and disappear at times.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• science
• intelligent design
• origin of life
• evolution
• honesttechnoatheist
• firstfreedomfighter
• biology
• chemistry
• biochemistry
• life

[MrKnowItAll1985]

If there were no common ancestry with chimps, we should share few or no common viruses and should not expect to see them at the same insertion points in our respective genomes. Ultimately, you need to look at the consilience of evidence.1. The fused chromosome.2. The shared ERVs

3. Common morphology 4. Nested hierarchies. ID'ers need to face the fact that the same genetic evidence that shows beyond doubt they are their mother's child, shows they are an apes cousin.

[FirstFreedomFighter]

@MrKnowItAll1985

Hello,

I define the concept of biological intelligent design as the thesis that certain features of the biological world are more adequately explained by an intelligence. By that definition, common descent and intelligent design are perfectly compatible. All the evidence in the world for common descent wouldn't put a dent in intelligent design. Common descent is perfectly compatible with intelligent design. (continued)

[FirstFreedomFighter]

@MrKnowItAll1985

What is NOT compatible with intelligent design is the idea that all features of the biological world are the result of purely mindless processes, like random mutation and natural selection. To be sure, many features of life are the result of random mutation and natural selection, yet we can be equally sure that certain features of life are NOT the result of random mutation and natural selection. (continued)

[FirstFreedomFighter]

@MrKnowItAll1985

Phylogenetic evidence (such as ERV's, nested hierachical patterns displayed by protein sequences, etc.) is not evidence that those features arose through mindless processes. Phylogenetic evidence is not evidence of purely mindless processes generating features of life like biochemical systems with a high level of functional specificity.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@FirstFreedomFighter Except that biodiversity/common descent is only compatible with intelligent design in the same sense that gravity is compatible with invisible pixies who magick mass together with an unknown force.

Intelligent design is a completely useless non-answer with zero predictive power and zero testable mechanisms.

[gregrutz]

Sorry, but ID lost in court. Proven to be nothing but religious bull shit.

[ZZTheAtheist]

hello hon ;)

[Carnage2K4]

as tech said you don't really do the philosophical side of things and this is indirectly related to the topic at hand, but I would like to know how you attribute any possible intelligent architect to the Aramaic God of the Old & New Testaments specifically, as, as I see it you could just as well attribute it to any creation god, or even a deistic entity... I mean why Christianity specifically? (as that is what I assume you do)

[LucvdMortel]

@LucvdMortel

The RNA world would also explain how specified proteins could naturally arise (through rRNA). No intelligence needed.

[LucvdMortel]

I find the RNA World hypothesis more plausible than Intelligent Design. As intelligent design begs the question. Who is/was this intelligence that created life? Where did it come from? Who or what created this intelligence? What mechanism did this intelligence use to create life? Why don't we see any life being intelligently created today?

The RNA world hypothesis fits in the current model of the evolution theory nicely and it makes most sense.