Intelligent Design

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Michael, May 9, 2003.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I posted this on a different thread before I realized how out of control it had gotten.

    If the question of Intelligent Design is what you find mystifying then I suggest The Blind Watch Maker by Richard Dawkins. This is an easy to read book that will explain in layman terms how natural processes resulted in the complexity that makes up you and I. A bit simplistic but I enjoyed it and Dr. Dawkins has a dry-sarcasm I’m partial to.
    The Blind Watchmaker

    If the actual reason you believe in god is not due to logical methodical scientific raison d'être and on the contrary is because you have faith in God, then I’d say don’t waste your time with this sort of debate. But the book’s still a good read!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. atheroy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    i wouldn't call the human body to have been created by an "intelligent hand" a) beacuse there is a whole lot of junk in human cells DNA that does nothing (how intelligent is that?); b) human bodies are susceptible to numerous things that don't seem to have been factored into the idea of the human body and its surrounding environment (why, if an "intelligent hand", created the sun, made the human body susceptible to cancer? REAL smart) and; c) if the "intelligent hand" is "GOD", why did he make us in the first place if he is omniscient and knows what is going to happen anyway- that stream of thought doesn't make sense, it is flawed, and for a perfect being to have flawed thought makes that being imperfect. so i figure no intelligent hand, but millions of years of selective breeding.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2003
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    What is the evolutionary explanation for these junk DNA genes ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    This world and the way everything on it works is more than intelligent, its genius if there ever was such a thing. Its a more intelligent system than anyone could ever possibly imagine. If some guy from some completely different planet suddenly came up with this idea he would easily be smarter than Hawking, Einstein and Smarty McSmartisen combined.
    Every organisms body is so complex and brilliant, the way each of those organisms help each other and live thanks to each other is even more amazing.
    No doubt about it, the way the earth as a whole operates is so genius it makes what our basic minds are capable of seem laughably simple. Its like comparing a worms ideas with our own, but we are the worm.
    Actually the difference is probably even far greater than that.

    Anyway, whats your point?
     
  8. JOHANNsebastianBACH concert master Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    200
    I believe the outside inteligent hand to be Aliens from outerspace. It sounds pretty crazy,,,I know,,, but no more crazy than the belief that jesus is the son of god, or god created everything. something must also have created god in this case.
     
  9. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    But its alot more crazy then simply saying the "intelligent hand" was earth itself all along.
    Thats what I subscribe to.
     
  10. Bridge Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    291
    Junk DNA?

    Junk DNA, meaning useless, unnecessary and non-coding DNA in the genomes of eukaryotes, has been used as an argument against IDt and as an argument for the random process of the ToE.

    The prevailing view of the neo-Darwinists is that because the genome of an organism is a random patchwork sewn together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, that only limited portions are essential to the organism. Through this evolutionary viewpoint it is a given that a lot of useless DNA will abound.

    However, if organisms are designed, we could expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in an issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function and seems evolution actually discourages it.

    Already scientific studies have shown that non-coding DNA provides structure to DNA so that it can perform many functions which would be impossible without some form of structure. One of the readily apparent differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic DNA is that eukaryotic DNA is organized into chromosomes, which is further organized into chromatin code. This kind of structure does not "just happen" for DNA - it requires specific design. The coding regions of DNA are concentrated in the chromosomal regions which are the richest in G (guanine) and C (cytosine) and seem to correspond to the telomeric regions of certain chromosome arms (T-bands). Scientists have genetically modified and therefore removed a single telomere of one chromosome in yeast cells. The elimination of the telomere caused cell cycle arrest (stopping of cell division), indicating that telomeres help cells to distinguish intact chromosomes from damaged DNA. In the cells that recovered from the arrest the chromosome was eventually lost, demonstrating that telomeres are essential for maintaining chromosome stability. Therefore, non-coding DNA is absolutely necessary for chromosomal structure and function.

    According to one source the roles of non-coding DNA are so great and pervasive that studies are now looking at these sequences for patterns of "concerted evolution." The junk DNA argument (and similarly the appendix argument), contrary to statements and opinions of many evolutionists, is not useless, but is, in fact, required for genomic functionality, therefore providing more evidence that DNA may be of an intelligent design.

    (source used from . "Science and Design" Wm Dembski, 1998 and also www.godandscience.org)
     
  11. atheroy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    very nice post bridge, that is some serious homework right there. however intron and extrons (sorry 'bout the spelling) are what i think you are talking about and in that respect you are very right that the "junk" DNA is important. to cause a shift in the chromosomal chain would be to break the nature of the chain itself- causing the cell all sorts off strife as codon pairs would not then equate into the proper triplets that the cell "reads". the extrons themselves are of no use (to my knowledge) other than keeping the proper bases (adenine, thymine, cytosine and forgotten the last one) in line. if we get specific, we could talk about cell organelles and where they originated. scinetists believe some of the organelles found in human cells were of an origin outside of that of the human cell (i'd have to get my notes out to properly argue this point) but these foreign organelles were "consumed" by human cells and became integral to a human cells function. i wouldn't argue intelligent design for that as why would a foreign organelle be found in something created and unchanged since 6000 years ago?
     
  12. Bridge Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    291
    Thanks for the compliment *atheroy*

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    but all I really did was research the topic junk DNA and then paraphrase and patch together some already existing opinions, adding just a little of my own take on it.

    That sounds a little suspect if you ask me. Aren't we assuming if these foreign organelles were consumed by human cells that humans with fully funtionable DNA were already around?

    Same question I would ask. But what is being referenced here? What was created 6,000 years ago? Humans? This isn't a debate about the viability of a young earth creation theory. I'm not a YEC if that's what you meant.
     
  13. atheroy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    oh, well what are ya?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    sorry i wrote that post very late last night, and and didn't succeed very well in making my thoughts coherrent (also mixing up ideas from different threads). the idea is that (very early in the whole design of things) certain organisms were consumed by the developing (very early) human cell. the organisms however provided the human cell with advantageous properties, which in turn helped it survive. so the cell itself started reproducing these foreign organisms and are some of what we now know as our cell organelles today. i just thought it interesting that there is the very real possibility that this is the case. through either creationism (which i don't believe in) and evolution (which i do believe in) the human cell is an amazingly awesome piece of work.
    no. i tried to explain above, but even if cells have fully working DNA, cell organelles are involved and required in many other cell processes- DNA requires some of the stuff in the human cell but the other organelles which scientists believe were sucked up had no need to be there, they are bonus things which help the human body function today- actually they are vital to the human body nowadays. human cells can't just consume something and take it on as a functioning piece of equipment- the time period i am talking about is when human cells were one cell orgnisms.
     
  14. gurglingmonkey More Amazing in RL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    137
    Who ever said that our "intelligent hand" was omniscient or perfect? The idea is just that it is an intelligent mind that created, or perhaps a better word would be programmed, the universe. Something made sure that things would 'go down' in a certain way. This 'hand' would just have to have almost total knowledge of science and a huge amount of foresight. I don't mean like prophetic powers, i mean the foresight of a good chess player.
    Also, defending your belief by saying someone else's is crazier is not very convincing. Luckily for me, I'm agnostic, and there's really nothing to defend there except for lack of a belief.

    Gurglo
     
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    This is complete nonsense; there are no Evolutionists that would say non-coding DNA is useless. It was the hard work of Evolutionists that provided the information you were citing. Also, for future reference argumentum ad verecundiam is not a valid method of presenting a counter argument.

    .... therefore providing more evidence that DNA may be of an intelligent design. [/QUOTE]
    Likewise, this is not true. Non-coding DNA is in and of itself not miraculous (in the biblical sense) and there isn't anything magical or mystical about it, although an interesting focus of biological study, it does not provide any evidence for intelligent design.

    And I do like how the more suddenly slipped in as well

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Actually the opposite is the case and perhaps the main reason why Christian Fundamentalist tend to attack Evolution.

    "Science and Design" Wm Dembski, 1998 [/QUOTE]
    A major waste of time. There is no meat in the only two chapters of note and funny enough Dembski does not cite a single published scientific study utilizing his very concepts he bleats on about. What kind of science never gets into a peer reviewed journal? Usually crap.

    Yeah yeah I know but come on .,.,.,. Demski .. Ppffff

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Mitochondria. Here is a review paper about it:
    Mitochondrial evolution.
     
  16. Bridge Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    291
    Hey Michael, when you can prove NO evolutionists would say that non-coding (junk) DNA is useless come back and see me. You only need to interview a few 100 million people so how about we get together and review your results on May 10th, 2050, say around 2:30 PM on this forum? For starters, try interviewing the same dimwits who said the appendix was useless.
     
  17. Zero Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,355
    Random throw of the ball here.

    How would you explain the gradual trend from early hominids to homo sapiens? Would that be explained as "intelligent design"? Or would it be best classified as evolution?

    Is there any physical evidence of intelligent design? There is a heck of lot of evidence for evolution. Look at the intermediate structures. Eyes did not come spontaneously from some godly Leonardo-like hand. They evolved from earlier structures. Intermediate structure that led to the eyes that humans (or squids) have include the spots on planaria, the light/dark detectors on annelid skin, etc.

    All of this "complexity" came from natural forces. You've probably heard this too many times, but proteins themselves (the driving force behind biological structures, might I add?) can be made by the "Early Earth Simulation" where gases that are thought to be of early earth-like conditions were added to water, (whole thing was sterilized) and electric sparks ("lightning") were applied. Amino acids sprang into existence. See? No intelligent designer there. No one assembled them. The amino acids came into being out of purely random collisions, like all other chemical reactions do.

    After amino acids come proteins, and the rest is history.

    Ho hum, that was longer than the "quick ball" I'd had in mind. Anyhow, I look forward to your reply.
     
  18. DefSkeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    242
    I would have to say you made some good points Zero.

    Many times I see theists bashing evolution, but they do the bashing with no grounds to stand on. This is because they have the wrong idea or a genuine lack of understanding of the concepts associated with evolution.

    If anyone has any legitamate questions on the subject of evolution im sure many people can answer them (granted they have the proper knowledge)
     
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    You see, my original sentence is in the present tense. Maybe I should have written: Presently, no Evolutionists of note would say that "junk” DNA is of no use. I thought that was self evident.

    Here is an example: In the past many astronomers believed the world was flat. Today there are people who still think the world is flat. If I used them in an example to support my argument that the world is flat it would be (1) at the least a poor example of citation and evidence of shoddy research (2) more likely I was digging around to find ANY wacko whom I could then say agreed with me or use his stupidness

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    to support my weak argument - as if that would increase the validity of my statement, in reality it takes away from it. If I wanted to be fair I would look to the communities of Astronomers TODAY and see what the prevalent opinion was. If another person came along and said – get real no astronomer believes the world is flat. I think we can take it that they would mean no competent astronomer today thinks the world is flat.
     
  20. Free Cycle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    75
    Intelligent Design and "creation science" are dangerous misconceptions that could potentially derail much of the independent thinking that has occurred thus far in the world. Niether is science, for science seeks to explain using empirical data.
    If two evolutionists are evolutionists it doesn't matter if their ideas about DNA replication are different, only that both understand the concept of selection.
     
  21. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    But evolution is genius. In fact more genius than the concept of creation.
    I was never trying to indicate there is a "god". The very system of evolution is an "intelligent design".
    What just happens to occur naturally is brilliant beyond any man's wildest imagination.
    If we can call people intelligent it seems strange to not refer to nature as far more intelligent.
     
  22. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    There is no evidence that shows that something intelligent has ever designed anything complex.

    Everything that any man has designed has been based on something just slightly less complex.

    If that is the way intelligence creates something complex and a god designed man then this suggests that such a god would have designed man based on ever increasing degress of complexity. Starting probably from simple inorganic compounds and proceeding to very simple organic structures and onwards.

    The result is of course indistinguishable from an evolutionary process.
     
  23. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    I don't know about THAT!!!

    I have read some of McSmartisen's papers, and I gotta tell ya...
    He's a pretty damned bright guy!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But more on the subject...

    I don't think the complex nature of beings and the universe points to intelligent design at all.

    If anything, it is a necessary and inevitable course of events.

    Everything has an effect (to one extent or another) on everything in comes into "contact" with.
    These interactive relationships will drive changes in everything.
    If the planet has a mammalian growth spurt, the mammals will use more oxygen.
    As a result either a.) Mammals will suffer some level of asphyxiation, b.) Mammals will adapt (evolve) to a lower oxygen environment, c.) The increase in Mammals will cause an increase in Carbon Dioxide, which will fuel a population increase in plant life, of d.) any combination of the above.

    Complexity and intelligence are not one and the same.

    It is a complex system of interractions which drive changes, adaptations and evolution.
    Nature's tendency to "seek" balance is a result, not a design.
     

Share This Page