BBC cell film pays tribute to design in nature without knowing it

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 11, 2021

Cell biology, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The Cell Secret Immune System – Secret Universe: The Hidden Life Of The Cell – BBC Two

To think it all just happened requires more faith than to think there is an intelligence underlying nature that enables it.

Comments

JVL:
If you were a teenager and you deeply loved someone and you were told your interest was deviant or sinful and that there must be something wrong with you how would you react?
I would tell people to stuff it and continue to do as I please as long as it didn't break any laws nor harm anyone. That people cannot do that and instead take their own lives is on them. Stop blaming others as that is just childish.ET_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Acartia Loser:
It really takes a reprehensible human being to make fun of teen suicide.
It really takes a lying loser to say I was making fun of teen suicide. Your total lack of mental awareness is astounding. Thank you for continuing to prove that you are an ignorant troll on an agenda.ET_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

JVL:
You don’t know WHO the intelligent design(s) were. So what’s the difference?
Wow. That has been my point for years and all you have done is choke on it.
There’s no evidence anyone else with the capabilities was around at the time AND we haven’t found evidence of advanced tools or methods of work.
You don't know what such evidence would look like.
You not understanding the evidence (like what random with respect to fitness means) doesn’t make you right.
I understand what random with respect to fitness means. I also understand that only fools use that saying. Mutations are supposed to be random, period. Random as in accidents, errors and mistakes. Then these accidents, errors and mistakes accumulate, differentially.
No one said it was a good thing.
Scientists have. Anyone who understands the concept would,.
Yeah, we do because we’ve found their tools, we can see how they did some things, we have parallels with other sites in other cultures.
Liar. No one has found and quarrying tools. No one has found the transport tools.ET_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

"Does anyone know that?" JVL, You implied that teenagers do. The rest of your comment is not worth responding to. Andrewasauber_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

"I don’t think anyone can claim to know the reasons that a person commits suicide other than the fact that severe depression is involved. " SA, Then please don't resort to spurious correlations. Andrewasauber_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Asauber: I doubt a teenager knows what deeply loving someone entails. Does anyone know that? Can it not be different for different people? Have you not met people who married their childhood sweetheart and lived happily ever after? Face it, you're just prejudice and have no sympathy whatsoever. I sincerely hope that none of your own offspring is afraid to tell you something knowing you would think there was something wrong with them. We are talking about real people who are someone's children. And you're happy just to see them suffer because . . . Have you read the New Testament?JVL_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Andrew "In other words, these poor souls will kill themselves if they don’t get deviant sex." I don't think anyone can claim to know the reasons that a person commits suicide other than the fact that severe depression is involved. With respect to gay teens, I would think that if they were brought up to believe that homosexuality was a sin that they would suffer from serious guilt when they started to having feelings of sexual attraction towards others of the same sex. It is not difficult to see how this could lead to depression. However, if they grew up in an atmosphere that did not stigmatize same sex attraction, I suspect that they would be less likely that their same-sex attraction would trigger a depression.Steve Alten2_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

ET: That is NOT who. Get an education. You don't know WHO the intelligent design(s) were. So what's the difference? That doesn’t mean they did it, duh. There's no evidence anyone else with the capabilities was around at the time AND we haven't found evidence of advanced tools or methods of work. Everything we've discovered (from studying the design and excavation) points to human beings. The only people who contest the design inference don’t have anything else to account for what we observe. So they can be dismissed as liars and whiners. You not understanding the evidence (like what random with respect to fitness means) doesn't make you right. Talk to Charles Darwin and your fellow evoTARDs. The elimination of the less fit from any population is a good thing. That is what we are taught in science classrooms, thanks to Darwin. No one said it was a good thing. And social ostracising people and making them feel ashamed and shunned is not a case of you being more fit. That's a case of you being prejudiced and a bully. The funniest part of saying humans designed and built Stonehenge is we “know” humans were capable of doing it just because Stonehenge exists. In reality no one knows if the humans of the time were capable. Yeah, we do because we've found their tools, we can see how they did some things, we have parallels with other sites in other cultures. AND there is zero evidence any non-human agents were around at the time. Zero.JVL_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

"If you were a teenager and you deeply loved someone" JVL, Lets start with your premise. I doubt a teenager knows what deeply loving someone entails. Lust isn't love. Andrewasauber_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Asauber: In other words, these poor souls will kill themselves if they don’t get deviant sex. If you were a teenager and you deeply loved someone and you were told your interest was deviant or sinful and that there must be something wrong with you how would you react?JVL_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

JVL "So, this is the naughty corner now? Will we get milk and cookies?" I think we are more of a wine spritzer and charcuterie crowd. :) I just thought it was important to address Kairosfocus' OP subject without having issues that make him queasy being declared off topic and commenters being put in moderation. Kairosfocus is welcome to join in the discussion but I suspect that he won't because he doesn't control the delete button. ET "Their minds are that feeble, eh? They should just kill themselves and rid the world of their inherent weaknesses." It really takes a reprehensible human being to make fun of teen suicide. Thank you for showing your homophobic stripes. Viola Lee, I am not sure if I agree with your comment about a plumb bob having more than one "truth". I think that for most issues there is only one "truth" (whatever that means) but we may be using the wrong starting point. For example, we have been talking about whether same sex marriage and opposite sex marriages are both morally acceptable. However, if we take one step back and start with love between two consenting adults, how that is applied can take many forms, all of which I would argue are morally acceptable. These would include the classical opposite sex marriage but would also include same sex marriage, civil unions, "shacking up", arranged marriages, etc.Steve Alten2_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

The funniest part of saying humans designed and built Stonehenge is we "know" humans were capable of doing it just because Stonehenge exists. In reality no one knows if the humans of the time were capable.ET_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

JVL:
The human beings around at the time.
That is NOT who. Get an education.
There is lots and lots of evidence there were humans around at the pertinent time and in the pertinent area.
That doesn't mean they did it, duh.
Aside from your contested design inference there is no evidence that any kind of intelligent agents were around before human beings.
The only people who contest the design inference don't have anything else to account for what we observe. So they can be dismissed as liars and whiners.
You aren’t a very nice person are you?
Talk to Charles Darwin and your fellow evoTARDs. The elimination of the less fit from any population is a good thing. That is what we are taught in science classrooms, thanks to Darwin.ET_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

"Since legalization of same sex marriage and the “normalization” of same sex attraction, teen suicides have decreased." In other words, these poor souls will kill themselves if they don't get deviant sex. There is so much more to life than deviant sex. Andrewasauber_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

ET: And no one knows who did any of the stages. The human beings around at the time. We even have some genetic information about them. If saying humans did it is OK for archaeology, then saying non-humans did it is OK for Intelligent Design. There is lots and lots of evidence there were humans around at the pertinent time and in the pertinent area. The stones have been traced to where they came from and they show signs of work. The 'evolution' of the site is getting clearer and clear. Aside from the structure itself (and it's one of many by the way) it's clear that humans made it. We don't know anyone's name obviously; it would have taken tens if not hundreds of folks collaborating. Aside from your contested design inference there is no evidence that any kind of intelligent agents were around before human beings. You should look for some. Their minds are that feeble, eh? They should just kill themselves and rid the world of their inherent weaknesses. You aren't a very nice person are you?JVL_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee: Can I join? Sure! It's not crowded . . . yet.JVL_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Acartia
Since legalization of same sex marriage and the “normalization” of same sex attraction, teen suicides have decreased.
Their minds are that feeble, eh? They should just kill themselves and rid the world of their inherent weaknesses.ET_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Who says it was a single person who designed and built Stonehenge?
I never said anything about a single person. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
Are you even aware of the stages of construction and how long it took?
And no one knows who did any of the stages.
I just would like to see any other evidence that there were any intelligent beings around
You are too stupid to be able to assess the evidence. And you are a willfully ignorant pathological liar If saying humans did it is OK for archaeology, then saying non-humans did it is OK for Intelligent Design.ET_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Can I join?Viola Lee_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Steve Alten2: So, this is the naughty corner now? Will we get milk and cookies?JVL_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

From the Kairosfocus thread that I have been banned from for posting links to scientific articles that support the benefits to society of same sex marriage. Viola Lee "What you think is “inherently disordered” and “in the sewer” I don’t, and I don’t believe your opinion has any special access to “natural law” et al. I think this highlights what is wrong with the thesis of your OP." I have to agree. What Kairosfocus declares as "in the sewer" is central to his arguments. But rather than address them he declares them off-limits. I guess that is one way to dominate the discussion. Since legalization of same sex marriage and the "normalization" of same sex attraction, teen suicides have decreased. And children raised by same sex couples are scoring higher at school. It is obviously not all sunshine and lollipops, but it certainly isn't the dire consequences that people like Kairosfocus and others were harping on about.Steve Alten2_{March 18, 2021
March
03
Mar
18
18
2021
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

ET: Humans are NOT a who. Who says it was a single person who designed and built Stonehenge? Are you even aware of the stages of construction and how long it took? When I wonder if there is any other evidence for your intelligent designer (who did what exactly? And when?) I'm not saying I want their name and address. I just would like to see any other evidence that there were any intelligent beings around . . . when was it? You never say.JVL_{March 18, 2021
March
03
Mar
18
18
2021
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

The genetic code is hard physical evidence that an intelligent designer was around. It is not my fault that JVL is too stupid to understand that fact.ET_{March 18, 2021
March
03
Mar
18
18
2021
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

There isn't anything in peer-review that supports blind watchmaker evolution. JVL is a pathological liar. If university libraries had what JVL claims then Behe's colleagues would just present it and that would be it. Instead they have to write disclaimer notes. That alone proves that JVL is a pathological liar. I have been to those libraries and know for a fact that JVL is a liar. Darwin did not know how to test hos claims. He never tested them. No one has. Humans are NOT a who. JVL is obviously a pathetic imp. No one knows WHO designed and built Stonehenge. And then when keeps changing. Everything we know about Stonehenge came from centuries of studying it. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And to refute it all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can produce what ID says was intelligently designed. To date no one has been able to do so. To date there is absolutely NO evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. But it is even worse than that! No one knows how to test the claim that nature can produce those systems! Thanks to evolutionary biology, evolutionary biologists don't even know what determines biological form! ID is still the only scientific explanation for our existence. All JVL has is some unknown processes did something at some point in the past and here we are. JVL's is a mechanistic position without a plausible mechanism. But it is entertaining watching him flail about.ET_{March 18, 2021
March
03
Mar
18
18
2021
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

ET: Sure they are. Show me some work being done studying 'the design' in order to gain some insight into the designer or so that the design can be understood. “the Privileged Planet” says the universe was designed for scientific discovery. Lee Spetner wrote of “built-in responses to environmental cues”. Your ignorance is not an argument. Those don't answer my point which was that no one is studying 'the design' to gain insights into the designer or so the design can be understood. Try again. LoL! They have all of the power to refute ID and yet can’t. They don’t even know how to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. You lose. Publish your work then if you're that sure. Let's see it in print in a peer-reviewed journal. Go on. If they promote materialism and evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, they are. Nice conspiracy theory: millions of people who have actually studied the pertinent topics are liars and delusional and you are right. Great. Hey, if there isn’t any way to test the claims of materialism then it is all pseudoscientific nonsense. Even Darwin told how his ideas could be refuted. Try again. Liar. Too afraid to go to your local university library and see? The only mistakes with IC are with the losers trying to rebut the concept. I like that: IC = Intelligent Creationism. Well put. We don’t know who designed and built Stonehenge. Human being around at the time for which we have masses of evidence that they existed, the kind of tools they used, sometimes even what they ate. And ID has zilch about it's designer. Zero. Nada. The when keeps changing. No one has found any quarrying tools nor means of moving and setting the stones. Nope, the general dating has been clear for a long time now. You're just flailing about when you don't even bother to understand the work that has been done. But you watched some YouTube video and you know better. Look, aside from your supposed design inference you've got nothing substantial that has passed peer-review. Most scientists, if they were really sure they were right, would go and look for more data, more evidence, more fuel for their fire. ID proponents don't do that, they just keep repeating the same old attempts to shoot down unguided processes knowing full well they can't prove a negative. Which means: you can never, ever rule out unguided processes. Because you can never, ever be sure of what they might accomplish. Kind of kills ID . . . unless you can find something more. Can you? Are you even going to try? Or are you just going to have another whinge about how you understand science better than the professionals? I think I can guess. IF you can come up with some hard, physical evidence of some kind of intelligent lifeforms that was around . . . when did you say? Who had . . . what abilities exactly? Then I promise to pay attention. Why don't you try and find that evidence? Or doesn't it exist?JVL_{March 17, 2021
March
03
Mar
17
17
2021
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

JVL:
But no one is actually doing that are they?
Sure they are.
No one has published a book or paper or even forwarded such a research agenda.
"the Privileged Planet" says the universe was designed for scientific discovery. Lee Spetner wrote of "built-in responses to environmental cues". Your ignorance is not an argument.
The vast majority of all working scientists, especially biologists.
LoL! They have all of the power to refute ID and yet can't. They don't even know how to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. You lose.
So, virtually every biology department in all the universities in the world is run by liars and fakers?
If they promote materialism and evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, they are.
I think you should look for some other kind of evidence that there was some kind of intelligent designer around at . . . . what time was it? Who was capable of . . . what exactly do you think they did again? With the necessary tools . . . which were what exactly? That got energy from . . . where exactly?
Your hypocrisy and ignorance are duly noted. The other kind of evidence was presented in "the Privileged Planet".
Hey, if there was no designer then it’s all based on materialistic, blind processes.
Hey, if there isn't any way to test the claims of materialism then it is all pseudoscientific nonsense.
Oddly enough, when I go to any university library I can find volumes upon volumes on unguided evolution, full of technical details, research that’s been done, tentative hypotheses, etc.
Liar. Look, JVL, it is obvious that you are a scientifically illiterate troll and a pathological liar. The only mistakes with IC are with the losers trying to rebut the concept. We don't know who designed and built Stonehenge. The when keeps changing. No one has found any quarrying tools nor means of moving and setting the stones. And Stonehenge is something we can duplicate.ET_{March 17, 2021
March
03
Mar
17
17
2021
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

ET: The design is being studied so it can be understood. But no one is actually doing that are they? No one has published a book or paper or even forwarded such a research agenda. It ain't happenin'. By who and what? The vast majority of all working scientists, especially biologists. Pretending that isn't true is childish. ID is only widely disputed by liars and whiners. They can be dismissed. So, virtually every biology department in all the universities in the world is run by liars and fakers? You do have a vivid imagination, I grant you that. Science is not about proving something. Clearly JVL requires proof of ID which proves that JVL is a scientifically illiterate troll. I think you should look for some other kind of evidence that there was some kind of intelligent designer around at . . . . what time was it? Who was capable of . . . what exactly do you think they did again? With the necessary tools . . . which were what exactly? That got energy from . . . where exactly? But, since you're not going to even try to do any of that (nor is any other ID proponent) I guess you'll just have to keep repeating the same old tropes you've been parlaying for years and years. To bad that's not getting you anywhere. ID is pretty much frozen in place now. There isn’t any way to test the claims of materialism and that means its claims are not part of science Hey, if there was no designer then it's all based on materialistic, blind processes. Yours is supposed to be all about the how and yet you have NOTHING but your childish whining about ID. Oddly enough, when I go to any university library I can find volumes upon volumes on unguided evolution, full of technical details, research that's been done, tentative hypotheses, etc. I've never seen a book like that on ID. The only technical things that ID proponents publish is their attempts to show that blind processes can't do the job. That's what Dr Behe's argument is based on: irreducible complexity is just an attempt to show there are living structures which could not have come about via unguided processes. But the mistakes in his arguments have been pointed out to him many times and he just doubles down. Didn't you ever wonder why he couldn't get his ideas peer reviewed? It's 'cause they aren't sound. IF you want to further the 'cause of ID then you're going to have to do some more work. What's been presented over the last 30 years or so didn't do the job. ID is still roundly dismissed by almost all working biologists. They're not convinced. If you're right you should be able to find more evidence but, oddly enough, no one seems to be looking. Funny, it's almost as if there isn't any more evidence. Imagine that. Anyway, have fun studying the design of DNA. Let us know if you figure anything out about the designer doing that.JVL_{March 17, 2021
March
03
Mar
17
17
2021
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

JVL:
It doesn’t seem to do much else. So far, as far as I know, no ID researcher has attempted to go past the detection stage.
The design is being studied so it can be understood. Just as I have told you many times. But that is moot as your side has NOTHING. You can't even test the claims your side makes.
Highly disputed
By who and what? The people who dispute ID have NOTHING but denial.
Since you have no evidence for a designer beyond your widely disputed design inference then there’s no need to demonstrate anything.
ID is only widely disputed by liars and whiners. They can be dismissed. Science is not about proving something. Clearly JVL requires proof of ID which proves that JVL is a scientifically illiterate troll. There isn't any way to test the claims of materialism and that means its claims are not part of science, At least ID's claims can be tested and potentially falsified. Yours is supposed to be all about the how and yet you have NOTHING but your childish whining about ID. How pathetic is that?ET_{March 17, 2021
March
03
Mar
17
17
2021
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

ET: ID is not only about detecting design. It doesn't seem to do much else. So far, as far as I know, no ID researcher has attempted to go past the detection stage. Additionally, I haven't heard of any significant new design detections. I can't think of one new argument from an ID proponent in a decade at least. Maybe with Dr Dembski coming back into the fold (and Casey Luskin) we'll get something new. The evidence demands that a highly intelligent and talented designer was around. Highly disputed which is why I think ID proponents should a) look for more evidence and b) flesh out the design inference with some more ideas (backed up with data and evidence) of how and when design was implemented. But, no one seems to want to do that. So ID spins its wheels, in pretty much the same place as it was 10 - 15 years ago. And to refute that claim all you have to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can account for what we observe. Since you have no evidence for a designer beyond your widely disputed design inference then there's no need to demonstrate anything. No designer -> no design -> it's all down to blind and mindless processes. QED No one even knows how to test the claims of materialism. No designer -> it's all down to blind and mindless processes.JVL_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply