Casey Luskin asks: Can claims about punctuated equilibrium accommodate the scientific data?

_{News
May 9, 2022

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design}

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

Some of us would have thought that quantum mechanics killed all that off but in any event:

As Stephen Jay Gould put it: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”1 Because of this difficulty, in the 1970s, Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge developed punctuated equilibrium as a model where evolution takes place in small populations over relatively short geological time periods that are too rapid for transitional forms to become fossilized.2 But this model has many problems.3
Punctuated equilibrium compresses the vast majority of evolutionary change into small populations that lived during shorter segments of time, allowing too few opportunities for novel, beneficial traits to arise. Punctuated equilibrium is also unconvincing in that it predicts that with respect to the fossil record, evidence confirming Darwinian theory will not be found. Would you believe someone who claimed that fairies and leprechauns exist and were caught on video, but when asked to produce the film, declares, “Well, they are on camera, but they are too small or too fast to be seen”? That doesn’t make for a compelling theory.
Analogous problems plague attempts to account for the life-friendly fine-tuning of physical laws by appealing to a multiverse.
Casey Luskin, “Can Materialistic Models Accommodate the Scientific Data?” at Evolution News and Science Today (May 7, 2022)

As Luskin implies, appealing to a multiverse is like appealing to fairies.

Here’s Casey Luskin’s whole series on the topic.

You may also wish to read: Rescuing the multiverse as a science concept… ? Luke Barnes on the multiverse: In the cycle of the scientific method, the multiverse is in an exploratory phase. We’ve got an idea that might explain a few things, if it was true. That makes it worthy of our attention, but it’s not quite science yet. We need to find evidence that is more direct, more decisive.

Comments

Vl, I am doing abductive inference to the best explanation. This is inductive not deductive and in fact E -> O not the other way around in logic. Abduction is pivotal in science. Intelligently directed configuration, on trillions of cases, is the only and reliable, observed cause of FSCO/I. Further, there is excellent reason to see that FSCO/I from protein fold domains in AA sequence space to sex determination systems, comes in deeply isolated islands of function sitting in vast sees of non function so the incrementalist, tree of life just so story lacks plausibility. I do not need the world of life to infer design, the cosmos is enough. It is because of the actual rather than narrative state of evidence that I infer root design of the cell and of major body plans, design that puts on islands of function. I don't care if viri were used to seed and front load, I don't care if a molecular nanotech lab did direct engineering, etc. The evidence points to pervasive design. KFkairosfocus_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

KF, you write, "So, I find no plausible, empirically well founded blind chance and mechanical necessity mechanism to account for body plans. I therefore further infer universal common design rather than universal common descent." Sentence one does not necessarily imply sentence 2. We aren't even considering the "blind chance and mechanical necessity mechanism" perspective. We are accepted ID as the starting point of the discussion. As we have been discussing, there is no reason why design couldn't have been implemened by designing at a small-scale level whereby organisms change little by little, directed by design, so that there is still an unbroken chain of organisms related through biological reproduction. That is, common descent via ID. That is, accepting design does not mean that common descent can't be part of the structure of that design as manifested in the world. So rejecting the materialistic view, as I accept you do, doesn't mean you also have to reject common descent.Viola Lee_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Vl, points to is okay, but must not be equated to a priori presumption. As for origins of life and species, my problem starts with Darwin's pond or the like. There is no plausible way to get to cell based life that uses coded algorithms, molecular nanotech etc by blind chance and mechanical necessity. So, I infer -- note, not believe, infer, root of life design. i notice that core architecture, with variants, is found across the world of life. However, basic body plans require just for starters, ~ 10 - 100+ million bases of genetic information. OoL was a mere 100 - 1,000 k bases. So, I find no plausible, empirically well founded blind chance and mechanical necessity mechanism to account for body plans. I therefore further infer universal common design rather than universal common descent. I look to the cosmos and find massive fine tuning conducive to C-Chem, aqueous medium cell based life in the roots of cosmology. I therefore infer that the common designs are related; where a cosmos level designer has to be enormously powerful and related to the necessary being root of reality. I don't care one way or another on dates but note that the ballpark of 15 BY is something that fits a lot of empirical evidence. So, while obviously species is a slippery concept, adaptation up to family level seems feasible, but not at body plan level. Which last is what the Cambrian fossils and other cases of appearance, stasis of core architecture, disappearance show. Show me blind chance and mechanical necessity creating complex language, codes, texts and algorithms reflective of deep knowledge of polymer chemistry, if you want to change my thoughts. Otherwise, I have declared intellectual independence and give at least an outline of reasons i/l/o respect for the opinions of wider humanity. KFkairosfocus_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

I'll conclude from this discussion that there is nothing wrong about accepting common descent as long as you don't have a materialistic interpretation about how it happened. Once one decides that the evidence for design is compelling and thus that materialism is false, one has succeeded in meeting the goals of ID. This I'll conclude that those who reject common descent are doing so because they identify common descent with materialism, and they can't/won't separate the two issues. I'm off to do different things now.Viola Lee_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Common descent can mean many different things using the same basis for life. For example: 1) every organism is a direct descendant of a previous organism and the process is natural. There was only one initial life form. 2) every organism is a direct descendant of a previous organism and the process is guided by some intelligence for some. 3) nearly every organism is a direct descendant of a previous organism but some are not and were created directly by an intelligence using a similar basis for life as other life forms. 4) every organism is a direct descendant of a previous organism and the process is natural but there were multiple independent initial organisms. We can go on with other possible options. But what does this get us? Who knows which one is true? The answer is no one. Common descent whatever the process is irrelevant to ID. Aside: Evolution by natural means is also irrelevant to ID. If there was a mechanism for natural Evolution, ID would accept it. But there isn’t any known mechanism. So ID is open to an intelligence as the cause for much if not most changes in life forms. Discussing common descent is a dead end.jerry_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

VL
common descent meaning a continuous chain of organisms brought into being by biological reproduction, with small changes which eventual add up to a different species if you look at individuals 100’s or even 1000’s of generations apart.
Again, ID is not a philosophical project. It just looks at the empirical data. ID is not going to say that "God could have guided evolution". ID has nothing to do with that. All ID is saying is that intelligent design is the best explanation for what we observe and therefore there are no known natural causes that can produce what we observe. If no known natural causes can create a human being from an irrational animal, then there's evidence of intelligent design. If no known natural cause can create a human being from a bacteria - either gradually or suddenly, then that's evidence for intelligent design. If evolution fails, then common descent fails at the scientific level. ID does not analyze philosophical or religious proposals for common descent. So, much of what you're saying is not relevant to what ID is looking at. We wouldn't say that "ID Is compatible with common descent" since that's not something that ID proposes to explain. If common descent means Darwinism, then ID Is not compatible with it. If common descent means "God made it look like Darwin was correct", then ID has nothing to say about it, in exactly the same way that any empirical science can't say anything about that. ID is a scientific project, analyzing empirical data. Whatever the intelligent agent did to create the design is not part of the analysis - that's for a different research project to evaluate. ID just observes aspects of nature that give evidence of design. To falsify that inference, one needs to show that a natural cause can produce it. Common descent from natural causes starting with bacteria to trees, plants, fish, animals and humans is very far from being demonstrated. ID is evaluating natural causes.Silver Asiatic_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

re 85, to SA. First, you give a good list of ways a designer could be involved in guiding the development of life, and one could argue that any creative act by the designer is "special creation." I am using the phrase in a way that contrasts with common descent: a large-scale, so to speak, act where a new type of organism is created so there is no biological continuity between it and other existing organisms. It could be that those creative acts could take place inside organisms as they reproduce so that common descent holds but these small-scale acts of creation don't interfere with change by common descent. Those are indeed a variety of options within an ID-context. So my question still is if not common descent is there any other option than "large-scale" special creations as defined above. SA writes, "You’re now asking if there could be scientific projects to determine how the designer created things." No, I don't think that is what I'm asking. What I wrote was, "Can science, in an ID context, address whether common descent is the best inference according to the data?" This does not ask how the designer did things–in many scenarios that might be beyond our ability to detect, such as the designer creating specific genetic mutations. My question just asks if, within an ID-context, the scientific evidence supports common descent as the best inference, and maybe by far the best inference. You write, "Common descent is a vague term, like “evolution”. It’s loaded with assumptions and is used deceptively. That’s why there’s opposition to the concept." I think this is the key issue: the big argument is philosophical, between materialism and non-materiaism, including ID. Since materialism accepts common descent I think a lot of non-materialists reject common descent just so they won't agree with the materialists, even though the disagreement is really metaphysical, not scientific. There is nothing in ID that should be anti common descent. And yet, one shouldn't reject what may be the truth just because someone with different philosophical beliefs also accepts the same truth, but for from a different perspective. That is, materialist and non-materialists can agree on common descent, but disagree philosophical on how that common descent has come about. You write, "If a hominid became pregnant and by “a creative act by an intelligent agent” gave birth to a human being (as absurd as that seems), is that common descent?" Yes that would be absurd, and I don't think anyone proposes that. However if, as you write, "The same is true for “guided mutations”. Events that would not have happened, did happen (new mutations) by a creative act.", those could take place slowly over multiple generations and would be common descent: common descent meaning a continuous chain of organisms brought into being by biological reproduction, with small changes which eventual add up to a different species if you look at individuals 100's or even 1000's of generations apart.Viola Lee_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.‚ (Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any ‚goals.‚ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.‚ (Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
"without plan or purpose" "not directed to a final goal state" What is Design? A design is a plan or specification for the construction of an object or system or for the implementation of an activity or process, or the result of that plan or specification in the form of a prototype, product or process. The verb to design expresses the process of developing a design. In some cases, the direct construction of an object without an explicit prior plan (such as in craftwork, some engineering, coding, and graphic design) may also be considered to be a design activity. The design usually has to satisfy certain goals and constraints; may take into account aesthetic, functional, economic, or socio-political considerations; and is expected to interact with a certain environment. Typical examples of designs include architectural blueprints, engineering drawings, business processes, circuit diagrams, and sewing patterns.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design So, no - mindless evolution does not design anything.Silver Asiatic_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

...but only that there is evidence of design.
But that is not in dispute. The questions are who/what is designing and how. Evolutionary theory is one proposal for a mechanism. I know I keep asking but what can anyone present as alternatives?Fred Hickson_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

VL
His exact quote was , “ID points to some kind of creation act by an intelligent agent.”
In the above, note the phrase "points to". ID is a proposal. If it is true, then it "points to something". It is not, in itself, a statement about the kind of designer or the methods of the designer - but only that there is evidence of design.Silver Asiatic_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Just in case anyone is in doubt about my position, I think universal common descent is well-grounded in evidence and irrefutable.Fred Hickson_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Actually, Viola, that is a good question for all participants. I mean it's pretty much a waste of time discussing evolutionary mechanisms with anyone who a priori dismisses common descent entirely. I think LCD is beyond the pale. Not sure with ET. Well folks?Fred Hickson_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

VL
And theoretically “my view” could include acts of special creation, but as I have said I think “continuous creative acts by an intelligent agent” (i.e. common descent) is more likely
Your view is illustrative and important. "Continuous creative acts by an intelligent agent". First of all "creative acts". What those are could be "continuous acts of special creation". That entirely new DNA sequences could be "continually" formed for new species. Or they could be formed at key moments in natural history (beginning of plant life, mammalian life, first body plans - similar to first life). So, distinguishing any "creative acts" from "special creation" is difficult. Whenever you have the intervention of an intelligent agent in the process, it's hard to say there can only be one way of designing or creating things. "Continuous" can be "continually as needed", or it could be "there is nothing unguided in nature" (nothing is random and all is divinely determined). It could be some element of natural process alongside of guidance by intelligent agent. "Guidance" could be the directing of mutations, or it could be the actual shaping of features, or it could be "the special creation" of features, or the special creation of DNA. You could even say that certain mutations are "acts of special creation" since they are created de novo. Or it could be that an entire organism is created fully, or by the use of other matter. In some versions of theistic evolution, God guides evolution. In others, evolution occurs "unguided" but built upon a designed-template (front loaded) from the beginning.
And are they all just philosophical possibilities outside the realm of science, or can science, in an ID context, address whether common descent is the best inference according to the data?
As you clearly know, ID is a proposal that proposes scientific evidence of design in nature. You're now asking if there could be scientific projects to determine how the designer created things. That's not a question that ID can answer, obviously. But once a person accepts the ID proposal, then they can pursue the nature of the designer, the methods of the designer and all other related questions through whatever means as appropriate. Science, philosophy, religion - this has nothing to do with ID - but any can be used. People believe that alien life is the ID cause of life on earth. So, there can be scientific projects to discover the source of this.
My really big question is why the opposition to common descent?
Common descent is a vague term, like "evolution". It's loaded with assumptions and is used deceptively. That's why there's opposition to the concept. I just posted Theobald saying that common descent can be scientifically proven even if one proposes "a cause vitale" (an immaterial life force somewhere). But the ordinary meaning of "common descent" is materialist evolution (Darwinism) from bacteria to human beings (and all other forms of life on earth). The reason for opposition to this should be obvious. Evolution cannot demonstrate what common descent demands. If someone is willing to say that "guided evolution" could be the cause of "common descent" then the term doesn't have the meaning its proponents want. One could say that "common design" is the same as common descent, since all organisms came from the same intelligent cause. The term "descent" however, is meant to refer to Darwin - since it points to inheritance through reproduction. So, "common descent" in the ordinary term is merely another way of saying "materialist evolution through mutations and selection - from the very first life form to all life forms on earth". ID directed processes could produce something like "common descent" -- as does theistic evolution. The idea is that organisms change somehow and then populate the earth in their changed forms through biological reproduction. But as above, if an intelligent agent changes the organism (in your view through continual creative acts) can this be called "descent" in the ordinary way that term is used? It could be but by doing so it would create some confusion. If a hominid became pregnant and by "a creative act by an intelligent agent" gave birth to a human being (as absurd as that seems), is that common descent? Or is that special creation? I think it's not "descent'" in the ordinary usage. It's a creative act which could be called special creation. Something that wasn't present in nature suddenly became so by a creative act. So, something was created, de novo. The same is true for "guided mutations". Events that would not have happened, did happen (new mutations) by a creative act. So, I think the key thing for your to consider is the ways in which an intelligent agent can create things. How do intelligent agents create works of art or music? How do they design architecture or engineered products? How do they invent new approaches to problem-solving? There are many ways to design. A flash of insight. Borrowing and changing elements from other designs. Tweaking a current design for new purposes. Merging concepts. Eliminating features. We don't know how humans design things. We know the "mechanism" is the intelligence of the agent - it creates the design.Silver Asiatic_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Is Jerry a sleeper agent for Evilutionistas? I missed his comment upthread earlier:
If one is going to argue for or against something then one should know what the argument is about. No one here apparently does including Casey Luskin.
Fred Hickson_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

KF writes, "VL, nope, ID is not about the a priori presumption of a creation act by some sort of intelligent contriver." I was just quoting SA, although he said "agent", not "contriver", which is a more neutral term. Also, SA didn't use the phrase "a priori presumption". His exact quote was , "ID points to some kind of creation act by an intelligent agent." If you think that is wrong, you should take it up with him. Changing subjects: KF, do you accept common descent, from the ID perspective as a designed feature of life, especially between humans and other species?Viola Lee_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

JVL doesn't even know what the word "permeates" means. And he doesn't understand that programming is the only thing that can account for error detection, error correction, editing and splicing. And he definitely can't answer any questions about this alleged scientific theory of evolution. JVL is about as dishonest as a person can be.ET_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

A prescient comment made several years ago about anti ID people
However, I have always assumed since fighting this battle with naturalists/atheists for many years and after seeing the same responses, that the logic I see as natural is not entertained by such people. I never think that I will convince them of their proposed folly and why I think I am right. Quite the opposite – I expect them to hold their ground. I am genuinely interested in the atheist’s response to that question ” what would existence of god/a designer look like in your opinion / what would the evidence look like for you to consider it evidence of design?” I have yet to hear a very good answer to it, least of all convincing as a reason for rejecting current design inferences.
It's exactly what we see every time one of them posts. No logic on their side, just trivial remarks or personal attacks. Aside: there is an attempt to get one or all to make religious comments. That way the anti ID commenter can say ID is religious and they can then say there is no need to deal with the evidence and logic. It's just a religious belief. Aside2: why the constant attempt to pin one down on common descent? It irrelevant to any argument about ID. Do they believe it will lead to a religious basis for ID? Relevant to Evolution, ID says that Evolution has happened. Does saying common descent may or may not have happened mean anything?jerry_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

VL, nope, ID is not about the a priori presumption of a creation act by some sort of intelligent contriver. That is addressed in the weak arguments section under Resources. Instead, we observe that there are evident causal patterns, by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and/or intelligently directed configuration. These can act together, but we can isolate aspects of an entity, event, process or state of affairs etc for analytical purposes. In that context, strings are a good example: I: 7eryhgud;pygy4-lvs3o6d is different from II: sesesesese and again from III: this string exhibits FSCO/I. This sort of thing goes back to say Orgel, 1973 etc. In that context, it is useful to partition III as a focus and recognise that known cases of design by the trillion, establish that there are certain patterns that when we see them reliably indicate design. From that we can warrant a design inference on observed reliable sign, Onward we may have interest beyond that tweredun, as to howtweredun and even whodunit, but those start from observation not a priori assumptions. KF PS: Orgel in a classic book:
living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.
[--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, -- here and -- here -- (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]
One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [--> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]
kairosfocus_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

to SA, re 65: Thanks, SA. Let me first that I'm not trying to discuss my own metaphysical (philosophical) ideas. I am primarily taking the ID view that you stated (some kind of creation act by an intelligent agent) and trying to distinguish between common descent (a continuous chain of biological reproduction that gradually has transformed the earliest forms of life to the wide variety we see today, with an emphasis on the link or break between human beings and other animals) and whatever the alternative is, which as far as I know can be labeled special creation-the act of suddenly and immediately bringing a new species into existence. And if that isn't the only alternative, what are some others? I don't think "I don't know" is sufficient. There is lots of data about different species, so I would think scientifically one could make a best inference between common descent (in an ID context) and other alternatives. You write, "You’re saying “a creative force” is the cause. But previously, it seemed the only option you could think of was “special creation” – as if there was only a binary choice between materialist evolution and special creation. So I think it would have been helpful to affirm your own view as one option, then propose what you think is the other (excluding materialism)." No: again, I'm not arguing for "my view". I think it's a philosophical possibility, that's all. And theoretically "my view" could include acts of special creation, but as I have said I think "continuous creative acts by an intelligent agent" (i.e. common descent) is more likely You write, "But again, this view goes beyond what ID proposes. ID does not discuss the nature of the designer. ... But ID Is just the empirical evidence for intelligence as a cause of what is observed in nature." Then ID is silent on whether common descent is true or not. True? Therefore, in an ID context, we have to look at the evidence. Does the evidence point to common descent (in an ID context) or not? That is the question. You write, "But if ID is true, we have all sorts of options." Yes, and what are some of them? And are they all just philosophical possibilities outside the realm of science, or can science, in an ID context, address whether common descent is the best inference according to the data? My really big question is why the opposition to common descent? I know the opposition to the materialistic metaphysic about random mutations and natural selection, but why the opposition to ID-directed processes that would produce common descent?Viola Lee_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

ET: Take a course in biology, JVL. You are too ignorant to discuss the subject. Where is the extra programming in the cell? It should be easy to find; you just need a microscope. But no one is looking. Not even you. Strange how no one on this planet can reference any scientific theory of evolution. You should talk to Dr Behe about that. He thinks there is a scientific theory of unguided evolution. And just as I have told you thousand times- the programming permeates the cell Show us where it is and how it is encoded. Also, how does it affect development. The programming is the only thing that can account for error detection, error correction, editing and splicing. And neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to refute that claim. Where is it? How is it encoded? How does it affect development? The mechanism for design implementation was intelligent agency volition. As opposed to your mechanism of “some unknown naturalistic processes did something”. So, where did the energy come from? Where did the resources come from? Where was the implementation done? How was it introduced into the Earth's environment? And you don’t know what ID people are doing. Okay. Show us the work ID researchers are doing trying to find the extra programming. I'm happy to correct my opinion if you can provide the data. Attacking those you disagree with is all well and good. But you still have to back up your alternate explanation. So far, you haven't provided any physical evidence of extra programming.JVL_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

JVL
ET error detection, error correction, editing and splicing are all evidence for that programming
Where is it? How is it encoded? How does it affect biological development?
:lol: The function of repair of DNA : Core histones 2x (H2A, H2B, H3, H4) around which DNA wrap to form a nucleosome . An error is detected by a subunit of histones(that have a lot of subunits that regulate the activity of DNA ) because wrapping is imperfect if an error appear . Then is triggered a signal to eliminate core histone H2A and replace with H2AX because unlike H2A, H2AX has a C-terminal region and this region contains a serine residue that can be phosphorylated. It appears that phosphorylation of this serine acts as a marker of damaged DNA and recruits ("call") the enzymes required for DNA repair .(I don't describe the process of repairing until the end because the message will be too big ) You have the microphone, JVL. Please make the case :There is no code ,because the explanation for error repairing is__________. PS:JVL you confound the information from a book with chemical combinations between paper and ink and you ask :"Where is the programming/information/code ? I see only cellulose and pigments interacting. " :)))Lieutenant Commander Data_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

And just as I have told you thousand times- the programming permeates the cell. It is why humans cannot design a living organism even though we know the chemistry and physics involved. The programming is the only thing that can account for error detection, error correction, editing and splicing. And neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to refute that claim.ET_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Take a course in biology, JVL. You are too ignorant to discuss the subject. Strange how no one on this planet can reference any scientific theory of evolution. The mechanism for design implementation was intelligent agency volition. As opposed to your mechanism of "some unknown naturalistic processes did something". And you don't know what ID people are doing. No one in your camp can say how blind and mindless processes produced life and its diversity. You cannot account for error detection and correction. You have nothing but lies.ET_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

ET: Clueless. DNA did not determine that I would be a human. My father’s DNA passed on his TRAITS. So, yes, I would resemble one or even both of my parents given what DNA actually does. His traits . . . what are those then? error detection, error correction, editing and splicing are all evidence for that programming. Where is it? How is it encoded? How does it affect biological development? How is it passed on from generation to generation without significant degradation? There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution Even Dr Behe admits there is a theory of unguided evolution. I guess you know more than Dr Behe. Mechanisms determine patterns What was the mechanism for design implementation? But you are a gullible fool, unable to think for itself. Can you back up your claim of there being extra programming in the cell which dictates evolution? Yes or no? No one, in the ID camp or not, is looking for this mysterious extra programming. Why do you think that is?JVL_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson:
Douglas Theobald’s piece is still pretty much the place to start for any discussion on evidence for common descent.
Too bad it is total nonsense. He says the evidences for common descent are not dependent on any mechanism. Mechanisms determine patterns. He uses patterns to infer common descent. Theobald doesn't know how the diversity of life arose. He doesn't have a mechanism capable of doing the feat. And he thinks that common descent produces a nested hierarchy. Yet we know that it cannot because of all the transitional forms that must have existed. But you are a gullible fool, unable to think for itself.ET_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson:
Well, there could be another explanation than the theory of evolution.
There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. You are being dishonest, again.ET_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Earth to JVL- error detection, error correction, editing and splicing are all evidence for that programming. Each of those requires knowledge. And neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate that blind and mindless processes did it. So perhaps you should just shut upET_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson:
Assuming you know who your biological father is, it’s a fair bet you resemble him somewhat. Yet the sole physical information you derive from him was in a single spermatozoon that contained his genes in the form of DNA.
Clueless. DNA did not determine that I would be a human. My father's DNA passed on his TRAITS. So, yes, I would resemble one or even both of my parents given what DNA actually does. Now, we are still waiting on a naturalistic mechanism capable of producing an upright biped starting from populations of knuckle walkers.ET_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

I am arguing for common descent from an ID perspective,
:) Except there is no evidence for common descend but for common Designer (therefore of course there is a special creation for humans) . Tell me the most convincing argument for common descent since you raised the question then you believe that common descent is credible.Lieutenant Commander Data_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson: I have no idea what the ID case (presumably an alternative to evolutionary theory as an explanation of common descent) is. Some (like ET) might say that design is a mechanism which is a bit eh from my point of view. It would probably better to ask: what are the mechanisms for design implementation. But, just a warning: you will find that there is not even a consensus on when design was implemented. Some think it was all pre-loaded, a one-off; some think that there has been lots and lots of tinkering along the way. ET (not trying to pick on him in particular, I'm just very familiar with his views) will say that organisms were designed to evolve, along certain lines presumably. That they were able to overcome the fabled two-mutation limit because of some extra programming or data contained somewhere in the cell. Strangely enough, no one has found this extra programming despite decades of studying living cells. Also, no one has a clear and tested was of testing which mutations are down to design and which are actual mistakes. Anyway, if it was all front-loaded that gets you around common descent.JVL_{May 11, 2022
May
05
May
11
11
2022
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply