On Gritting Your Teeth and Sticking to a Narrative

_{Barry Arrington

June 26, 2016

Intelligent Design, Naturalism, News}

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

An anti-ID commenter who goes by MatSpirit has been active in these pages for well over a year, during which time he has posted scores of comments in the comboxes of dozens of OPs. This particular statement in one of his comments caught my eye:

If I understand correctly, the ID story is that some unidentified, undetectable supernatural agent acting at a time and place unknown arranged matter into patterns that are living creatures.

*palm forehead*

It is just staggering to me that someone can spend so much time and effort debating ID and still not have the first idea about the fundamentals of the theory.

I understand what is going on here, of course. Like many of our opponents MatSpirit had a pre-conceived idea of what ID is about before he came to these pages, and nothing — not facts, not logic, not reason –will ever shake that idea. You can explain the fundamentals of ID to a brick wall 1,000 times, and you can explain the fundamentals of ID to someone like MatSpirit 1,000 times, and it will have an identical effect – that is to say, none at all.

You see, MatSpirit has a narrative. And the narrative must be maintained at all costs.

UPDATE

I invite readers to skip down to comment 30. You will see that MatSpirit continues to grit his teeth and stick to his narrative even after it has been pointed out that is what he is doing. It is really quite amazing.

Comments

William J Murray @ 97
MatSpirit: It’s curious though, that so many people in this thread respond to criticism of the Designer by defending the Christian God. Hey guys, you’re letting the cat out of the bag. Also, if the Designer is not God, then those arguments don’t apply. So, basically MatSpirit is admitting here to being a troll.
What's your definition of a troll? One who points out an unpleasant fact?MatSpirit_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

William J Murray @ 96: "First: I’m not a Christian. I’ve never read the Bible." Sorry for calling you one. WJM: "Second: You haven’t answered the question: if the designer is evil, what difference does it make to the theory that some phenomena were designed?" None whatsoever. See my answer to Origenes right above.MatSpirit_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

Origenes @ 111:
Talking about quote mining …. What Behe does here is arguing (philosophically) against Darwin’s idea that design does not exist because of alleged evilness and/or incompetence of the designer:
I think it's much more likely that after pointing out something that is obvious, but deeply discomforting to his ID/religious readers, Behe threw them a bone with a gratuitous slap at Darwin. It's probably wrong to boot. Figuring out that a putative God is evil is no reason not to believe that god exists. Far from it, the evil entities are the ones you have to watch out for. They're likely to hurt you and pretending they don't exist is no help at all. Fearing an evil God is perfectly appropriate, denying its existence is folly. If Darwin was an athiest, I think it was because by the mid 19th century God was getting pretty redundant. Newton took away His need to regulate the heavens; thunder, lightning, earthquakes, plagues and apoplexy were known to have secular causes and life itself was pretty clearly non-magical. Now evolution had taken away the design and production of earth's living creatures. There wasn't much for God to do. Things have gotten worse since then in that we don't need Him to create the universe any more. I suppose you could say God created the chaotic low information meta universe ours probably popped out of, but since you're forced to say that God didn't have a maker, you might as well cut out the middle man and say the meta universe has always existed. It's simpler and more likely.MatSpirit_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

And Barry . . . he just laughs because he titled the OP. MatSpirit@55
What I said was not about who or what the Designer is. My point is that whatever the Designer is, if He is responsible for life on earth, then He created an inordinate number of beetles, a system where half the organisms kill and eat the other half and an especially nasty microorganism that kills about a million children a year.
Here MS provides us with a false dilemma. Be aware that this is no quote mine from me. It a common theme presented by Matspirit throughout this thread. At 58 I caution him on this, but after a good night's rest, he doubles down with an anecdote about swimming pools. Again, laughable. ((Just as an aside, in some parts of the USA, it is true that not providing fencing around pools leaves people open to prosecution in the event of a child's accidental drowning death, I can tell you who is not prosecuted, the designer of the pool and especially people who design the fencing which was absent. A wrong as a privation of good, hm, how Augustinian.)) Anyway, I had suggested that he engage with three truths, but he refused. As I read further I see that concerning another topic, UprightBiped has picked up on MatSpirit's insistence on the conflation of two ideas. MS, take my advice; admit UB is correct, that you have unnecessarily conflated those two types of information. Unfortunately, it is too late. Here is MatSpirit later:
I don’t take answering the questions lightly. I read each post carefully to make sure I know what is being said. I write replies in enough detail to explain the point I’m making.
Unfortunately, MS added:
The problem that ID believes that Plasmodium falciparum, the microorganism that causes malaria, and the Anopheles mosquito that spreads it to babies, was deliberately created, but can’t seem to understand what that implies about the designer – terrorist’s morals. Or even thinks it’s worth commenting on.
We don't think it worth commenting on because we do not conflate the two . . . I know, I know, I know, you can't conceive of a supernatural concept of humanity's sin, or fallen-ness that would actually physically affect other living things. Too bad for you, it leaves you in an awkward position of arguing a point that nobody will address because they won't concede what is at once your only premise, assertion and conclusion. And again, Barry . . . he just laughs because he titled the OP.Tim_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

@Origenes Plainly choosing is the mechanism of creation, and actually it is possible to evidence how things are chosen. It is solely agency of a decision which logic dictates cannot be evidenced, which is why we have subjectivity to deal with agency.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Origenes:
ID does identify neither the designer nor its intentions, but is able to show that intelligent design is the best explanation for certain aspects of reality. No more and no less.
Thank you for your frank reply. But is that it? You say ID is the best explanation, but has no entailments. That would make it worthless scientifically, wouldn't it?Daniel King_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson @115, Thank you for your post, which draws attention to an important issue wrt our understanding of ID: design is not mechanistic. Even some commenters sympathetic to ID hold that this is a problem for the scientific status of ID — see john_a_designer #62 and Bill Cole post #67. If I understand you correctly, you are pointing out that intelligence transcends any mechanistic explanation. If so, that makes perfect sense to me. There is no mechanism that explains the design of the IPhone, the Mona Lisa, Hamlet or even this simple post. Ultimately intelligence stems from freedom. And freedom is the opposite of mechanism. The day we model freedom by a blind mechanism is the day that freedom and rationality ends.Origenes_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Mattspirit wrote: how the Designer did his designing Choosing is the mechanism of creation. The DNA, RNA etc., the main structure of biology, has the same mathematical ordering as physics. And basically mathematics itself has the same ordering. By Rowlands and Hill https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lviaXRsJy3U/U7VOfQG0dEI/AAAAAAAAAH8/kUUbWfYlb7cIIoo_i2e8teo29HOcyYw0ACL0B/w500-h418-no/rewrite.png So DNA is neither evolved, nor created much. I mean it is created, but there aren't very many options available beyond it existing and it not existing. This is more a function of structural necessity or likelyhood, than either evolution or creation.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit @112: Oh, good. A literature bluff, coupled with this:
For reasons alluded to above, I won’t ask you if ID has anything equivalent to even this little bit on how the Designer did his designing.
Why do you think ID must answer the how of design? Either you misunderstand the design inference or you are just unwilling to consider the different domains. It is your theory that is fully naturalistic and materialistic. You must have a physical mechanism that can, by itself, explain what we see in biology. No naturalistic mechanism, no naturalistic story. In contrast, ID is not a mechanistic theory. No doubt you would like ID to be a mechanistic theory (since that is all you think exists), but that is a failure of your expectations, not a failure of ID.Eric Anderson_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

#112 Now that you've got your "let me google sumpthin' to say" out of the way, perhaps you can bring yourself to actually contemplate the issues. You've suggested that some prior organization morphed into the extant translation apparatus. So I've asked the question: Was whatever proposed organization that preceded the extant translation apparatus required to specify the extant apparatus? One of the perplexing issues with the extant apparatus (as clearly noted by materialists) is that the complexity required for the actual translation of information is simply too complex to have arisen together. Koonin suggests that an unlimited number of universes will be required if a coupled translation system is to appear as a matter of stochastic processes. However, it is specifically the ability to translate an informational medium that enables the system with its capacity to specify its product. So, I am asking: did the proposed prior system have to specify the current system or not? And if it did, then how did it do it?Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Daniel King: If it [ID] is compatible with everything, what good is it?
ID does identify neither the designer nor its intentions, but is able to show that intelligent design is the best explanation for certain aspects of reality. No more and no less.Origenes_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped @ 106: "Matt, no need to worry, either thread can accommodate you if you’ve decided to finally engage." It's not a matter of space, it's a matter of time. I've posted 21 messages in this thread in two days. I can hardly ignore the thread after Barry has singled me out and I've got at least a dozen people asking me questians. I don't take answering the questions lightly. I read each post carefully to make sure I know what is being said. I write replies in enough detail to explain the point I'm making. I try to write accurately and do a lot of googling to check my memory. That all takes time. Most of my spare time, in fact. Some people (not me) think that Barry pulls this singling out stunt whenever he sees an ID commenter losing badly, but I follow the old "Never attribute to malice ..." saying. UB: "Since you think the extant translation apparatus was built up from your conception of non-translated “physical” information over time, I’d like to ask you about whatever organization that you think existed just prior to the extant system. Did that system have to have the capacity to specify the extant system it was the predecessor of? If so, how it accomplish that?" Give me some fossils covering the period where the present system formed and I'll tell you. That's an excellent debate tactic, by the way. Ask your opponent a question neither side can answer (For instance, exactly how and when did the Designer create life?) and then make sure everybody knows he can't answer the question. Most people will overlook the nonanswers from ID. It won't even occur to them. IDists themselves often get irate that you should even ask them. Anyhow, I found a very nice article on this subject at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/ It's called Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries by Forterre P, Filée J and Myllykallio(sic) H. No idea who they are, but it's published by the National Institute of Health and its Copyright © 2000-2013, so it should be fairly representative of current thinking. I've only skimmed through the first few pages, but their best guess is that RNA came first. They don't say exactly why, but I know it's ubiquitous in life today and you will very often find complex functions carried out by proteins which have short stretches of RNA built into them which do the actual work. The protein just holds the RNA in the right spot. They think DNA evolved from RNA because the two are almost identical:
Origin of DNA DNA can be considered as a modified form of RNA, since the “normal” ribose sugar in RNA is reduced into deoxyribose in DNA, whereas the “simple” base uracil is methylated into thymidine. In modern cells, the DNA precursors (the four deoxyribonucleoties, dNTPs) are produced by reduction of ribonucleotides di- or triphosphate by ribonucleotide reductases (fig. 1). The synthesis of DNA building blocks from RNA precursors is a major argument in favor of RNA preceding DNA in evolution. The direct prebiotic origin of is theoretically plausible (from acetaldehyde and glyceraldehyde-5-phosphate) but highly unlikely, considering that evolution, as stated by F. Jacob, works like a tinkerer, not an engineer.
It goes on, but I'll let you read it yourself since it's 1:30 am. For reasons alluded to above, I won't ask you if ID has anything equivalent to even this little bit on how the Designer did his designing.MatSpirit_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Matspirit @103, Talking about quote mining .... What Behe does here is arguing (philosophically) against Darwin's idea that design does not exist because of alleged evilness and/or incompetence of the designer: Behe:
Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts… Did a hateful, malign being make intelligent life in order to torture it? One who relishes cries of pain? Maybe. Maybe not. A torrent of pain indisputably swirls through the world – not only the world of humans but also the world of sentient animal life as well. Yet just as undeniably, much that is good graces nature. Many children die, yet many other thrive. Some people languish, but others savor full lives. Does one outweigh the other? If so, which outweighs which? Or are pleasure and pain, good and evil, incommensurable? Are viruses and parasites part of some brilliant, as-yet-unappreciated economy of nature, or do they reflect the bungling of an incompetent, fallible designer? Whether on balance one thinks life was a worthwhile project or not – whether the designer of life was a dope, a demon, or a deity – that’s a topic on which opinions over the millennia have differed considerably. Each argument has some merit. Of the many possible opinions, only one is really indefensible, the one held by Darwin…. He decided – based on squeamishness – that no designer existed. Maybe the designer isn’t all that beneficent or omnipotent. Science can’t answer questions like that. But denying design merely because it can cause terrible pain is a failure. (2007, pp. 237-239.) [my emphasis]
Origenes_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit
In other words, you think evolution is discredited.
Yes, i do not think there is a credible testable hypothesis in any part of current evolutionary concepts. Because the genome is a sequence, the current hypothesis for new information is almost certainly wrong. Regarding James Shapiro and his book, I think he is trying and NGE is an interesting concept with real evidence including DNA repair but probably not the answer to the mystery of the origin of new genetic sequences.bill cole_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Frankly, it is very good that there is a strict limit to what evolution can create, (Behe: 2 protein/protein binding site limit; Edge of Evolution), since it allows us to develop drug treatments that are beyond the capacity of Darwinian processes to overcome:
Guide of the Perplexed: A Quick Reprise of The Edge of Evolution – Michael Behe – August 20, 2014 Excerpt: If there were a second drug with the efficacy of chloroquine which had always been administered in combination with it (but worked by a different mechanism), resistance to the combination would be expected to arise with a frequency in the neighborhood of 1 in 10^40 — a medical triumph. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/guide_of_the_pe089161.html
The multiple drug cocktail that has been so effective in controlling HIV uses much the same strategy of being beyond the ‘edge of evolution’ that Dr. Behe has elucidated:
When taking any single drug, it is fairly likely that some mutant virus in the patient might happen to be resistant, survive the onslaught, and spawn a resistant lineage. But the probability that the patient hosts a mutant virus that happens to be resistant to several different drugs at the same time is much lower.,,, it “costs” a pest or pathogen to be resistant to a pesticide or drug. If you place resistant and non-resistant organisms in head-to-head competition in the absence of the pesticide or drug, the non-resistant organisms generally win.,,, This therapy has shown early, promising results — it may not eliminate HIV, but it could keep patients’ virus loads low for a long time, slowing progression of the disease. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_04
Thus all in all, since MS, for whatever severely misguided reason, concentrated on the Theological argument against Christianity instead of concentrating on the science at hand, MS tactic has backfired on him since the pathogen was shown to be originally benign (and most likely originally beneficial) ,, and, as well, the science, from malaria itself no less, shows Darwinian evolution to be grossly inadequate as an explanation for why all life exists on Earth. Prediction: MS will, most likely, ignore all this crushing evidence against his position and move on to the next subject that he thinks he can get away with trolling on. But alas, no one, save for Darwinists themselves of course, has ever accused Darwinists of being reasonable.bornagain77_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Also of note, although most people think bacteria and viruses are almost always harmful to humans, in reality we are very much dependent on bacteria and viruses for our survival:
NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases,,, But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.” http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#ajTabs The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Falkowski 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. – Paul G. Falkowski – Professor Geological Sciences – Rutgers http://www.genetics.iastate.edu/delong1.pdf (Bacteriophage) Viruses in the gut protect from infection – 20 May 2013 Excerpt: Barr and his colleagues,, show that animal mucus — whether from humans, fish or corals — is loaded with bacteria-killing viruses called phages. These protect their hosts from infection by destroying incoming bacteria. In return, the phages are exposed to a steady torrent of microbes in which to reproduce. “It’s a unique form of symbiosis, between animals and viruses,” says Rotem Sorek, a microbial geneticist ,, “It’s groundbreaking,” adds Frederic Bushman, a microbiologist ,, “The idea that phage can be viewed as part of the innate immune system is original and exciting.' http://www.nature.com/news/viruses-in-the-gut-protect-from-infection-1.13023
Moreover, it interesting that MS would pick on malaria in particular to try to make his case against Christianity, (I would say to make his case against ID but MS admits that his beef is with Christianity in particular and not with ID), because Malaria happens to be the particular bug that empirically confirmed, in the lab, Behe's 1 in 10^20 'Edge of Evolution' to be true.
Diverse mutational pathways converge on saturable chloroquine transport via the malaria parasite’s chloroquine resistance transporter - Robert L. Summers - March 17, 2014 Abstract: Mutations in the chloroquine resistance transporter (PfCRT) are the primary determinant of chloroquine (CQ) resistance in the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. A number of distinct PfCRT haplotypes, containing between 4 and 10 mutations, have given rise to CQ resistance in different parts of the world. Here we present a detailed molecular analysis of the number of mutations (and the order of addition) required to confer CQ transport activity upon the PfCRT as well as a kinetic characterization of diverse forms of PfCRT. We measured the ability of more than 100 variants of PfCRT to transport CQ when expressed at the surface of Xenopus laevis oocytes. Multiple mutational pathways led to saturable CQ transport via PfCRT, but these could be separated into two main lineages. Moreover, the attainment of full activity followed a rigid process in which mutations had to be added in a specific order to avoid reductions in CQ transport activity. A minimum of two mutations sufficed for (low) CQ transport activity, and as few as four conferred full activity. The finding that diverse PfCRT variants are all limited in their capacity to transport CQ suggests that resistance could be overcome by reoptimizing the CQ dosage. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/10/1322965111 Kenneth Miller Steps on Darwin's Achilles Heel - Michael Behe - January 17, 2015 Excerpt: Enter Achilles and his heel. It turns out that the odds are much better for atovaquone resistance because only one particular malaria mutation is required for resistance. The odds are astronomical for chloroquine because a minimum of two particular malaria mutations are required for resistance. Just one mutation won't do it. For Darwinism, that is the troublesome significance of Summers et al.: "The findings presented here reveal that the minimum requirement for (low) CQ transport activity ... is two mutations." Darwinism is hounded relentlessly by an unshakeable limitation: if it has to skip even a single tiny step -- that is, if an evolutionary pathway includes a deleterious or even neutral mutation -- then the probability of finding the pathway by random mutation decreases exponentially. If even a few more unselected mutations are needed, the likelihood rapidly fades away.,,, So what should we conclude from all this? Miller grants for purposes of discussion that the likelihood of developing a new protein binding site is 1 in 10^20. Now, suppose that, in order to acquire some new, useful property, not just one but two new protein-binding sites had to develop. In that case the odds would be the multiple of the two separate events -- about 1 in 10^40, which is somewhat more than the number of cells that have existed on earth in the history of life. That seems like a reasonable place to set the likely limit to Darwinism, to draw the edge of evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/kenneth_miller_1092771.html Michael Behe - Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA "The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146
bornagain77_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

MS at 99, being the troll that he is, states:
Or: So why is malaria evidence that biological life wasn’t designed? Or wasn’t designed intelligently? MS: It’s not (evidence that it was not Intelligently Designed). It’s evidence that the Designer is either very nasty or something mindless like evolution.
Apart from the fact that MS is self admittedly making a specific Theological argument against the Christian God in particular (see his earlier posts), and is not making a specific scientific argument against Intelligent Design in particular, it turns out that Malaria, as well as the Bubonic Plague, Ebola, AIDS, and Smallpox actually present strong scientific evidence against neo-Darwinian claims, as well as providing fairly strong scientific evidence for the Judeo-Christian claim that we live in a fallen world. All of those diseases that were listed were, as far as I can tell, originally created benign and only recently became pathogenic due to genetic entropy. Which is exactly as would be held in the Judeo-Christian worldview as a starting presupposition,,
Setting a Molecular Clock for Malaria Parasites - July 8, 2010 Excerpt: "Malaria parasites undoubtedly were relatively benign for most of that history (in humans), becoming a major disease only after the origins of agriculture and dense human populations," said Ricklefs. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117259 Genome sequencing of chimpanzee malaria parasites reveals possible pathways of adaptation to human hosts - 18 July 2014 In summary,,, homologues are found in all Plasmodium species, implying a universal and ancient role in the relationship between Plasmodium parasites and their vertebrate hosts. There are 568 rif genes in P. reichenowi and only 185 in P. falciparum, with the number of pseudogenes differing by a similar ratio (49 and 27, respectively; Table 2 and Fig. 2b). The number of stevor genes is also higher in P. reichenowi (66) than in P. falciparum (42). Successful colonization of humans is therefore clearly possible with a much reduced repertoire of these two important multigene families. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140909/ncomms5754/full/ncomms5754.html
As well, like malaria, a Genetic study now shows that bubonic plague (Black Death) was caused by loss of genes and streamlining of a non-pathogenic bacteria. In other words, the disease was caused by 'genetic entropy':
The independent evolution of harmful organisms from one bacterial family – April 21, 2014 Excerpt: For the first time, researchers have studied the Black Death bacterium’s entire family tree to fully understand how some of the family members evolve to become harmful.,, “Before this study, there was uncertainty about what path these species took to become pathogenic: had they split from a shared common pathogenic ancestor? Or had they evolved independently”,,, By examining the whole genomes of both the pathogenic and non-pathogenic species, they were able to determine that many of the metabolic functions, lost by the pathogenic species, were ancestral. These functions were probably important for growth in a range of niches, and have been lost rather than gained in specific family lines in the Yersinia family. “We commonly think bacteria must gain genes to allow them to become pathogens. However, we now know that the loss of genes and the streamlining of the pathogen’s metabolic capabilities are key features in the evolution of these disease-causing bacteria,” http://phys.org/news/2014-04-plague-family-independent-evolution-bacterial.html
As well, in the following study the researchers speculate that Ebola plays a beneficial role in its original host
Bats and Viruses: Friend or Foe? – 2013 Viral RNA specific to both Ebola and Marburg has been identified in a number of fruit bat species from Gabon and Democratic Republic of Congo,,, ,,,bats generally harbour viruses with no clinical signs of disease.,,, it seems unlikely that bats’ ability to asymptomatically carry viruses is a recently acquired trait.,,, Do Viruses Benefit the Host? The fact that bats harbour such a large number of viruses poses an important question: do these viruses provide any benefit to the host?,,, It seems plausible that some of the viruses that bats harbour may have oncolytic properties that confer antitumor activity to the host.,,, http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1003651
As well the AIDS virus is found to be non-pathogenetic in its original host.
"the AIDS virus originated relatively recently, as a mutation from SIV, the simian immuno-deficiency virus. According to Wikipedia, this virus was also benign in its original form:.. Unlike HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections in humans, SIV infections in their natural hosts appear in many cases to be non-pathogenic. Extensive studies in sooty mangabeys have established that SIVsmm infection does not cause any disease in these animals, despite high levels of circulating virus." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/#comment-448372
The history of smallpox is much less well understood, but it appears that smallpox has also been benign for most of its history, like all the other diseases listed, and only recently became pathogenic:
On the origins of smallpox – where and when did variola virus emerge? – March 2011 Excerpt: Smallpox-like skin lesions have been observed on Egyptian mummies dating from as far back as 1580 B.C yet there is no mention of the disease at all in the Old or New testaments nor even the Hippocratic texts. There was some mention of a smallpox-like disease in China and India as early as 1500 B.C but the only unmistakable description can be found from the 4th century A.D in China. Interestingly there was no mention of smallpox in the American continents nor in sub-Saharan Africa prior to European exploration.,,, http://ruleof6ix.fieldofscience.com/2011/03/on-origins-of-smallpox-where-and-when.html
Thus contrary to the claims of a 'evil designer', the fact of the matter is that there is strong evidence to believe that the pathogens were originally benign, even beneficial, and only fairly recently became pathogenic due to genetic entropy. And it is also very good that genetic entropy is true. Sanford has shown that the destructive effects of pathogens on humans are fairly quickly modulated by information loss.
Evolution and the Ebola Virus: Pacing a Small Cage - Michael Behe - October 24, 2014 Excerpt: The high rate of mutation of Ebola is similar to what John Sanford has demonstrated for the H1N1 virus that caused the influenza pandemic after World War I. He makes a compelling case that the accumulating mutations there were degradatory could not be eliminated easily by selection, and eventually caused the virus's extinction in 2009. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/evolution_and_t090621.html
bornagain77_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Matt, no need to worry, either thread can accommodate you if you've decided to finally engage. Since you think the extant translation apparatus was built up from your conception of non-translated "physical" information over time, I'd like to ask you about whatever organization that you think existed just prior to the extant system. Did that system have to have the capacity to specify the extant system it was the predecessor of? If so, how it accomplish that?Upright BiPed_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 101June 29, 2016 at 6:09 pm Upright Biped @ 91, is not refuting anyone’s arguments or making any of his own. Matt, every time I’ve tried to engage you, you go off into the weeds and engage nothing. If you’d like to truly engage, then say so. We can start with the last time I tried to engage you — do you understand the physical distinction between the actual semantic information involved in biology and your conception of “physical” information? If so, then why do you insist on conflating them?
Sorry Upright, but that conversation is on the Godsmackingly Stupid thread. Barry grabbed a (probably inadvertent) quote mine from that thread and hijacked it over to here. After I discover this thread (some thirty messages in) I pretty much had to respond. I want to get back to the Gobsmackingly thread, but as you can see, I'm way too busy here for the moment. As soon as things calm down, I'll return to Gobsmackingly, but I'm having to reply to too many messages here to do that just now. I definitely do not want to add messages about information to the flood.MatSpirit_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Origenes@88:
Note that ID is compatible with every kind of intelligence imaginable and with every intention behind the design imaginable.
If it is compatible with everything, what good is it?Daniel King_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Origenes @100
OrigenesJune 29, 2016 at 5:49 pm MatSpirit: The problem that ID believes that Plasmodium falciparum, the microorganism that causes malaria, and the Anopheles mosquito that spreads it to babies, was deliberately created … You keep saying this, but can you actually point to ID research in support of your statement?
From The Edge of Evolution by Michael J Behe
"WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it. What sort of designer is that? What sort of “fine-tuning” leads to untold human misery? To countless mothers mourning countless children? Did a hateful, malign being make intelligent life in order to torture it? One who relishes cries of pain?"
MatSpirit_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Bill Cole @ 93: "For me ID is a scientific inference that is an alternative to evolutionary theory." To me it looks like ID spends most of its time trying to discredit evolution. Bill Dembski tries to discredit it with math, Steven Meyers tries to discredit it with geology and by not understanding what information is or how a disk drive works (see my messages in the Gobsmackingly thread) and Michael Behe tries to discredit it with irreducible complexity. Frankly, none of them has done very well, the outside world ignores them and the Discovery Institute has let Dembski go. BC: "The ID inference exists because there is not a well established mechanism that can be modeled to explain how evolutionary transitions occur." It would be more accurate to say there's not a well established mechanism that ID accepts. The scientific world doesn't seem to have that problem, the tax sucking toffs. BC: "The third way is a group of scientists that are trying to discover a mechanism. A book that explains some of these alternatives is Evolution a view from the 21st century by James Shapiro." I've got that book. I didn't see anything all that impressive in it. Why don't you give me his strongest argument or some page numbers in the book where Shapiro gives them and I'll re-read it. Multiple page numbers are fine. BC: "The reason ID as an inference has credibility with me is because of the evidence of design in complex cellular micro machines like the Ribosome, ATP Synthase, the nuclear pore complex, and the spliceosome." In other words, you think evolution is discredited. BC: "Designing the DNA sequences so these machines can be made every time the cell divides is well beyond mans capability. How they arrived is one of the great mysteries of all of science." I agree that it's beyond man's capability. But then molecular biology only goes back to the 50s. That's 66 years. I'm sure we'll be building organisms from scratch by 2082. Meanwhile, ID continues to use the fact that humans can design as evidence that an unknown and undetected designer is responsible for life - while very much not wanting to talk about the moral implications of such design. BC: "Try do separate in your mind the political movement of ID from the scientific inference." Easy.MatSpirit_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped @ 91, is not refuting anyone’s arguments or making any of his own.
Matt, every time I've tried to engage you, you go off into the weeds and engage nothing. If you'd like to truly engage, then say so. We can start with the last time I tried to engage you -- do you understand the physical distinction between the actual semantic information involved in biology and your conception of "physical" information? If so, then why do you insist on conflating them?Upright BiPed_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit: The problem that ID believes that Plasmodium falciparum, the microorganism that causes malaria, and the Anopheles mosquito that spreads it to babies, was deliberately created ...
You keep saying this, but can you actually point to ID research in support of your statement? Note that ID modestly claims that certain aspects of life are best explained by intelligent design. This should not be conflated with the claim all aspects of life are best explained by design.Origenes_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Phinehas @92:
es58: Matspirit were the ovens in auschwitz designed? We’re their designers intelligent?
MatSpirit: I’m assuming you have a reason for that post and I’m hoping you tell us what it was. My answer would be, “Yes” to both questions.
So why is malaria evidence that biological life wasn’t designed? Or wasn’t designed intelligently?
It's not. It's evidence that the Designer is either very nasty or something mindless like evolution.MatSpirit_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

john-a-Designer @ 90 Paul, like Upright Biped @ 91, is not refuting anyone's arguments or making any of his own. He's just calling people poopie heads. That's kindergarten level "argument".MatSpirit_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

It’s curious though, that so many people in this thread respond to criticism of the Designer by defending the Christian God. Hey guys, you’re letting the cat out of the bag. Also, if the Designer is not God, then those arguments don’t apply.
So, basically MatSpirit is admitting here to being a troll.William J Murray_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit said:
MS: No, I think I get most of them from posts marked “News”.
I doubt that. It's pretty obvious you came in here with a lot of misconceptions you seem unwilling to give up.
Well, if the Designer is evil and the designer is the Christian God, then you’re probably actually worshipping the Devil. I mean, what other evil supernatural characters are there? I’ve read in the Bible that the Devil is very very clever and wouldn’t impersonating God be a fiendishly clever trick?
First: I'm not a Christian. I've never read the Bible. Second: You haven't answered the question: if the designer is evil, what difference does it make to the theory that some phenomena were designed?
Also, since ISIS also worships the God of Abraham, that would explain a lot about their behavior.
Actually, I don't think you're arguing in good faith. I think it just tickles you to act like a bratty teenager online.William J Murray_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

William J Murray @ 89
MatSpirit @86:
There is? I thought science was a conspiracy of elitist toffs suckling on the government teat while living high off the hog on the taxpayer’s money, pausing occasionally to persecute some poor Christian who dares to question the party line. Wonder where I got that idea?
Probably where you seem to get most of your ideas about that which you argue against: inventions of your own imagination maintained by willful ignorance in the face of continued correction.
MS: No, I think I get most of them from posts marked "News".
What difference do you think it makes to ID theory if the designer of life turned out to be evil?
Well, if the Designer is evil and the designer is the Christian God, then you're probably actually worshipping the Devil. I mean, what other evil supernatural characters are there? I've read in the Bible that the Devil is very very clever and wouldn't impersonating God be a fiendishly clever trick? Also, since ISIS also worships the God of Abraham, that would explain a lot about their behavior.MatSpirit_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Origenes @ 88: "Which moral problems should be addressed?" The problem that ID believes that Plasmodium falciparum, the microorganism that causes malaria, and the Anopheles mosquito that spreads it to babies, was deliberately created, but can't seem to understand what that implies about the designer - terrorist's morals. Or even thinks it's worth commenting on. Just imagine the outrage you'd feel if an ISIS terrorist was caught planting infected Anopheles mosquitos in a Florida swamp? And yet it doesn't seem to be a problem for ID. It's curious though, that so many people in this thread respond to criticism of the Designer by defending the Christian God. Hey guys, you're letting the cat out of the bag. Also, if the Designer is not God, then those arguments don't apply. I do have a little good news - or at least less bad news. Wikipedia says malaria only killed about 660,000 people in 2010 and only two thirds of them were babies.MatSpirit_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply