Intelligent Design

What if Shakespeare Were an Alien?

Spread the love

William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the world’s greatest playwright, towering head and shoulders over all who came before and all who came after.  Maybe Shakespeare was so good because he wasn’t a human at all but a member of a hyper-intelligent alien race who happened to be visiting earth in the late 1500’s.  If you subscribe to Cromwell’s rule, you cannot dismiss this hypothesis out of hand.  It is not logically impossible.  Therefore, Cromwell’s rule suggests that we should assign some probability to the possibility even if it is one in a hundred billion.  Otherwise, like the “green cheese” example in the Wikipedia article, we would not be convinced even if we were to find the schematics to Shakespeare’s spaceship in a dusty old attic in Statford-upon-Avon.

Now assume that you are trying to determine whether a design inference is appropriate with respect to Hamlet.  You conclude that Hamlet is rich in complex specified information and infer that the best explanation for the provenance of the play is “intelligent design.”  Many times here at UD our materialist friends have argued that we can infer design only if we know the designer was human.  For example, we are often told that if we were to argue that an arrowhead is designed, we could do so only on the basis of our knowledge that Indians were humans who designed things like ourselves.

Now, since it is not logically impossible, assume for the sake of argument that Shakespeare was an alien.  If that were the case, Hamlet was not written by a human.

Here’s the question:  Is our design inference invalid if Shakespeare turns out to have been an alien?

177 Replies to “What if Shakespeare Were an Alien?

  1. 1
    Jerad says:

    It’s like some goofy Dr Who episode.

    I don’t have a problem accepting that some member of another intelligent species wrote Hamlet.

    But there is no evidence for it. No evidence that aliens exist or have visited the earth. And there’s sufficient evidence for a man named William Shakespeare who lived at the time who was capable of writing Hamlet. The alien creation hypothesis is clearly not the best hypothesis.

    You’re grasping at straws. You can’t magic a designer out of nothing so don’t try and get people to accept a proposition that hasn’t been established.

    The kind of scenario you SHOULD be exploring is something more like the following (taking off from a conversation I had with Joe G (I always credit my sources)):

    What if one of the Mars explorers found a clearly manufactured structure on Mars. Something that could not possibly be explained by natural processes. What then? Would the non-ID community then accept the inference of design without having any knowledge of the designer(s)?

  2. 2
    keith s says:

    Barry,

    Before you leave for your trip, will you explain why you deleted an entire thread, along with the comments?

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, did you read this empirical falsification of your position?

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-533416

  4. 4
    keith s says:

    BA77,

    What does that any of that have to do with Barry’s deletion of an entire thread?

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, so you don’t think the empirical falsification of your neo-Darwinian position to be of any importance to you personally?,,, Why does that not surprise me?

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

  6. 6
    keith s says:

    BA77,

    Barry deleted an entire thread. What do you think about that?

    What if a “Darwinist” had done so?

  7. 7
    Sebestyen says:

    What if one of the Mars explorers found a clearly manufactured structure on Mars. Something that could not possibly be explained by natural processes. What then? Would the non-ID community then accept the inference of design without having any knowledge of the designer(s)?

    Of course they would. As long as they can somehow hold any kind of non-supernatural beings responsible for the design (“aliens”) they’re more than happy to invoke ID.
    It doesn’t even have to be a whole structure. A small item like an old, rotten metal disc would most certainly be considered as proof for the influence of intelligent beings.
    But if they can’t attribute their findings to non-supernatural influences, they’ll resort to the idea that the item must have come into existence by a natural cause, no matter how retarded that explanation is.

    Sebestyen

  8. 8
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Jerad says,

    But there is no evidence for it. No evidence that aliens exist or have visited the earth.

    I say,

    There is tons of evidence.

    1)There are literally billions of possible planets for life to arise and billions of years for it to do so.

    2)we “know” that evolution is certain once life arises.

    3) We “know” that human level intelligence is entirely due to evolution

    4) We “know” that the desire to explore the universe is the result of those same evolutionary forces

    It seems that the probability of Shakespeare being an alien is a least .5

    If it actually happened the probability is one

    Only a IDiot would even talk about probabilities of things after they already happened.

    peace

  9. 9
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Keiths said,

    Barry deleted an entire thread. What do you think about that?

    I say,

    I think Barry had a thought he wanted to share on a blog he moderates and for some reason shortly later changed his mind

    You say,

    What if a “Darwinist” had done so?

    I say,

    pretty much the same thing. Why do you ask?

    peace

  10. 10
    Barry Arrington says:

    Jerad @ 1. You don’t seem to understand what the phrase “assume for the sake of argument” means. Let me help you with that. It means roughly, set aside issues of evidentiary warrant and assume a fact to be true for purposes of an argument. Responding to “assume X is true for the sake of argument” with reasons why X should not be assumed misses the point. Which means, most of your response misses the point of the OP.

    I don’t have a problem accepting that some member of another intelligent species wrote Hamlet.

    It seems that it would follow that you reject your fellow materialists who insist that we cannot make a design inference unless we know the putative designer was human.

  11. 11
    keith s says:

    fifthmonarchyman:

    I think Barry had a thought he wanted to share on a blog he moderates and for some reason shortly later changed his mind

    “For some reason”? 🙂

    I have a pretty good idea what the reason was, but I’m hoping to hear Barry’s side of the story. How about it, Barry?

    ETA: Particularly in light of this statement on Barry’s website (H/T timothya at AtBC):

    Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    semi related,,,

    In the following video, C.S. Lewis, in comparison to Shakespeare perhaps playing a role in one of his own plays, comments on God ‘playing the role of a person’:

    Finding Shakespeare by C.S. Lewis Doodle – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXlBCZ_5OYw

    +++++++++++

    As a footnote; Kurt Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to the ‘Theory of Everything’, also had this to say:

    The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
    Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.”
    Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed)
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    Hebrews 2:14-15
    “Since we, God’s children, are human beings – made of flesh and blood – He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread.”

    ======

    “I commend my soul into the hands of God my Creator, hoping and assuredly believing, through the only merits of Jesus Christ my Savior, to be made partaker of life everlasting; and my body to the earth, whereof it was made.”
    William Shakespeare – Last will and testament
    http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/sh.....kwill.html

    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
    William Shakespeare – Hamlet

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, you ask me after I asked you directly about the empirical falsification of neo-Darwinism:

    “BA77,
    Barry deleted an entire thread. What do you think about that?”

    keith s, I think you are trying to avoid honestly dealing with the empirical science I presented that falsifies your materialistic/atheistic position by focusing on what you think is a trivial moral transgression on Mr. Arrington’s part,,, (although, ironically, morals are illusory in your worldview anyway).

    Moreover, I think you are trying to, like a bothersome insect, antagonize Mr. Arrington on a site that he can damn well do what he pleases on since he is owner of the blog.,,, Including banning you for being a pest!

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    You may have a point, Barry

    “taH pagh taHbe’,!”

    “You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon.”

  15. 15
    keith s says:

    BA77,

    Sure, Barry can ban me if he wants to, but doing so would come at a high price.

    It would further cement his reputation as a censor of critical viewpoints, given that a) I just caught him red-handed deleting an entire thread, and b) UDers are still struggling to refute my “Bomb” argument (provided at Barry’s request) after 5 1/2 weeks and more than a dozen threads.

    If he bans me now, he’s admitting defeat. If he doesn’t ban me, then my criticisms continue. He has a tough choice to make.

  16. 16
    Axel says:

    The Black Knight has spoken….!

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    LOL Axel,,, perfect moment for that!

  18. 18
    Axel says:

    Well, I can’t imagine a more devastating put-down to describe habitual aberrancy in logic, proclaimed with a superbly extravagant bombast.

    Congratulations on coming up with it. I think it was you, wasn’t it?

  19. 19
    keith s says:

    Says Axel, who couldn’t refute my argument if his life depended on it.

  20. 20
    Me_Think says:

    Here’s the question: Is our design inference invalid if Shakespeare turns out to have been an alien?

    Wonderful news, now CSI (‘design interface’ seems to impart something more to ID than what ID is right now) can detect if the designer is alien or not. Why would anyone object to that, if it turns out to be true? Of course ‘design interface’ would be valid if ‘turns out to be true’ is literal and not another UPB argument.

  21. 21
    Mapou says:

    Jerad:

    But there is no evidence for it. No evidence that aliens exist or have visited the earth. And there’s sufficient evidence for a man named William Shakespeare who lived at the time who was capable of writing Hamlet. The alien creation hypothesis is clearly not the best hypothesis.

    Actually, there is a ton of historical, archaeological and logical evidence all over the world that aliens have been here on earth in recent history. The evidence is overwhelming. Materialists have seen to it that the evidence is swept under the rug with the label “religious myth” attached to it. Nothing is allowed to compete with the one true religion. But soon there will be a new sheriff in town. Wait for it.

    Latest evidence at Baalbek, Lebanon

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s as to:

    “Says Axel, who couldn’t refute my argument if his life depended on it.”

    Now, now, keith s, for someone who himself believes that his own brain, (which is, by far, more complex than the entire internet combined), came about by purely unguided, indeed accidental, processes, I would not be commenting on the supposed lack of intelligence of another human if I were you. (whoever ‘you’ is in your scheme of things) 🙂

    —-

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

  23. 23
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: Now, since it is not logically impossible, assume for the sake of argument that Shakespeare was an alien. If that were the case, Hamlet was not written by a human.

    In other words, an alien who looked like a human, dressed like a human, acted like a human, drank ale like a human, told jokes that humans thought funny*, and wrote poetry consistent with the culture of the time and period. In any case, we would have evidence of the causation linking the artisan, art, and artifact.

    * Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.

  24. 24
    Barry Arrington says:

    Zachriel, you seem to be saying that a design inference is invalid unless someone actually observes the designer designing. Is that your position?

  25. 25
    keith s says:

    Barry,

    Your silence in response to my question speaks volumes.

  26. 26
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    UDers are still struggling to refute my “Bomb” argument (provided at Barry’s request) after 5 1/2 weeks and more than a dozen threads.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Are you serious? Blowing smoke up your own orifice is not recommended. You have been refuted, numerous times and yet here you are making another stupendous claim about your supposed assumptions being some type of fact, worse still….. You already admitted that you can’t really believe yourself so why should we Keith S?

    So Barry deleted a post big deal! This is his site and he may do as he damn well pleases! You’re just being petty, as silly as it is I should not be surprised because the belief in your head that unguided processes can create guided processes should be a clear indication for any rational person out there that Keith S is short of a few sandwiches to make a picnic basket.

  27. 27
    Mark Frank says:

    Barry

    we are often told that if we were to argue that an arrowhead is designed, we could do so only on the basis of our knowledge that Indians were humans who designed things like ourselves.

    I don’t know about others but that is not exactly my point.  I would argue

    1) If you are going to conclude something is designed you need to have a design hypothesis which includes some kind of description of the designer and its motives or you have no way of assigning a probability to that hypothesis – an alien is such a hypothesis but very, very implausible.

    2) The argument “all things with characteristic X that we know the provenance were designed, life has characteristic X therefore we can infer it was designed” could equally well be expressed “all things with characteristic X that we know the provenance were designed by humans, life has characteristic X therefore we can infer it was designed by humans

  28. 28
    Sebestyen says:

    … I would argue
    1) If you are going to conclude something is designed you need to have a design hypothesis which includes some kind of description of the designer and its motives or you have no way of assigning a probability to that hypothesis – an alien is such a hypothesis but very, very implausible.

    And I would argue that if “Curiosity” would find a small building on Mars, nobody of those who oppose ID would doubt that it was “intelligently designed” regardless if we know anything about the designer or its motives. It would just be obvious to anyone with a sane mind.

    It would certainly spark a lot of discussion about the nature of the designer, but there certainly wouldn’t be any debate about wether the building came into existence by natural forces or not.

    Sebestyen

  29. 29
    keith s says:

    Andre,

    So Barry deleted a post big deal! This is his site and he may do as he damn well pleases!

    If you think that’s his “excuse”, then why doesn’t he just come out and say so? Instead, he’s been avoiding my question for days.

    I think he is ashamed of what he did, because he knows that it falls short of his claimed standards:

    Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.

  30. 30
    Jerad says:

    #10

    It seems that it would follow that you reject your fellow materialists who insist that we cannot make a design inference unless we know the putative designer was human.

    I rather suspect that their point is that we have only observed human designers (although the Japanese puffer fish definitely should count) and therefore you cannot extrapolate an undefined, undetected, non-human designer who operated at some time, some where for some reason.

    It hardly matters; ID proponents are incredibly reluctant to be specific about their hypothesised designer or its abilities or when it implemented its designs or what designs it implemented or how it implemented its designs. Which is why ID, as it currently stands, has no explanatory power.

  31. 31
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    Instead, he’s been avoiding my question for days.

    That is rich coming from you, double standards much Keith? Lets have an open, honest and duscussion about PCD……

    Will you?

  32. 32
    keith s says:

    Andre,

    I started an entire thread at TSZ just for you to discuss your precious PCD.

    Have you forgotten already? It’s still there, waiting for you.

  33. 33
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    You are dishonest….. Here is what Barry said and please take note he does not say what you claim! Where did Barry say?

    Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.

    I am now a Colorado Christian bankruptcy lawyer / attorney in Centennial, Littleton and Aurora, seeking excellence in all I do. To some, being a Christian might seem like having a divided mind, being passive or lacking focus. To me, it means having insight into how people think and behave, and having a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires. While serving my clients, I am also serving God as a Christian lawyer / attorney.

    Now if you actually knew anything about Christianity you would know that striving to be like Christ is actually a standard way above what the world requires. I strive for that daily but I am very well aware of the limits of my own moral efforts…..

    Lastly when you do chosse to quote someone, please do it properly!

  34. 34
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    That is a cop-out the discussion started here the discussion can continue here, I have told you before I have no interest in your game of belittling and ridiculing people by ambushing them on a thread where open discussion is matter of fact not welcome…..

    You started by calling me a little twerp…… just to set the tone, that means 1 of two things…….

    Keith S is a Douche bag or Keith S is an even bigger Douche bag!

    You are not an honest person, you are a disgrace to yourself.

  35. 35
    keith s says:

    Andre,

    Your fear of TSZ is bizarre.

    Regarding #33, are you claiming that I misrepresented Barry? Where?

    Here are the two references I made to his website:

    ETA: Particularly in light of this statement on Barry’s website (H/T timothya at AtBC):

    Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.

    And:

    I think he is ashamed of what he did, because he knows that it falls short of his claimed standards:

    Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.

    Neither of those is a misrepresentation, as you already know.

    (By the way, you do realize that you aren’t doing Barry any favors by continuing to call attention to this, don’t you? He obviously just wants it all to go away, so the last thing he needs is someone like you defending him.)

  36. 36
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    You are not a moral authority, you are a very hypocritical, unethical, double standard, obtuse liar. Why don’t you focus on your own issues?

    I don’t like TSZ because its a slime pit of angry irrational people, you being one of them if you did not know…..

    Lastly, you misrepresented what Barry says, you know it, yet you still do it, just like you have been unwilling to accept that your whole Bomb was a house of cards…..

    Barry can certainly speak for himself if he chooses to, but you need to man up yourself. Can we expect you to be honest and open? I don’t think so because once you start believing your own manufactured lies, it is too late.

    I don’t respect you, lets get that clear…. you are a fraud……

  37. 37
    Jerad says:

    #36

    Andre, the statement ‘Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.’ is, in fact, clearly displayed on Barry’s website.

    http://www.bankruptcylawyer4de.....-statement

    Even if it’s in a separate text box the rendering of the statement implies it is a quote from him.

    Barry’s ‘personal statement’ upholds and amplifies that statement.

    I am not criticising him for his views, I was just curious and went to see for myself.

  38. 38
    Andre says:

    I understand it differently. I read it that Barry is saying that Christianity has a standard higher than the world requires, it does not mean Barry’s is higher than others….

    Being a Christian does not make you a better person or increase your morals! Being a Christian means you are under grace…..

    Barry being a Christians knows this truth so it is highly unlikely that he is saying he has better morals than others!

  39. 39
    Jerad says:

    #38

    You could be right, I’m not judging him on it. I was just curious so I looked.

    Mr Arrington himself would be best qualified to interpret what he ‘said’ on his website.

  40. 40
    keith s says:

    Andre,

    He’s saying what he’s saying:

    Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.

    Surreptitiously deleting an entire thread to save face is not what I’d call an act of integrity.

  41. 41
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    That is not what Barry said in his statement stop this deliberate nonsense!

    Barry is saying that Christianity is the standard and he tries to follow it he does not say his own moral efforts are better! Seriously!

  42. 42
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    Since when does integrity matter to you? You’re the one that has been unwilling to reason, learn or speak truth…… I think the irony meter has just exploded…..

    Keith S demands integrity! Y’all better adhere to his high moral standards! But he is not so sure because he can’t really trust his own mind!

  43. 43
    Pachyaena says:

    Sebestyen said: “And I would argue that if “Curiosity” would find a small building on Mars, nobody of those who oppose ID would doubt that it was “intelligently designed” regardless if we know anything about the designer or its motives.”

    Well, when you find a “small building” in a life form, let me know.

  44. 44
    Sebestyen says:

    Well, when you find a “small building” in a life form, let me know.

    We weren’t even talking about life forms. Jeez…

  45. 45
    Andre says:

    Well what do you know!

    We have found a building inside a life form…….

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....102334.htm

  46. 46
    Pachyaena says:

    Barry said: “Many times here at UD our materialist friends have argued that we can infer design only if we know the designer was human.”

    Not exactly. Non-IDers justifiably argue that way if the item brought up is something designed by humans but some designed things are not designed by humans, such as bee hives, beaver dams, and bird nests. It’s actually you IDers who constantly compare things that are designed-created by humans with what you claim are intelligently designed features in/of life forms and other things in the cosmos, and then using your comparisons you assert that most or all (IDers obviously won’t agree on most or all) of the cosmos is designed-created (by a particular supernatural God).

  47. 47
    Pachyaena says:

    Sebestyen said: “We weren’t even talking about life forms. Jeez…”

    You should be, since it’s already known that buildings (whether small or big) are designed.

  48. 48
    Pachyaena says:

    Andre said: “We have found a building inside a life form…….”

    LOL

  49. 49
    Sebestyen says:

    You should be, …

    Well, apparently we’re not discussing life forms so if you want to disucss life forms make your own post about life forms.

    Good day, sir…

  50. 50
    Pachyaena says:

    Andre said: “Keith S demands integrity! Y’all better adhere to his high moral standards! But he is not so sure because he can’t really trust his own mind!”

    Andre, some people actually have integrity, and many people just claim to have integrity because of their belief in a God. If believing in a God were the source of integrity, all and only God believers would have impeccable integrity. A realistic look at humans clearly shows that believing in a God does not produce or guarantee integrity.

  51. 51
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    It hardly matters; ID proponents are incredibly reluctant to be specific about their hypothesised designer or its abilities or when it implemented its designs or what designs it implemented or how it implemented its designs.

    LoL! All of that comes AFTER we have determined intelligent design is present. And guess what? You position still has absolutely NOTHING.

    Which is why ID, as it currently stands, has no explanatory power.

    That is your uneducated opinion. To real investigators saying something was intelligently designed tells them quite a bit. For one it eliminates entire classes of causes. For another it tells them which way to take their investigation.

  52. 52
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ keith s:

    Barry deleted an entire thread.

    2 comments. Barry deleted his OP and my 2 comments and keith s exaggerates it. Very typical.

  53. 53
    Joe says:

    Mark Frank:

    1) If you are going to conclude something is designed you need to have a design hypothesis which includes some kind of description of the designer

    Nonsense. We just need the entailments of the design.

    2) The argument “all things with characteristic X that we know the provenance were designed, life has characteristic X therefore we can infer it was designed” could equally well be expressed “all things with characteristic X that we know the provenance were designed by humans, life has characteristic X therefore we can infer it was designed by humans”

    Wrong again, as usual. If we know that humans could not have done it then we infer some other intelligent agency did. That is how science works, Mark.

    Man am I happy that our opponents are not investigators.

  54. 54
    Jerad says:

    #51

    LoL! All of that comes AFTER we have determined intelligent design is present. And guess what? You position still has absolutely NOTHING.

    Well, let us know when you have decided intelligent design is present.

    That is your uneducated opinion. To real investigators saying something was intelligently designed tells them quite a bit. For one it eliminates entire classes of causes. For another it tells them which way to take their investigation.

    Depending on the class/nature/type of designer eh?

    IF the intelligent design was all front-loaded then we might be looking at a now absent (or even now non-existent) designer. But,since the common ID view is that mutations are overwhelmingly negative one would expect the fossil record to show the earliest life-forms were the most ‘advanced’.

    IF the intelligent design is ongoing, i.e. lots and lots of input over millions of years, then we have an active but limited designer. One who could not create its magnum opus in one go. One who has to constantly tinker to get things moving in the right direction. Knowing that Joe favours Lee Spetner’s contention that mutations are directed I’m guessing he’s thinking along these lines even though he won’t say so. Unless he can point to his elusive ‘extra programming’ which he believes fervently in. Epigenetics? Mitochondrial DNA?

    Owing to the lack of equipment/labs/documentation/workshops/etc we are assuming one who is either exceedingly tidy or not based on earth? A bit trickier if it’s an ongoing process.

  55. 55
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    Well, let us know when you have decided intelligent design is present.

    We have. However we do not have your agenda.

    Depending on the class/nature/type of designer eh?

    Why?

    IF the intelligent design was all front-loaded then we might be looking at a now absent (or even now non-existent) designer.

    So what? How does knowing the designer add anything?

    But,since the common ID view is that mutations are overwhelmingly negative

    That is also incorrect.

    You know, Jerad, if your position had something, anything, we wouldn’t be talking about ID. So I take it that it bothers you that your position has nothing- no hypotheses, no theory, no entailments and no models.

  56. 56
    Jerad says:

    #55

    Well, let us know when you have decided intelligent design is present.

    We have. However we do not have your agenda.

    So, when can we expect some preliminary conclusions? What research projects are in progress? What questions are being investigated? Inquiring minds want to know.

    So what? How does knowing the designer add anything?

    It helps explain why we see the various ‘records’ that we have: the fossils, the genomes of existing flora and fauna, the morphology and the bio-geographic distribution. The ID community does care about explaining those surely. Since ID claims it is a better explanation than modern evolutionary theory.

    But,since the common ID view is that mutations are overwhelmingly negative

    That is also incorrect.

    Not based on what I hear from the Discovery Institute. Casely Luskin is quite adamant about that. He says most mutations destroy information and are detrimental to function. He recently republished an interview he did about how various dog breeds are less well adapted than their antecedents.

    You know, Jerad, if your position had something, anything, we wouldn’t be talking about ID. So I take it that it bothers you that your position has nothing- no hypotheses, no theory, no entailments and no models.

    Not at all. I’m quite confident in ‘my position’ as are millions of working scientists who are doing research, the results of which are consistent with the modern evolutionary synthesis and are helping to fill in more and more details every day.

    One might also say that intelligent design, as a paradigm, reigned supreme for thousands of years. Why do think it’s no longer taken seriously by a vast majority of PhD-level biologists around the world?

  57. 57
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    So, when can we expect some preliminary conclusions?

    The preliminary conclusion is that the unverse and living organisms are intelligently designed.

    It helps explain why we see the various ‘records’ that we have:

    How would knowing who the designer was do that?

    Since ID claims it is a better explanation than modern evolutionary theory.

    There isn’t any “modern evolutionary theory”.

    Not based on what I hear from the Discovery Institute. Casely Luskin is quite adamant about that. He says most mutations destroy information and are detrimental to function.

    Reference please.

    I’m quite confident in ‘my position’ as are millions of working scientists who are doing research, the results of which are consistent with the modern evolutionary synthesis and are helping to fill in more and more details every day.

    And yet they have no idea regarding anything evolution. Heck they don’t even know what makes an organism what it is. Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution is totally useless and no one is doing any unguided/ blind watchmaker research.

  58. 58
    DNA_Jock says:

    Andre @ 31

    That is rich coming from you, double standards much Keith? Lets have an open, honest and duscussion about PCD……

    Well, Andre, I’ve been trying to have a discussion with you about PCD, but you keep running away.
    see the following threads:

    hekS-suggests… (288 – 554)

    darwinian-debating-device-18… (@ 65 – 80)

    heks-continues-… (10 – 160)

    Well Tulha’s Figure 1 has a very useful little inset, which shows the growth curves for the wild-type and the gup1 strains: over the course of 0.5 days in exponential phase, both strains increase ten-fold, and their rates of growth are indistinguishable.

    All the while accusing me of “Lies, obtrusiveness, denial” and dishonesty,
    Not very “honorable”.

  59. 59
    Jerad says:

    #57

    The preliminary conclusion is that the unverse and living organisms are intelligently designed.

    And when will you have more? What research issues are being investigated? When are you going to investigate? What are you going to investigate?

    It helps explain why we see the various ‘records’ that we have:

    How would knowing who the designer was do that?

    I thought I already answered that. Sigh. It would help to explain why, for example, the fossil record appears the way it does.

    Not based on what I hear from the Discovery Institute. Casely Luskin is quite adamant about that. He says most mutations destroy information and are detrimental to function.

    Reference please.

    Listen to the recent edition of ID the Future released on the 20th of November. This is actually a reissue of a part of a two (or three) part interview that Casey did a year or two ago. I listen to ID the Future all the time, don’t you?

    And yet they have no idea regarding anything evolution. Heck they don’t even know what makes an organism what it is. Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution is totally useless and no one is doing any unguided/ blind watchmaker research.

    So, what’s your better explanation then? Better explanation of the fossil record. Of the bio-geographic distribution of species. Of shared morphologies. For example: what was the point of all those trilobites? They’re all extinct now so, why were they necessary? Why do you think the designer needed to bring them into existence if they were just going to die off? That sounds like a good question to investigate.

  60. 60
    Zachriel says:

    Barry Arrington: you seem to be saying that a design inference is invalid unless someone actually observes the designer designing

    Evidence can be indirect. We’re saying a design inference is inherently weak if you refuse to consider the causal connection to the designer. In your example, you have evidence of a human-like entity which is subject to investigation.

    Sebestyen: And I would argue that if “Curiosity” would find a small building on Mars, nobody of those who oppose ID would doubt that it was “intelligently designed” regardless if we know anything about the designer or its motives. It would just be obvious to anyone with a sane mind.

    Not necessarily. Only specifics could tell us whether is was really a building or something else. The more it resembled a human structure, the more likely we are to conclude design, but also the more likely we are to conclude human-like design.

    Sebestyen: It would certainly spark a lot of discussion about the nature of the designer, …

    Not just discussion, but hypotheses and research directed towards confirming or falsifying those hypotheses.
    http://science.nasa.gov/media/.....io_med.gif

  61. 61
    Pachyaena says:

    Joe, you are the worst salesman for ID. You regularly contradict yourself and other IDers, and you can’t keep your claims straight for even 5 minutes. You are crude, ignorant, and belligerent just for the sake of being crude, ignorant, and belligerent. You remind me of an irritating dog that barks and growls for no good reason. Get some anger management and a life.

  62. 62
    Sebestyen says:

    Not necessarily. Only specifics could tell us whether is was really a building or something else. The more it resembled a human structure, the more likely we are to conclude design, but also the more likely we are to conclude human-like design.

    Let’s assume an actual building and not something like the “face on mars”.

    Regardless, do you really think it is of any importance who the designer is or what its motivations are in order to decide if something was designed or came into existence by physical/chemical processes?

    Sebestyen

  63. 63
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Pachyaena 61

    Who do you think is the best salesman for ID?

  64. 64
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    I answered all your questions patiently. And I told you I’m not responding until you answer mine. You so short on memory?

  65. 65
    Zachriel says:

    Sebestyen: Let’s assume an actual building and not something like the “face on mars”.

    You seem to have missed the point. The face on Mars purportedly looked like a stone monument with a human-like face.

    We would probably only recognize the object as a building if it resembled human buildings. So let’s assume it is something that strongly resembles a human building.

    Sebestyen: do you really think it is of any importance who the designer is or what its motivations are in order to decide if something was designed or came into existence by physical/chemical processes?

    The very first thing rational humans would think is where are the inhabitants? What are they like?

    As for whether it was designed, again, it depends on its resemblance to known human artifacts. If cosmonauts discovered a Mickey Ds on Mars, then yeah, they would think someone built it.
    http://www.davidreneke.com/wp-.....Maccas.jpg

    The very first thing rational humans would think is where are the inhabitants? What are they like? How much for a Big Mac?

  66. 66
    Sebestyen says:

    You seem to have missed the point. The face on Mars purportedly looked like a stone monument with a human-like face.

    Yes, that’s why I said “an actual building”. A small mountain that looks like a face on a low quality fotograph isn’t an actual building.

    We would probably only recognize the object as a building if it resembled human buildings. So let’s assume it is something that strongly resembles a human building.

    It doesn’t necessarily has to resemble a human building, but I’m pretty sure if they’d find an actual building on mars they’d be able to identify it as such.

    The very first thing rational humans would think is where are the inhabitants? What are they like?

    No doubt about that, but now you’re missing the point. What you describe above is what follows the identification of a designed (built) stucture and not what is a precondition to identify that structure as designed.

    As for whether it was designed, again, it depends on its resemblance to known human artifacts. If cosmonauts discovered a Mickey Ds on Mars, then yeah, they would think someone built it.

    As I said above, it doesn’t have to resemble anything human-like. I’m more than certain the NASA scientists are capable to distinguish a built structure from a natural one.

    Sebestyen

  67. 67
    DNA_Jock says:

    Andre @ 64

    I answered all your questions patiently. And I told you I’m not responding until you answer mine. You so short on memory?

    What, do you mean this question:

    “How did unguided processes create a guided process to prevent unguided processes from happening?”

    Eerrrr, I answered it (@512) “You mean like an ice-dam?”
    So there’s nothing wrong with my memory. Yours, OTOH, seems rather selective.

    You did reply:

    Seriously? WE have been speaking about it for 3 days 512 responses and you play dumb?

    KF what do we call this Debating tactic?

    Me no speaka da english?

    Very eloquent.
    You might want to think about formulating your question better…

    Regarding PCD, I don’t really expect you to admit that you were wrong, but until you do, I will issue reminders of your GSW to the foot every time I see you bring the subject up.

    Well Tulha’s Figure 1 has a very useful little inset, which shows the growth curves for the wild-type and the gup1 strains: over the course of 0.5 days in exponential phase, both strains increase ten-fold, and their rates of growth are indistinguishable.

    It’s fun.

  68. 68
    Joe says:

    sock puppet:

    You regularly contradict yourself and other IDers, and you can’t keep your claims straight for even 5 minutes.

    Yes, we all know that you can spew false accusations with the best of the spewers. Do you really think that means something?

    As for rude, look in the mirror you hypocrite. And you are a very good manure salesperson.

  69. 69
    Joe says:

    Jerad:

    And when will you have more?

    Don’t know but we already have more than unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.

    What research issues are being investigated?

    Don’t know but we already have more than unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.

    When are you going to investigate? What are you going to investigate?

    When are you going to stop being so gullible? When are you going to link to this alleged theory of evolution so we can all read what it actually says?

    It would help to explain why, for example, the fossil record appears the way it does.

    There isn’t any way knowing the designer would help us with that. Knowing how the design was implemented would help, but knowing the designer would give us nothing but that.

    And no, I don’t listed to “ID the Future”. And I strongly disagree with anyone who says that most mutations are harmful or that evolution cannot proceed via intelligent design.

    Better explanation of the fossil record.

    Umm, seeing that unguided evolution can’t even get beyond populations of prokaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes, it cannot explain the fossil record.

  70. 70
    Andre says:

    DNA-Jock

    And then after 12 hours necrosis kick in and the entire gup1 mutated strain dies out. Necrosis kills the entire batch, but the wild strain keeps on living for how much longer? I am not wrong…… PCD is essential to biological systems it fails the organism dies.

  71. 71
    DNA_Jock says:

    Andre, previously:

    No PCD means there is no cell, they are unable to function without it

    The moment you break PCD or change it the organism self destructs.
    [emphasis added]

    and now:

    And then after 12 hours necrosis kick in and the entire gup1 mutated strain dies out.

    Say what?
    The figure that you linked to shows that gup1 cells have a median survival in stationary phase of about 7.4 days, whereas the wild-type strain has a median survival of about 11.8 days. There’s no detectable difference between the strains after three days (that’s 72 hours, Andre). And there’s no grow defect whatsoever in exponential phase.

    As I suspected all along, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
    “PCD essential to all life” LMAO

  72. 72
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22617017

    RESULTS:In the present work we used two known apoptosis inducing conditions, chronological aging and acetic acid, to assess several apoptotic markers in gup1? mutant strain. We found that this mutant presents a significantly reduced chronological lifespan as compared to Wt and it is also highly sensitive to acetic acid treatment. In addition, it presents extremely high levels of ROS.
    They must be liars for Jesus then….

    Do you know what significantly reduced chronological lifespan means?

    I’ll help you chump….

    Significant = sufficiently great

    Reduced = less desirable condition

    Chronological = arranged in order

    Lifespan = average time for an organism to survive.

    You can piece together what it means or do you need help?

    And they die from Necrosis in no time at all

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....figure/F3/

  73. 73
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    PCD is a fundamental biological process

    http://events.embo.org/12-cell-death/

    Not to be confused with fundamentalism……

    Fundamental = a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.

    Fundamentalism = A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views

    Are you confused again?

  74. 74
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock
    Lastly necrosis is not an instant evaporation of a cell, it takes a little time….. Hope this helps…..

    http://www.agscientific.com/ce.....tosis.html

  75. 75
    Jerad says:

    #69

    And when will you have more?

    Don’t know but we already have more than unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.

    So you don’t know.

    What research issues are being investigated?

    Don’t know but we already have more than unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.

    And this from someone who has an investigative mind? Noted.

    When are you going to investigate? What are you going to investigate?

    When are you going to stop being so gullible? When are you going to link to this alleged theory of evolution so we can all read what it actually says?

    Your non-answers and feigned ignorance are noted. You know Joe, at some point, it would be good for you to show some expertise instead of just continually trying to shout down the oppostition.

    It would help to explain why, for example, the fossil record appears the way it does.

    There isn’t any way knowing the designer would help us with that. Knowing how the design was implemented would help, but knowing the designer would give us nothing but that.

    So, even given knowledge of the designer would not add greatly to ID’s explanatory ability. Noted.

    And no, I don’t listed to “ID the Future”. And I strongly disagree with anyone who says that most mutations are harmful or that evolution cannot proceed via intelligent design.

    So you disagree with The Discovery Institute. So do I.

    Umm, seeing that unguided evolution can’t even get beyond populations of prokaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes, it cannot explain the fossil record.

    Or, perhaps, you just don’t understand the academic research.

    So, Joe, you don’t follow or agree with The Discovery Institute.

    You don’t actually have an investigative attitude regarding ID issues of when or how.

    You don’t seem to have any kind of question at all about your own assumptions or beliefs.

    But, when it comes down to it, you are reluctant to express those beliefs on this forum for everyone to examine.

    What do you think the intelligent designer did?

    When?

    How?

    Why not state clearly and unambiguously what you believe?

  76. 76
    DNA_Jock says:

    Oh Andre,
    “It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. ”

    Figure 3 shows the sensitivity of the two strains to acetic acid – which is toxic to yeast.

    You originally linked to figure 1

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....figure/F1/

    which is the figure that shows the “chronological life span”.

    But the insert in Figure 1 shows that the growth rates of the two strains are completely indistinguishable.

    Also, any chump who has actually read the paper would know that “chronological” does not mean “arranged in order” in this context. As the authors put it:

    Aging in yeast can be studied assessing either replicative or chronological lifespan. Replicative lifespan is defined as the number of daughter cells a single yeast mother cell produces before senescence; chronological lifespan is defined by the length of time cells can survive in a non-dividing, quiescence-like state

    gup1 cells have a median survival in stationary phase of about 7.4 days, whereas the wild-type strain has a median survival of about 11.8 days.
    It seems that you did not actually read the paper. Or, if you read it, you didn’t understand it.

    FYI, I am fairly confident that there is no difference between the strains in replicative lifespan.

    In case your memory is giving you trouble, your claim was “No PCD means there is no cell, they are unable to function without it“, yet gup1 cells grow just as well as wild-type.

  77. 77
    Zachriel says:

    Sebestyen: Yes, that’s why I said “an actual building”.

    The problem is knowing what that means in terms of evidence. For example, the original post proposed a simulacrum of a person.

    Sebestyen: It doesn’t necessarily has to resemble a human building, but I’m pretty sure if they’d find an actual building on mars they’d be able to identify it as such.

    If Martians resemble Earthlings, then sure. Otherwise, maybe not.
    http://www.livescience.com/976.....-home.html

  78. 78
    DNA_Jock says:

    Andre the scholar:

    Lastly necrosis is not an instant evaporation of a cell, it takes a little time….. Hope this helps…..

    You do realize that they measured viability via c.f.u., so they are measuring the time to commitment to necrosis, NOT time to cell death.

    Or do I need to explain what c.f.u. are?
    7.4 days is a long time for a yeast cell.
    Oh dear indeed.

  79. 79
    Alicia Renard says:

    From Barry Arrington’s OP:

    Now assume that you are trying to determine whether a design inference is appropriate with respect to Hamlet.

    Hilarious! What is the question scholars have been arguing about? How could the son of a glove maker move from rural Warwickshire and end up as the World-famous playwright. Nobody is asking whether the plays were written by a human being.

    You conclude that Hamlet is rich in complex specified information and infer that the best explanation for the provenance of the play is “intelligent design.”

    Conclude, maybe. On the other hand, as nobody can give a coherent definition of “CSI” nor give an explanation of what “intelligent design” entails, such statements are not explanations at all.

    Many times here at UD our materialist friends have argued that we can infer design only if we know the designer was human. For example, we are often told that if we were to argue that an arrowhead is designed, we could do so only on the basis of our knowledge that Indians were humans who designed things like ourselves.

    So parochial! Homo erectus individuals were chipping arrow heads possibly 400 thousand years ago.

    Now, since it is not logically impossible, assume for the sake of argument that Shakespeare was an alien. If that were the case, Hamlet was not written by a human.

    Ah but! Many scholars reject that Shakespeare, the glove maker’s son from rural Warwickshire did write those plays.

    Here’s the question: Is our design inference invalid if Shakespeare turns out to have been an alien?

    No. The design inference is irrelevant and pointless. The plays exist and someone wrote them. Most likely a human being, most likely a lad from rural Warwickshire.

  80. 80
    REC says:

    So ID now claims to demonstrate we can infer either a human or an alien with skills in Victorian English and human sentiments (re: humor, love, loyalty, vengeance…) wrote the plays of William Shakespeare?

    What an accomplishment….. So proud…..

  81. 81
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    I totally get the name calling, belittling, character assassination, after all you have a faith to maintain….

    But what I don’t get is the denial of the observational science, It is as if you’ll deny that which you preach for as the only truth measurement because it opposes your faith.

    gup1 cells have a median survival in stationary phase of about 7.4 days, whereas the wild-type strain has a median survival of about 11.8 days. It seems that you did not actually read the paper. Or, if you read it, you didn’t understand it.

    When the cells are in stasis they live longer who is arguing about that?

    What is stasis?

    Eukaryotic cell proliferation is controlled by specific growth factors and the availability of essential nutrients. If either of these signals is lacking, cells may enter into a specialized nondividing resting state, known as stationary phase or G(0). The entry into such resting states is typically accompanied by a dramatic decrease in the overall growth rate and an increased resistance to a variety of environmental stresses. Since most cells spend most of their life in these quiescent states, it is important that we develop a full understanding of the biology of the stationary phase/G(0) cell. This knowledge would provide important insights into the control of two of the most fundamental aspects of eukaryotic cell biology: cell proliferation and long-term cell survival. This review will discuss some recent advances in our understanding of the stationary phase of growth in the budding yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12457705

    But when we put pressure on the cell by introducing acetic acid to the Gup1 mutant strain it is dead in 180 minutes while the wild strain is still going strong with 60% of the population still alive.

    You have the link for this and here is another…..

    http://www.intechopen.com/book.....cetic-acid

    I will say this again, PCD is vital to organisms, when it stops working the organism dies. It is a fundamental biological process no matter how much you try and trivialize this.

    I have already told you that we buried a very dear friend’s child he was just under 3 years old and that his PCD pathways where dysregulated. When an infection took hold it took 4 days for non-infected to death.

    RIP LK, you are in our thoughts every day little giant!

  82. 82
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    So please I respectfully request that take your time in reading the papers I’ve provided and to make yourself familiar with the what is being said before you accuse me.

    So far you’ve tried to discredit what I’ve been saying with little silly arguments about concepts you clearly did not fully comprehend an example is your ignorant rant about how well the cells were growing during stationary phase……

    I will remind you that they do not “grow” during this phase, they just attempt to survive. And the death and growth rate match each other equally.

    http://mmbr.asm.org/content/57/2/383.full.pdf

  83. 83
    Pachyaena says:

    Andre said: “I totally get the name calling, belittling, character assassination, after all you have a faith to maintain….

    But what I don’t get is the denial of the observational science, It is as if you’ll deny that which you preach for as the only truth measurement because it opposes your faith.”

    You IDers really have something against mirrors, don’t you?

  84. 84
    Pachyaena says:

    REC said: “So ID now claims to demonstrate we can infer either a human or an alien with skills in Victorian English and human sentiments (re: humor, love, loyalty, vengeance…) wrote the plays of William Shakespeare?

    What an accomplishment….. So proud…..”

    Yeah, and pretty soon they’ll be able to demonstrate we can infer that either humans or aliens designed the TV show ‘The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills’. ID is making huge strides forward.

  85. 85
    Pachyaena says:

    Joe, do you thoroughly understand the alleged intelligent design-creation of life itself, humans and all other species that have ever existed, the formation and geological history of this planet, and the formation and history of everything else in/about the universe, including time, light, gravity, etc., and allegedly immaterial and/or supernatural designer-creator-god(s), information, consciousness, souls, etc.?

    Do you thoroughly understand how, when, where, why, and by whom or what intelligent design-creation was/is accomplished?

  86. 86
    Andre says:

    Pachyaena

    Please enlighten us on which observational science we are in denial about?

    Please do tell?

  87. 87
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ Jerad! You have absolutely NOTHING- No hypotheses, no theory,no model, no research- NOTHING. You wouldn’t even know how to conduct an investigation. So please spare us from your obnoxious blatherings.

  88. 88
    Joe says:

    sock puppet:

    Joe, do you thoroughly understand the alleged intelligent design-creation of life itself, humans and all other species that have ever existed

    LoL! @ the strawman sock- ID doesn’t say that all species that ever existed were designed.

    Look we understand that it bothers you that your position has nothing, not even a testable hypothesis. But that doesn’t give you the right to misrepresent your opponents.

  89. 89
    Jerad says:

    Joe #87

    LoL! @ Jerad! You have absolutely NOTHING- No hypotheses, no theory,no model, no research- NOTHING. You wouldn’t even know how to conduct an investigation. So please spare us from your obnoxious blatherings.

    Too bad you didn’t even make an attempt at answering some of the questions I posed in #75 above. But I do find your lack of interest in what others in the ID community are saying very curious. I would think that an investigator would want to consider all the evidence. Perhaps not. Perhaps you’ve already made up your mind.

  90. 90
    Joe says:

    Jerad, Your questions just show how desperate you are. All I am doing is turning your questions against you.

    And what other people say is not evidence, duh. In this case it isn’t even testimony. Are you really that dim?

  91. 91
    Joe says:

    There isn’t any way knowing the designer would help us with that. Knowing how the design was implemented would help, but knowing the designer would give us nothing but that.

    So, even given knowledge of the designer would not add greatly to ID’s explanatory ability.

    Why would it? Knowing the Wright brothers doesn’t add anything to our knowledge of powered flight.

  92. 92
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The design inference is irrelevant and pointless.

    So, using the design inference I’ll infer:

    … someone wrote them. Most likely a human being, most likely a lad from rural Warwickshire.

  93. 93
    Pachyaena says:

    Jerad: “But I do find your lack of interest in what others in the ID community are saying very curious.”

    Joe: “And what other people say is not evidence, duh. In this case it isn’t even testimony. Are you really that dim?”

    Hear that, dim IDers? Only what Joe says is evidence and testimony, duh. According to Joe, what the rest of you in the ID community say isn’t. Aren’t you glad to have Joe as a ‘fellow traveler’ and ‘ilk’?

  94. 94
    DNA_Jock says:

    Yikes, Andre, your comprehension is even poorer than I thought, and that’s a pretty low bar.

    I have being trying to get you to actually look at Figure 1 of Tulha 2012, the paper that you cited (and the specific figure that you kindly provided a link to) in support of your claims that “PCD is tampered with the cells go BOOM!”.

    I had assumed that you knew what “stationary phase” means. Oh dear.
    I will make one more attempt:

    Figure 1 shows the viability of the two strains over the course of 22 days in stationary phase.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....figure/F1/

    Figure 1 shows that gup1 cells have a median survival in stationary phase of about 7.4 days, whereas the wild-type strain has a median survival of about 11.8 days.

    The inset in Figure 1 shows that, under conditions that allow growth, the two strains have identical growth rates.

    So when you write:

    So far you’ve tried to discredit what I’ve been saying with little silly arguments about concepts you clearly did not fully comprehend an example is your ignorant rant about how well the cells were growing during stationary phase……

    You are displaying your total lack of reading comprehension. NOTHING I have written could be interpreted (by anyone who as actually read and understood Tulha) as implying that cells grow in stationary phase.
    As far as name-calling and belittling goes, I have only responded when you indulged.

    “ignorant rant” LOL.

    Here, complete with the original emphasis, is my post 160 from the “heks-continues…” thread a week ago.

    Really, Andre, you should learn that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging.
    Your original claim is that

    No PCD means there is no cell, they are unable to function without it due to the vast amount of tasks PCD have in cells.

    Leading me to ask:

    DNA_Jock @ 508:
    is it your contention that Type 1 CPD is essential to S. cerevisiae?

    Your response:

    Andre @ 517 : Is PCD Vital to Saccharomyces cerevisiae? You betcha! [pastes two passages from Tulha 2012.]
    It sucks to be a Darwinist…..
    PCD is tampered with the cells go BOOM!
    Game over sweetie pie!
    Game set match will you concede? Won’t hold my breath….

    And on this thread @115

    Well the moment they tamper with Gup1, Apoptosis stops working (the evolutionary conserved bit) and necrosis is initiated. This means the cell dies….. The moment you break PCD or change it the organism self destructs.

    You state (@116) that gup1 cells have a “significantly reduced lifespan”, but the actual statement in Tulha is “significantly reduced chronological lifespan”, which means that when sitting in stationary phase their viability drops off more rapidly than wild-type cells.
    I’m so glad that you provided the link to Figure 1 of Tulha,

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....figure/F1/
    PCD kills unguided evolution dead! Literally!

    Which shows that gup1 cells have a median survival in stationary phase of about 7.4 days, whereas the wild-type strain has a median survival of about 11.8 days.
    But can these cells GROW? Your claims above state “No PCD means there is no cell” and “The moment you break PCD or change it the organism self destructs.”
    Well Tulha’s Figure 1 has a very useful little inset, which shows the growth curves for the wild-type and the gup1 strains: over the course of 0.5 days in exponential phase, both strains increase ten-fold, and their rates of growth are indistinguishable.
    Game. Set. Match.
    😀

    Please re-read this final paragraph until you understand what it says.
    I’ll be patient.

  95. 95
    Pachyaena says:

    Joe, you constantly accuse “evos” of being cowards yet you always run away from relevant questions. I’ll be glad to show the relevance when you’ve actually answered my questions.

  96. 96
    Joe says:

    sock puppet- the anti-ID ilk doesn’t have any relevant questions AND if you could only step up and support unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution then ID would be a non-starter. You and your ilk have all the power as one of ID’s entailements is that your mechanisms are incapable of producing biological information. That is why you and your ilk are cowards- because you attack ID with irrelevant spewage all the while cowering from defending the claims of your position.

    Yours is the accepted paradigm yet you cower when asked to lead by example. And then you take that out on us. And that is beyond pathetic

  97. 97
    Joe says:

    Only what Joe says is evidence and testimony

    The sock puppet needs a diaper change and a nap

  98. 98
    Joe says:

    So unguided evolution explains PCD, how?

  99. 99
    Pachyaena says:

    Joe, since you barked this:

    “ID doesn’t say that all species that ever existed were designed.”

    I have some other questions: Which species that ever existed were/are designed-created and which were/are not? How can you tell? And will you please point me to where “ID” speaks to whether all species that have ever existed were/are designed-created or not? Be sure that what you point to is published in a peer reviewed science journal. Otherwise it doesn’t count, right?

  100. 100
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Pachyaena 93

    Hear that, dim IDers? Only what Joe says is evidence and testimony, duh. According to Joe, what the rest of you in the ID community say isn’t. Aren’t you glad to have Joe as a ‘fellow traveler’ and ‘ilk’?

    I don’t think that he claimed that what he says is evidence. The evidence is what we observe. We observe aspects of nature that appear to have been designed by intelligence. We observe that natural causes are not sufficient to explain these things. We observe that intelligence can produce the same. So, we infer that intelligence was involved in the development of those things we’ve observed.

    The evidence is not what someone said, but what we observed.

  101. 101
    Joe says:

    sock puppet:

    Which species that ever existed were/are designed-created and which were/are not?

    That is what science is for, duh. Did you know that Linnaeus was searching for the Created Kind when he developed his taxonomy? And that Linnean Taxonomy was based on the hypothesis of a common design?

    And will you please point me to where “ID” speaks to whether all species that have ever existed were/are designed-created or not?

    ID doesn’t speak of such matters. ID leaves that up to scientific research to determine.

    But anyway stop asking asinine questions and start trying to support evolutionism- we dare you.

  102. 102
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The ID inference is that “some aspects of nature exhibit evidence of having been designed by intelligence”.

    If ID is correct on any one of those observations, then there is good reason to infer that a designer exists.

    The ID argument ends, successfully, at that point. Follow-up discussions are engaged within a different field of study.

    If you start with the premise that a designer exists, you’re no longer engaging the ID inference since you’ve already accepted its conclusion.

  103. 103
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: Follow-up discussions are engaged within a different field of study.

    Great! So what have you discovered about the designer? How did the designer create organisms? Did the designer wipe out the dinosaurs, or was that just one of those unfortunate accidents?
    http://thepeoplescube.com/imag....._Stomp.jpg

  104. 104
    Pachyaena says:

    Silver Asiatic, look at this again. I’ve bolded a key word:

    “And what other people say is not evidence, duh. In this case it isn’t even testimony. Are you really that dim?”

    Now go back and read the comments between Jerad and Joe.

    Making excuses for Joe is an exercise in futility.

  105. 105
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zachriel

    Great! So what have you discovered about the designer?

    Wow, I didn’t realize that you accepted the ID inference. When did you reach the conclusion that a designer does exist and what evidence convinced you of that?

    Once I get an idea about your convictions here, I’ll be glad to go further.

  106. 106
    Joe says:

    Great! So what have you discovered about the designer?

    That the intelligent designer(s) is(are) capable of doing things that we cannot.

    How did the designer create organisms?

    That is what science is for. We have noticed that you haven’t a clue as to how the blind watchmaker didit.

    Did the designer wipe out the dinosaurs, or was that just one of those unfortunate accidents?

    According to wd400 dinos still live…

  107. 107
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Pachyaena 104

    I agree that what people say is not scientific evidence (except in historical, archeological or cultural sciences).

    As for “testimony” I don’t know what that refers to and I’ll admit I haven’t read the discussion between Jerad and Joe so I have to leave it at that.

  108. 108
    Joe says:

    sock puppet, Jerad was using other people’s words as evidence and when someone else is talking I become “other people”. Duh.

    No one word is evidence but that doesn’t stop you and your ilk from imagining it is.

  109. 109
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: I didn’t realize that you accepted the ID inference.

    No, we think it’s silly pseudo-scientific nonsense. But apparently the ID community disagrees. And once having reached the conclusion, it is supposed to lead to an age of great discovery, unlike those evolutionists who still use leeches.

    Silver Asiatic: Once I get an idea about your convictions here, I’ll be glad to go further.

    Great! So what specific empirical facts about the designer have been discovered? How did the designer create organisms? Did the designer wipe out the mega-dinosaurs, or was that just one of those unfortunate accidents?
    http://thepeoplescube.com/imag....._Stomp.jpg

  110. 110
    Joe says:

    No, we think it’s silly pseudo-scientific nonsense.

    You don’t seem to know what science is so your opinion is meaningless.

    And once having reached the conclusion, it is supposed to lead to an age of great discovery, unlike those evolutionists who still use leeches.

    It will and evolutionists don’t seem to be doing anything wrt unguided evolution.

  111. 111
    Pachyaena says:

    Joe barked: “That is what science is for, duh.”

    I thought you claim that ID is science? And what about your basement science lab that puts other science labs to shame? Why aren’t you using your state of the art science lab and skills to find ID answers?

    “Did you know that Linnaeus was searching for the Created Kind when he developed his taxonomy? And that Linnean Taxonomy was based on the hypothesis of a common design?”

    See, you are a creationist.

    I asked: “And will you please point me to where “ID” speaks to whether all species that have ever existed were/are designed-created or not?”

    Joe barked: “ID doesn’t speak of such matters. ID leaves that up to scientific research to determine.”

    Ah, so you admit that ID isn’t scientific and does no research.

    “But anyway stop asking asinine questions and start trying to support evolutionism- we dare you.”

    My questions really scare you, and evolutionary theory is well supported. Do you need a hug, Joe?

  112. 112
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zachriel

    No, we think it’s silly pseudo-scientific nonsense.

    Ok, you do not accept that there is any evidence of the existence of a designer. I’ll be glad to continue to discuss the ID inference with you. Once you conclude that a designer exists, the ID argument is concluded and we could discuss other things.

    But you’re obviously not at the point where you can go further with the argument. You seem to want to talk about the qualities of something which you think does not exist.

  113. 113
    Joe says:

    sockie:

    I thought you claim that ID is science?

    It is as it has all the entailments of science. OTOH your position has nothing but mouthy losers like yourself.

    “Did you know that Linnaeus was searching for the Created Kind when he developed his taxonomy? And that Linnean Taxonomy was based on the hypothesis of a common design?”

    See, you are a creationist.

    So a “creationist” is someone who states the facts? OK.

    ID doesn’t speak of such matters. ID leaves that up to scientific research to determine.”

    Ah, so you admit that ID isn’t scientific and does no research.

    Only a desperate and deluded loser who come to that conclusion.

    “But anyway stop asking asinine questions and start trying to support evolutionism- we dare you.”

    My questions really scare you, and evolutionary theory is well supported.

    Your questions prove that you are clueless and you couldn’t link to this alleged evolutionary theory nor its alleged support if your life depended on it. You are a bluffing fool and a liar.

    Nice job

  114. 114
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: Ok, you do not accept that there is any evidence of the existence of a designer.

    No scientific evidence.

    Silver Asiatic: Once you conclude that a designer exists, the ID argument is concluded and we could discuss other things.

    That’s a difference between science and ID. Science continues to advance, and we can show you the results, even as you reject its findings.

    More important, conclusions in science are always tentative, so even if you “conclude” design, it is tentative, and the search for evidence continues. If someone say they’re not sure about the design inference, one way to strengthen the case is to show evidence of how the design was implemented, and evidence of the designer. If you can’t (or won’t!), then it means your case is weakened.

    Silver Asiatic: You seem to want to talk about the qualities of something which you think does not exist.

    We’re interested in the scientific findings. If you were to say the designer has a penchant for beetles, that would be something at least.

    The idea is that all scientific findings lean on one another. Biology relies on chemistry. Evolution relies on geology which relies on physics. Astronomy relies on physics. When fields conflict, it often leads to new insights. For instance, when physics said the Earth was only a few tens-of-millions of years old, but evolutionary theory insisted on hundreds-of-millions, the conflict remained unresolved until the discovery of radioactivity, which resolved the conundrum, and resulted in a new form of geological dating. It’s this interlocking of scholarship that gives science its great power.

    If you claim something is an artifact, then there is necessarily a causal chain to the art and the artisan. Finding evidence of this chain of causation strengthens the case for design.

    Silver Asiatic: You seem to want to talk about the qualities of something which you think does not exist.

    Yes! Yes! That’s how science works. You propose a hypothesis, then deduce the entailments. If you can’t do this, then it’s not a scientific hypothesis.

  115. 115
    Pachyaena says:

    Silver Asiatic, you said: “Follow-up discussions are engaged within a different field of study.”

    So when Zachriel asked you: “Great! So what have you discovered about the designer? How did the designer create organisms? Did the designer wipe out the dinosaurs, or was that just one of those unfortunate accidents?”, he was asking questions that pertain to the alleged field that allegedly studies ‘the designer’.

    And please don’t copy Joe and say that that only comes after determining intelligent design. You IDers claim that you have already determined intelligent design, long ago, so “Follow-up discussions” about what has been discovered by that other alleged “field of study” shouldn’t be a problem for you.

  116. 116
    Jerad says:

    Joe #90

    Jerad, Your questions just show how desperate you are. All I am doing is turning your questions against you.

    By not answering them? How does that work exactly?

    It’s not just my questions either is it? You’re gaining quite a reputation for not answering questions. It’s hard to figure out what you think happened in the distant past when you won’t answer questions.

    Let’s try this one again: why do you think the designer created all those trilobites if they were just going to eventually go extinct?

    And what other people say is not evidence, duh. In this case it isn’t even testimony. Are you really that dim?

    I didn’t say what Casey Luskin or Dr Steven Meyer or Dr Jonathan Wells or Dr Ann Gauger or any of the other luminaries at the Discovery Institute say was evidence. But they discuss evidence and ID’s interpretation of it AND some of the work being done. I would think you would find that interesting. I find it interesting. That’s why I listen to the ID: the Future podcast.

    I frequently ask you what kind of research is being done and you never know. Perhaps if you listened to the podcast or read the blog Evolution News and Views (I think that’s right . . . hmm . . . ) you might be a bit more clued into what is happening.

  117. 117
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Silver Asiatic: Ok, you do not accept that there is any evidence of the existence of a designer.

    Zachriel: No scientific evidence.

    Do you accept that there is other evidence?

    That’s a difference between science and ID.

    ID doesn’t claim to be parallel with science. It’s a project within science like … evolution.

    Science continues to advance, and we can show you the results, even as you reject its findings.

    You can’t show evolutionary findings on origin of life because evolutionary theory is limited to living organisms. It’s a discipline that works within boundaries. ID has boundaries also, as I explained.

    More important, conclusions in science are always tentative, so even if you “conclude” design, it is tentative, and the search for evidence continues.

    That’s fine, but the ID argument doesn’t become something else, just as evolution does not become a theory of planetary movement. It’s limited to biology, ID is limited to evidence of design.

    If someone say they’re not sure about the design inference, one way to strengthen the case is to show evidence of how the design was implemented,

    If someone is not sure about evolution, one thing you could show is evidence of a multiverse or abiogenesis as causes – but that extends beyond what evolution can show.

    If you can’t (or won’t!), then it means your case is weakened.

    Is the case for evolution weakened because you can’t show abiogenesis?

    We’re interested in the scientific findings.

    You affirm that “X does not exist”. Now you want to know the qualities of X. ID’s argument is in opposition to your premise. If you accept that that “X does exist” then you move to different arguments and a different kind of study.

    Can you accept that if a designer exists that it could change your understanding of the origin, nature and development of things?

  118. 118
    Joe says:

    Yes, Jerad, I have a reputation for not answering irrelevant spewage from cowards. Why don’t you lead by example? And if ID the future answers your questions then that proves you are just being childish by asking other people. I have already told you what work and research I would be doing. OTOH you don’t have a clue when it comes to blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution.

    why do you think the designer created all those trilobites if they were just going to eventually go extinct?

    Ask the designer(s) and stop being such a child. Who said the designer(s) created all the trilobites?

  119. 119
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Pachyaena 116

    If you’re affirming that “X does not exist”, then does it make sense to then ask “what are the qualities of X”?

    You need to accept that “X exists” first before you can discuss the qualities of X.

  120. 120
    Joe says:

    he was asking questions that pertain to the alleged field that allegedly studies ‘the designer’.

    Then ask those people. What is wrong with you?

  121. 121
    Joe says:

    You propose a hypothesis, then deduce the entailments.

    And we are waiting but you never deliver. Why is it that proponents of the leading paradigm refuse to lead by example?

  122. 122
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Pachyaena: he was asking questions that pertain to the alleged field that allegedly studies ‘the designer’.

    Joe: Then ask those people.

    Exactly. ID studies evidence of design.

  123. 123
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: Do you accept that there is other evidence?

    We accept the possibility of other evidence, but ID purports to have scientific validity.

    Silver Asiatic: It’s a project within science like … evolution.

    Evolution can refer to the observed phenomenon, or to the theory that explains the phenomenon.

    Silver Asiatic: You can’t show evolutionary findings on origin of life because evolutionary theory is limited to living organisms.

    The difference is that scientists don’t hide either their ignorance or their results. Scientists are working very hard to close the gap, both by pushing back to the beginnings of life, and by trying to determine the conditions necessary for its origin. This research still is in its infancy, but has already yielded some interesting findings.

    Silver Asiatic: That’s fine, but the ID argument doesn’t become something else, just as evolution does not become a theory of planetary movement. It’s limited to biology, ID is limited to evidence of design.

    But theories of planetary motion overlap other fields, including ballistics, while evolution overlaps geology, paleontology, even planetary science.

    Silver Asiatic: Is the case for evolution weakened because you can’t show abiogenesis?

    It’s certainly an important question, however, the evidence supporting evolution is very strong and the evidence spans everything from rocks to molecules.

    Silver Asiatic: You affirm that “X does not exist”. Now you want to know the qualities of X.

    Actually, the claim is that there is no scientific evidence of X. If you have evidence of X, one place to start is by carefully defining X, and deducing its entailments.

  124. 124
    Jerad says:

    Joe #118

    Yes, Jerad, I have a reputation for not answering irrelevant spewage from cowards. Why don’t you lead by example? And if ID the future answers your questions then that proves you are just being childish by asking other people. I have already told you what work and research I would be doing. OTOH you don’t have a clue when it comes to blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution.

    I didn’t say the podcast answers my questions. I said I found it interesting. I’m also interested in what you think. I like to get as big a picture as is possible. Follow all the data.

    Ask the designer(s) and stop being such a child. Who said the designer(s) created all the trilobites?

    I can’t seem to find a designer to ask.

    Where do you think the trilobites came from if not from the designer(s)?

    You said I was a bad investigator but when I ask questions so I can consider as much of the data/information/opinions as possible you accuse me of being a child.

  125. 125
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Silver Asiatic: Ok, you do not accept that there is any evidence of the existence of a designer.

    Zachriel: No scientific evidence.

    Silver Asiatic: Do you accept that there is other evidence?

    Zachriel: We accept the possibility of other evidence …

    If you’d like to discuss this further, I invite you to do so, but your brief answers make it seem as if you don’t like my questions so I won’t pursue it.

    The difference is that scientists don’t hide either their ignorance or their results.

    Scientists admit their ignorance, sometimes, yes. Biologists don’t claim to be experts in astronomy (unless they are credentialed in that field also). I think you should accept that ID research is limited to its claim and not to areas of study that go beyond it.

    Actually, the claim is that there is no scientific evidence of X. If you have evidence of X, one place to start is by carefully defining X, and deducing its entailments.

    For ID, X is design. I think design has been defined fairly well enough. Dawkins, for example, understands what it is. In fact, I’ll have to assume that all ID-opponents know what design is also. Otherwise, how could they claim that there is no evidence for it?

  126. 126
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    One last try……

    The authors of the paper are cautious, they don’t agree with your assessment that the cells grow normally…. this is what they say;

    The growth curve (Figure ?(Figure11 insert) showed an apparent similar growth rate for both strains during exponential phase, as well as an almost coincident transition to diauxic and stationary phases. On the other hand, the survival curve (Figure ?(Figure1)1) showed that gup1[increment] mutant cells died considerably sooner than Wt. After day 3 the survival rate of gup1[increment] mutant started to decrease, reaching 50% around day 7, and in day 11 we observed that only a small number of gup1[increment] mutant cells stayed alive. Conversely, Wt strain begins to die around day 8, reaches 50% survival at day 12 and on day 19 the culture was practically dead.

    It seems apparent that their growth rate are the same, but here is the truth. The cells are not healthy and any type of stress or pressure will kill the organism because PCD is incapable of repairing any of the cells.

    Gup1p, an O-acyltransferase, is required for several cellular processes that are related to apoptosis development, namely, rafts integrity and stability, lipid metabolism including GPI anchor correct remodeling, proper mitochondrial and vacuole function, and actin dynamics

    So dysregulated PCD only means one thing death to the organism.

    And here again I want to to draw your attention that PCD is a fundamental biological process its dysregulation means death.

    http://www.cell.com/cell/abstr.....283-9?cc=y
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10561374
    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/20/9035.full.pdf

    A significantly reduced lifespan means just that DNA_Jock. No PCD and the organisms die from necrosis an irreversible process.

  127. 127
    DNA_Jock says:

    Wow, that took longer than it should have.
    Andre:

    The cells are not healthy and any type of stress or pressure will kill the organism because PCD is incapable of repairing any of the cells.

    Well, certain types of stress, but yes, that’s about the size of it.

    Now would be a good time to retract your claims that:

    No PCD means there is no cell, they are unable to function without it due to the vast amount of tasks PCD have in cells.

    it is not underrated function it is the only reason a cell can operate, PCD is involved in health and disease aspects of the cell. It is what makes cells work! It’s no Garbage man it is the CEO……

    PCD can not evolve or even change, any type of change to it is lethal to the organism.

    The moment you break PCD or change it the organism self destructs.

    PCD is tampered with the cells go BOOM!
    Game over sweetie pie!

    You might want to ease up a tad on the condescension too.

  128. 128
    DNA_Jock says:

    Also Andre,

    A significantly reduced lifespan means just that DNA_Jock.

    No, it doesn’t. As I already explained to you (a week ago and again in post 94 above) , a “significantly reduced chronological lifespan” means that, in stationary phase, the cells lose viability in ~7days rather than ~11. Depending on nitrogen availability and carbon source, yeast in the wild would sporulate, and thus avoid this problem.

  129. 129
    Pachyaena says:

    Silver Asiatic, “intelligent design” (AKA creation) of the universe (including life, etc.) by “the intelligent designer” (AKA the supernatural Abrahamic god) are claims, not evidence. Scientific evidence, reliable tests, productive research avenues, open and honest explanations, definitions, discussions, etc., are needed to support those claims.

    If I were to claim that the universe (including life, etc.) was/is intelligently designed (AKA created) by the supernatural intelligent designer Wanda The Witch and Her Band of Merry Witchlings using their Magic Spells and Pixie Dust neither you nor legitimate scientists would accept bald assertions, evasive diversions, refusal to answer relevant questions, endless insults, malicious false accusations, sanctimonious sermons, sciency sounding gibberish, comparisons to fishing reels and other human designed-produced things, demands to prove me wrong, drumbeat repetitive dishonesty, refuted methods, irrelevant or bogus probabilities/improbabilities, quote mines, appeals to authority, no scientific research, and no scientific evidence as any or the only support for my claims. You and legitimate scientists would want and expect a helluva lot better support from me than that, and rightfully so. It’s right to want and expect a helluva lot better support than that from you IDers for your claims.

  130. 130
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Pachyaena 129

    I haven’t seen anybody make a claim about Wanda the Witch so I think you’re exaggerating. As for demanding evidence, I’m open to the various claims from evolutionary science (mainly, that the diversity and function of earth’s entire biosphere was developed by mutations and selection), but I see very little support for those claims.

    A number of scientists are backing away from Darwinian theory — some accept ID as an alternative view, others don’t.

    Let’s not forget that a majority of Christians, Jews and Muslims (among other religions) recognize the evidence of design in nature, and have done so for thousands of years — so it’s not like this is a minor concept.

    I read comments from promoters of evolution every day and I continue to grow less convinced of those claims.

    You have the opportunity to make a convincing case while you’re here. Personally, I’d suggest that tactic rather than attacking ID.

  131. 131
    Joe says:

    Pachy:

    Scientific evidence, reliable tests, productive research avenues, open and honest explanations, definitions, discussions, etc., are needed to support those claims.

    Show us how your position does it. We know you can’t but it will be fun watching you try.

  132. 132
    Joe says:

    Zachriel:

    Actually, the claim is that there is no scientific evidence of X. If you have evidence of X, one place to start is by carefully defining X, and deducing its entailments.

    And we are waiting but you have failed to provide any of what you mentioned for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution. OTOH we have provided the entailments for ID.

  133. 133
    sergmendes says:

    This link may help clarify the issue of human origins:

    Mankind’s Forbidden History

  134. 134
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    So these researchers are being liars when they say;

    On the other hand, the survival curve (Figure ?(Figure1)1) showed that gup1[increment] mutant cells died considerably sooner than Wt.

    Whatever does died considerably sooner mean?

    considerably = by a notably large amount or to a notably large extent; greatly.

    sooner = sooner – comparatives of `soon’ or `early’; “Come a little sooner, if you can”; “came earlier than I expected”

    So by a notably large amount they died earlier than expected.

    You are of course correct I should be allot more cordial, excellent advice, that I shall take to heart, but if pointing out my character flaws is the best antidote you have then I’m in an even better place than I thought.

    Will I retract my stance on PCD? No I won’t because the literature supports me not you!

    PCD is a fundamental biological process essential for life!

    Now all you have to do is show how unguided processes built a highly regulated, evolutionary conserved mechanism that is fundamental to biological processes and is essential to life.

    Good luck!

  135. 135
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    This paper released just the other day!

    •Programmed cell death (PCD) is an integral part of plant life.
    •Numerous PCD instances occur during regular plant development.
    •Developmental PCD is tightly linked with cellular differentiation.
    •Successful vegetative and reproductive development depends on precise PCD control.

    Programmed cell death (PCD) is a fundamental process of life. During the evolution of multicellular organisms, the actively controlled demise of cells has been recruited to fulfil a multitude of functions in development, differentiation, tissue homeostasis, and immune systems. In this review we discuss some of the multiple cases of PCD that occur as integral parts of plant development in a remarkable variety of cell types, tissues, and organs. Although research in the last decade has discovered a number of PCD regulators, mediators, and executers, we are still only beginning to understand the mechanistic complexity that tightly controls preparation, initiation, and execution of PCD as a process that is indispensable for successful vegetative and reproductive development of plants.

    http://www.cell.com/trends/pla.....14)00251-9

    Please show us how this is unguided? Please?

  136. 136
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    This one in July 2014

    The life cycle of cereal seeds can be divided into two phases, development and germination, separated by a quiescent period. Seed development and germination require the growth and differentiation of new tissues, but also the ordered disappearance of cells, which takes place by a process of programmed cell death (PCD). For this reason, cereal seeds have become excellent model systems for the study of developmental PCD in plants. At early stages of seed development, maternal tissues such as the nucellus, the pericarp, and the nucellar projections undergo a progressive degeneration by PCD, which allows the remobilization of their cellular contents for nourishing new filial tissues such as the embryo and the endosperm. At a later stage, during seed maturation, the endosperm undergoes PCD, but these cells remain intact in the mature grain and their contents will not be remobilized until germination. Thus, the only tissues that remain alive when seed development is completed are the embryo axis, the scutellum and the aleurone layer. In germinating seeds, both the scutellum and the aleurone layer play essential roles in producing the hydrolytic enzymes for the mobilization of the storage compounds of the starchy endosperm, which serve to support early seedling growth. Once this function is completed, scutellum and aleurone cells undergo PCD; their contents being used to support the growth of the germinated embryo. PCD occurs with tightly controlled spatial-temporal patterns allowing coordinated fluxes of nutrients between the different seed tissues. In this review, we will summarize the current knowledge of the tissues undergoing PCD in developing and germinating cereal seeds, focussing on the biochemical features of the process. The effect of hormones and redox regulation on PCD control will be discussed.

    http://journal.frontiersin.org.....00366/full

  137. 137
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    Programmed cell death (PCD) occurs widely in species
    from every kingdom of life. It has been shown to be an integral
    aspect of development in multicellular organisms, and it is an essential
    component of the immune response to infectious agents. An analysis
    of the phylogenetic origin of PCD now shows that it evolved
    independently several times, and it is fundamental to basic cellular
    physiology. Undoubtedly, PCD pervades all life at every scale of analysis.
    These considerations provide a backdrop for understanding the
    complexity of intertwined, but independent, cell death programs that
    operate within the immune system. In particular, the contributions of
    apoptosis, autophagy, and necrosis in the resolution of an immune
    response are considered.

    http://hedricklab.ucsd.edu/doc.....nolRev.pdf

    It evolved independently……… Please show us how and make us lose the argument! Please!

  138. 138
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    Death is essential to life!

    http://thesis.library.caltech......apter1.pdf

  139. 139
    Andre says:

    DNA_Jock

    Suicide is an evolutionary conundrum. Single-celled organisms regularly kill themselves in reaction to stresses they might have survived, but it’s not obvious why natural selection permits such volatile behavior.

    http://www.americanscientist.o.....generously

    Conundrum = a confusing and difficult problem or question

    So PCD is an evolutionary conundrum……..

    And now you can use your last accusation on me…..

    Doing the Gish…. go right ahead!

  140. 140
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: Conundrum = a confusing and difficult problem or question

    They answer the conundrum, and provide evidence to support the answer, in the very article you cite. When they die, they help their sisters. This means it is a selectable evolutionary benefit. We pointed this out to you previously, but it didn’t stick for some reason.

    See Durand, Rashidi & Michod, How an Organism Dies Affects the Fitness of Its Neighbors, American Naturalist 2011.

  141. 141
    Joe says:

    Zachriel is so confused- as if Zach’s cite offers up information as to how unguided evolution produced PCD. Unguided evolution can’t even muster a testable hypothesis for it.

  142. 142
    DNA_Jock says:

    Andre writes:

    Death is essential to life!

    I think you might be on to something here. Of course, I think that Darwin (and all biologists) would agree with you. Differential survival and all, y’know. It’s only really a problem for people who demand a literal interpretation of Genesis. Heh.

    Andre writes:

    So these researchers are being liars when they say;

    On the other hand, the survival curve (Figure ?(Figure1)1) showed that gup1[increment] mutant cells died considerably sooner than Wt.

    No Andre. It’s just that you don’t understand them. See my post 128.
    We’ve established that gup1-deleted haploids have a reduced tolerance to acetic acid and a reduced ability to maintain viability in stationary phase, but grow just as quickly as wild-type.
    You are asserting that these facts are consistent with your claims that

    No PCD means there is no cell, they are unable to function without it due to the vast amount of tasks PCD have in cells.

    it is not underrated function it is the only reason a cell can operate, PCD is involved in health and disease aspects of the cell. It is what makes cells work! It’s no Garbage man it is the CEO……

    PCD can not evolve or even change, any type of change to it is lethal to the organism.

    The moment you break PCD or change it the organism self destructs

    PCD is tampered with the cells go BOOM!
    Game over sweetie pie!

    You really are quite the poster boy for confirmation bias (9:00 – 9:30):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo
    And Dunning-Kruger…
    It’s rather sad.
    🙁

  143. 143
    DNA_Jock says:

    Zachriel,

    It’s fairly obvious that Andre does not actually read the papers he cites. If he does read them, he certainly does not understand them.

    If he understood Tulha 2012, he would never have cited it as an example of PCD being essential to yeast: it is a perfect counter-example, far better than the counter-example I had in mind.
    Oh well.

  144. 144
    Box says:

    Zachriel: They answer the conundrum, and provide evidence to support the answer, in the very article you cite. When they die, they help their sisters. This means it is a selectable evolutionary benefit.

    How does the selection work? Suppose some member of a group develops suicide tendencies and dies, which turns out to be of help for the other members of the group.
    Okay. But how is this suicide trait selectable?

    There may as well be a darwinian just so story, but I cannot come up with one at the moment.

  145. 145
    Zachriel says:

    Box: How does the selection works? Suppose some member of a group develops suicide tendencies and dies, which turns out to be of help for the other members of the group.

    If the neighbor is a clone, which is very likely, then the genome persists. It can be easily modeled.

  146. 146
    Box says:

    Zachriel: If the neighbor is a clone, which is very likely, then the genome persists. It can be easily modeled.

    How can the suicide members outperform the non-suicide members of a group? The non-suicide members seem to profit without having to pay. So how can they ever lose the fitness battle?

  147. 147
    Joe says:

    DNA Jock- It is very telling that you cannot say how unguided evolution produced PCD. You don’t have a model. You don’t have a testable hypothesis. All you have is nothing, actually.

  148. 148
    Zachriel says:

    Box: How can the suicide members outperform the non-suicide members of a group? The non-suicide members seem to profit without having to pay. So how can they ever lose the fitness battle?

    That’s the conundrum, but the conundrum is only apparent. If neighbors are clones, or very nearly clones, then the genome persists. It’s not death, but successful reproduction that determines evolutionary success.
    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1422.....cebook.jpg

  149. 149
    Andre says:

    Wow!

    Wow!

    Wow!

    DNA_Jock

    So you agree with me then…… PCD is essential for life…..

    Good!

    So when they die much quicker because PCD is dysregulated they don’t really die much quicker?

    When something is a fundamental biological process it’s not really a fundamental biological process?

    And I don’t really understand that I don’t understand?

  150. 150
    Box says:

    Zachriel: That’s the conundrum, but the conundrum is only apparent. If neighbors are clones, or very nearly clones, then the genome persists. It’s not death, but successful reproduction that determines evolutionary success.

    I still don’t get it. You stress the importance of “successful reproduction”. But suicide members of a group have less reproduction than non-suicide members of a group, since there is less time for reproduction. It seems impossible to me that suicide members, which equates to low reproduction, ever will outperform non-suicide members.

  151. 151
    Box says:

    I think I’ve made it up – the darwinian just so story:

    Somehow only those members in group, who also have suicide tendencies, benefit from the suicide of others. And they benefit in such a way that they can survive certain conditions that the non-suicide members of the group cannot.

    As per usual it ain’t pretty, but there it is.

  152. 152
    DNA_Jock says:

    Nothing if not predictable, our Andre:

    So you agree with me then…… PCD is essential for life…..

    Andre demonstrates, yet again, his inability to distinguish between death and programmed cell death.
    Oh boy.

    And I don’t really understand that I don’t understand?

    That’s pretty much the definition of Dunning-Kruger.

    Entered into evidence: exhibit “A”.

  153. 153
    velikovskys says:

    Joe:
    Ask the designer(s) and stop being such a child. Who said the designer(s) created all the trilobites?

    What did the designer create specifically? Human designers have to deal with effects of the natural forces on their designs, how does the designer contend with those issues?

  154. 154
    Zachriel says:

    Box: I still don’t get it. You stress the importance of “successful reproduction”. But suicide members of a group have less reproduction than non-suicide members of a group, since there is less time for reproduction.

    It’s reproduction of the genome that determines evolutionary success.

    Consider two clonal populations. The first has no planned cell death. The population explodes to fill its container, then when out of resources, the organisms die in a manner that pollutes the local environment, so the entire populations starves and dies. The second has planned cell death so that when resources run out, some of the clones release their contents in a form that is of value to the remaining members. Some of the population survive. The second strain is more evolutionarily more successful.

  155. 155
    Box says:

    Zachriel: It’s reproduction of the genome that determines evolutionary success.

    Yes, that’s exactly my point. Those without suicidal tendencies reproduce their genome more often; more offspring.

    Zachriel: Consider two clonal populations. (…) The second has planned cell death (…)

    No, you don’t get it. Your assumption avoids the problem. The problem is how to get to a population of suicidal organisms.
    We have to start off with one non-suicidal population. Now one member develops suicidal tendencies. How does he outperform the non-suicide members in reproduction? How do we get to your “population with PCD”?

  156. 156
    Zachriel says:

    Box: Your assumption avoids the problem. The problem is how to get to a population of suicidal organisms.

    Keep in mind they don’t commit suicide willy-nilly, but only under certain stressful conditions.

    Box: We have to start off with one non-suicidal population.

    You only have to start out with a single organism with some minimal ability and an environment to grow into. That colony will be more successful in some environments than colonies without the trait.

  157. 157
    Box says:

    Box: We have to start off with one non-suicidal population.

    Zachriel: You only have to start out with a single organism with some minimal ability and an environment to grow into. That colony will be more successful in some environments than colonies without the trait.

    So, the suicide-trait doesn’t have to be selectable to become a dominant trait in a population?

    EDIT: you are simply saying that an organism with a suicide trait gets isolated from the main colony and starts off a new colony?

  158. 158
    Zachriel says:

    Box: So, the suicide-trait doesn’t have to be selectable to become a dominant trait in a population?

    It does provide a selectable benefit to the colony, and as the colony is compose of clones, it means the death of the individual cell can help insure the persistence of the strain.

    It’s not the cell that counts in evolution, but the continuation of the genome. The genome is almost exactly the same in every member of the colony, so all that matters to evolution is that some of the colony survive.

  159. 159
    Box says:

    Zachriel: It does provide a selectable benefit to the colony, and as the colony is compose of clones, it means the death of the individual cell can help insure the persistence of the strain.

    [Last attempt, because this is getting tedious]
    We have to start of with a non-suicidal colony. Now one cell develops the suicide trait. Clearly it will not outperform the others in reproduction. So are you are simply saying that the organism with a suicide trait gets isolated from the main colony and starts off a new colony?

  160. 160
    Zachriel says:

    Box: Now one cell develops the suicide trait. Clearly it will not outperform the others in reproduction.

    No. It will reproduce normally. Some areas of the colony will have the trait, others not. When the colony comes under stress, the areas of the colony with the trait will be more likely to persist.

  161. 161
    Box says:

    Zachriel: No. It will reproduce normally. Some areas of the colony will have the trait, others not.

    Now we are getting somewhere.

    Zachriel:When the colony comes under stress, the areas of the colony with the trait will be more likely to persist.

    Nope. Under stress lots of suicides will take place in areas with the trait, so those areas will become available for the benefit of the non-suicide members of the colony; more resources for them.
    Clearly this will subsequently lower the presence of the suicide-trait in the overall colony. So we did not solve the problem: ‘how do we get to a population with PCD’.

  162. 162
    Zachriel says:

    Box: Under stress lots of suicides will take place in areas with the trait, so those areas will become available for the benefit of the non-suicide members of the colony; more resources for them.

    There will be deaths in all parts of the colony. Those with the trait are more likely to be near an organism exhibiting programmed cell death, so are more likely to have a beneficial effect. Those without the trait are more likely to near an organism simply dying, so are more likely to have a detrimental effect.

  163. 163
    Box says:

    Zachriel: There will be deaths in all parts of the colony. Those with the trait are more likely to be near an organism exhibiting programmed cell death, so are more likely to have a beneficial effect.

    No, that doesn’t make sense. There are much more organisms without the trait, so it is much more likely that an organism without the trait is near an organism exhibiting PCD and will enjoy the beneficial effect.

  164. 164
    Zachriel says:

    Box: There are much more organisms without the trait, so it is much more likely that an organism without the trait is near an organism exhibiting PCD and will enjoy the beneficial effect.

    That is incorrect. You are much more likely to be near your clone.
    http://sciencebrewer.files.wor.....0049_2.jpg

  165. 165
    Box says:

    Zachriel: That is incorrect. You are much more likely to be near your clone.

    Reference please – photo was unclear.

    BTW we have to factor in the chance that clones act in the same way under the same stress (pcd) … which is yet another problem for reproduction of PCD trait.

  166. 166
    Zachriel says:

    Box: photo was unclear

    Each of those dots is a colony. It shows non-motile bacteria remain localized. That means a mutant will tend to be surrounded by its descendants.

    Box: we have to factor in the chance that clones act in the same way under the same stress (pcd)

    Older or damaged cells are more likely to exhibit programmed cell death. Destroying damaged cells also reduces the chance of a reverse mutation and the creation of “cheaters”.

  167. 167
    Box says:

    Zachriel: There will be deaths in all parts (*) of the colony. Those with the trait are more likely to be near an organism exhibiting programmed cell death, so are more likely to have a beneficial effect.

    Box: There are much more organisms without the trait, so it is much more likely that an organism without the trait is near an organism exhibiting PCD and will enjoy the beneficial effect.

    Zachriel: That is incorrect. You are much more likely to be near your clone.

    There will be small areas of organisms with PCD trait in an overall non-pcd colony. Under stress PCD starts. What happens at the borders of the PCD islands? The PCD organisms start committing suicide and the non-pcd organisms are benefiting from it and reproduce. The non-pcd area expands; the border advances and each round the PCD area becomes smaller.

    EDITED:
    (*) probably not in “all parts of the colony”, because the PCD clones stay together – as you later argued?

  168. 168
    Zachriel says:

    Box: What happens at the borders of the PCD islands?

    There will be some advantage to non-PCD organisms, i.e. free-riders

    Box: The PCD organisms start committing suicide and the non-pcd organisms are benefiting from it and reproduce. The non-pcd area expands; the border advances and each round the PCD area becomes smaller.

    Both populations would be shrinking. Non-PCD deaths cause detrimental effects to neighbors, while PCD death provide beneficial effects for neighbors.

    Non-PCD organisms are more likely to be near non-PCD death with detrimental effects, while PCD organisms are more likely to be near other PCD organisms. PCD organisms will be more likely to persist.

    If you game it out, you’ll find it largely depends on the selection coefficient.

  169. 169
    Zachriel says:

    Box: probably not in “all parts of the colony”, because the PCD clones stay together – as you later argued?

    Not necessarily stay together (though many strains do tend to form films), but tend to be closer because of their place of birth.

  170. 170
    Andre says:

    Box

    All that our opponents have been doing is downplaying the problem that PCD presents to the unguided evolution “just so story”. There comes a point when you have to dismiss their feeble attempts, I have shown paper after paper that PCD is a fundamental biological process, it is highly regulated and is also evolutionary conserved, and that is in ALL forms of life! Since they can’t explain it in any unguided framework they down play it due to the fact that it stops their unguided evolution belief system dead in its tracks.

    This type of unrelenting dishonesty is shameful, but is to be expected of those that are unwilling to allow the study of Design in nature as legitimate scientific enquiry. They are truly scared of what might be found should they do.

  171. 171
    Box says:

    Zachriel: Both populations would be shrinking. Non-PCD deaths cause detrimental effects to neighbors, while PCD death provide beneficial effects for neighbors.

    Why do non-PCD deaths have detrimental effects to neighbors? You mentioned this also in #162.
    Why not assume that all death is beneficial for neighbors?

  172. 172
    Joe says:

    vel:

    What did the designer create specifically?

    That is for us to determine.

    Human designers have to deal with effects of the natural forces on their designs, how does the designer contend with those issues?

    By intelligently designing organisms to evolve (by intelligent design).

  173. 173
    EugeneS says:

    Zachriel #154

    A good tentative post-hoc narrative. What really needs to be explained though is the appearance of the PCD function itself. All your explanation demonstrates is that probably PCD makes sense. It does not say how it came to be. Natural selection ‘acts’ (recall our conversation in another thread) upon already existing functions (programs), not future functions (future programs). Selection for future success is a capacity of an intelligent designer possessing forethought. There is no forethought in nature as such. That is the major weakness of all non-directed evolution models. Forethought and planning themselves are a prerequisite for anything functional or genuinely organized to exist.

  174. 174
    Zachriel says:

    Box: Why do non-PCD deaths have detrimental effects to neighbors?

    It’s been a hypothesis for a while. And as you know, a scientific hypothesis is a tentative assumption for the purpose of testing its empirical entailments. See Durand, Rashidi & Michod, How an Organism Dies Affects the Fitness of Its Neighbors, American Naturalist 2011: “Cellular contents liberated during non-PCD are detrimental to others, while the contents released during PCD are beneficial.”

    EugeneS: What really needs to be explained though is the appearance of the PCD function itself.

    Good question.

    The process is very ancient, and there are no clear answers as yet. There are several hypotheses, such as the “original sin” hypothesis, which is that self-destruction is intrinsic to the origin of the cell itself, and that the original metabolic processes always had the capacity to destroy the cell, and that suppression and unmasking of this capacity evolved over time. Another hypothesis is that it is the result of an arms race with toxic invaders, a forced symbiosis called the “addiction module” hypothesis. No one knows with any certainty at this point, though.

  175. 175
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zachriel – I’m just catching your attention with a side comment related to something you said elsewhere but which I can’t find right now …

    There’s a new post today on “The Disunity of the Sciences” arguing that sciences are irreducible and not inter-connected.

    You brought up a contrary point elsewhere in a discussion about the necessary, scientific limits of ID.

  176. 176
    velikovskys says:

    Joe:

    That is for us to determine.

    Not everything? What designs that which the designer didn’t?

    Vel:Human designers have to deal with effects of the natural forces on their designs, how does the designer contend with those issues?

    By intelligently designing organisms to evolve (by intelligent design).

    Except for the extinct ?

  177. 177
    Box says:

    Box: Why do non-PCD deaths have detrimental effects to neighbors?

    Zachriel: It’s been a hypothesis for a while. And as you know, a scientific hypothesis is a tentative assumption for the purpose of testing its empirical entailments. See Durand, Rashidi & Michod, How an Organism Dies Affects the Fitness of Its Neighbors, American Naturalist 2011: “Cellular contents liberated during non-PCD are detrimental to others, while the contents released during PCD are beneficial.”

    I have to say that this is an important contribution for a darwinian narraitive of PCD evolution. It may even be essential for the story.
    IOW PCD can only evolve in organisms where non-pcd death is detrimental for organisms. And I see little reason to assume that this is the rule through the animal kingdom.

Leave a Reply