Zack Kopplin: There is No Scientific Evidence Against Evolution

If you were handed a brand new species by a lab you couldn’t introduce it.

If they handed me brand new wings I couldn't use them either.

It might end up being carrier for a virus that would kill off all humans from the planet.

It may end up saving us and the planet.

The only way to do it is to know absolutely what was going to happen before it happens.

No risk, no reward. Joe

Joe: There is no retreat. If you were handed a brand new species by a lab you couldn't introduce it. It might end up being carrier for a virus that would kill off all humans from the planet. The only way to do it is to know absolutely what was going to happen before it happens. There is no way out of that problem for biological ID. Humans can't do it. Carpathian

Keep retreating, Carpathian. Joe

Joe:

And yet we do biological design properly.

We have genetically tweaked some but we have never designed even the simplest of organisms. Carpathian

Carpathian:

I have mentioned that humans have introduced species into existing ecosystems with bad results.

And I have mentioned that humans have introduced species into existing ecosystems with good results.

It has to do with ID because biological ID is impossible if you introduce brand new organisms into existing ecosystems without knowing what the results would be beforehand.

That has nothing to do with ID and it is obviously false.

Humans can’t do biological ID properly because we have no foresight of the future.

And yet we do biological design properly. Joe

Joe:

Carpathian- What does that have to do with ID? And if you think that humans have never introduced a new species into a new ecosystem without adverse effects then you are deluded.

I have mentioned that humans have introduced species into existing ecosystems with bad results. It has to do with ID because biological ID is impossible if you introduce brand new organisms into existing ecosystems without knowing what the results would be beforehand. Humans can't do biological ID properly because we have no foresight of the future. Carpathian

int CountMaxCompares(char *Target, char *PopMember) { int MatchingCount, Position; MatchingCount, Position = 0; while( Target[Position] && PopMember[Position] ) There are some issues here. 1. What if the length of the target string is not the same as the length of the population member string? 2. How does the code determine that the end of the target string has been reached? 3. Your while loop will terminate the first time a zero is encountered in either the target or the population member. Is that what you designed it to do or was that just an oversight? Maybe you should get your code to compile and run before asking us to. ;) Hey, but thanks for trying. You're being a good sport. Mung

Carpathian- What does that have to do with ID? And if you think that humans have never introduced a new species into a new ecosystem without adverse effects then you are deluded. Joe

Joe: Then show me how to introduce a new organism into an ecosystem. Just come up with the steps and you'll see no one on Earth could do it. Carpathian

Carpathian:

Because biological ID is impossible without knowing virtually everything about an environment and exactly how it interacts before you tamper with it.

What does that have to do with ID? Please be specific. HINT- ID doesn't say anything about that- you made it up.

You need to be able to foresee the future and be infallible otherwise biological ID can’t work.

That is your opinion. And only an opinion. Joe

Joe:

Tell us why that is a requirement.

Because biological ID is impossible without knowing virtually everything about an environment and exactly how it interacts before you tamper with it. This is impossible for anything that is simply intelligent. You need to be able to foresee the future and be infallible otherwise biological ID can't work. Carpathian

Carpathian:

Show me the steps required to introduce a new successful predator to fit in the food chain between a lion and cheetah in Africa.

Tell us why that is a requirement. Tell us why you think your straw men mean something. Nice of you to keep ignoring what I post, though.

I can’t reach the conclusion of design if a particular design is impossible for any known designers.

More stupid talk. Joe

Silver Asiatic:

… as stated many times before ID is about observing evidence of design. You can (and have to) reach the conclusion that the thing was designed first, before determining the who and how.

I can't reach the conclusion of design if a particular design is impossible for any known designers. At one time, an very powerful entity may have created life, but the way life changes now, it seems to have not had or needed an intelligent agent. If I walk into an elementary school art class and see the Mona Lisa on an easel, I will not attribute that design to the children. I might test some adults and find none of them with technical and artistic talent to paint that picture. I might come to the conclusion though, that at one time there was such a talented individual. The same goes for ID. Carpathian

Joe: Show me the steps required to introduce a new successful predator to fit in the food chain between a lion and cheetah in Africa. What steps would you take to ensure that the new predator won't cause a drop in prey for the current predators. How many would you release initially to ensure a large enough gene pool yet small enough not to cause a sudden drop in prey populations? What diseases would they be vulnerable to? What will the climate be like in a hundred years in the future when you release the design? How do you recall mistakes in order to repair them? Will mistakes be made? If not, what powers does the designer possess in order to be infallible? Carpathian

Humans can’t do biological design, so what can? If we can’t find a candidate that fits the requirements of biological design, we can probably rule out ID.

SETI observes coded language emerging from the surface of a planet. Humans can't live on that planet. If we can't find a candidate that fits the requirements of that particular language, then we rule out intelligent design? ... as stated many times before ID is about observing evidence of design. You can (and have to) reach the conclusion that the thing was designed first, before determining the who and how. Silver Asiatic

Carpathian:

The designer is tightly coupled to design.

True

While I can’t design a house, an architect can.

I can design a house and I am not an architect. I designed and built the addition to our house.

Humans can’t do biological design, so what can?

Humans have done biological design.

If we can’t find a candidate that fits the requirements of biological design, we can probably rule out ID.

That's stupid talk. We haven't found the designers of Nan Madol- we don't know the techniques they used. All we have is Nan Madol and the knowledge that mother nature could never have produced it. Joe

Joe:

We can determine intelligent design BEFORE answering those questions. As a matter of fact we have to determine intelligent design is present before we even ask those questions. ID makes claims on the DESIGN. Those claims can and have been tested- and ID has passed those tests.

The designer is tightly coupled to design. While I can't design a house, an architect can. Humans can't do biological design, so what can? If we can't find a candidate that fits the requirements of biological design, we can probably rule out ID. Carpathian

Mung:

Carpathian, I realized I posted in the wrong thread. But still. Wasn’t your claim that the two modules didn’t need to be aware of each other?

Correct. Since the target string is supplied as a parameter, there is no target information within any module. The same goes for populations. You could have any size and the modules would simply look at all of them until it came across a null pointer which indicates an end to the array. Different population sizes will lead to different performance in the search. No code needs to be recompiled to change the target or population size. You could introduce a a means to change them on the fly in the middle of looking for a target and see how it changes to hunting for the new target.

c = CountMaxCompares(Target,Pop[x]);

The left string is a pointer to the target string, the right is a pointer to a member of an array of strings (members of a population). All it does is return a count of how many chars in each string are identical. It would look something like this: int CountMaxCompares(char *Target, char *PopMember) { int MatchingCount, Position; MatchingCount, Position = 0; while( Target[Position] && PopMember[Position] ) { if(Target[Position] == PopMember[Position] ) { MatchingCount++; } Position++; } return(MatchingCount); } Carpathian

Funny vel, you claim that ID would raise the bar higher IF unguided material processes were EVER observed to generate non-trivial functional information/complexity, such as a code or a molecular machine. Thus you tacitly admit that that particular threshold has never been met. But you pretend to know the future actions of prominent IDists IF that threshold were EVER met. Tell you what vel, instead of you playing a mind reader as to what Behe, Meyer, Dembski and other prominent IDists might do IF unguided material processes were EVER observed to generate non-trivial functional information/complexity, such as a code or a molecular machine, (much less life itself), why don't you just go ahead and be honest and admit that you don't have the evidence? Or is honesty towards the evidence just too painful a burden for you to bear? As to 'moving the goalposts' for falsification, it is the height of hypocrisy for a Darwinist, you, to accuse IDists of that. For instance on epigenetics, Dr. Hunter noted this blatant goal post shifting just the other day on the part of Darwinists:

Chuan He: Evolution Created Epigenetics - May 3, 2015 Excerpt: They never predicted it, then they denied it could be heritable, and then they denied it could cause lasting change. “It” in this case is epigenetics and in spite of being wrong, wrong and wrong again, and in spite of the fact that there is no scientific explanation for how epigenetics could have evolved, evolutionists nonetheless insist that it, in fact, must have evolved. Evolution loses every battle but claims to win the war. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/05/chuan-he-evolution-created-epigenetics.html

I would have never believed that supposed scientists (i.e. Darwinists) could ever be so dishonest towards the empirical evidence if I had not witnessed it for myself these past few years. verse and music:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. MercyMe - Flawless (Official Music Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjLlLPZderk

bornagain77

Carpathian: How do you track down and change all the instances of your designed object to make a change? I like that question. :) Mung

Carpathian, I realized I posted in the wrong thread. But still. Wasn't your claim that the two modules didn't need to be aware of each other? Don't worry, I'll track down what you wrote :) Wasn't your claim that you would not have to change either of them? So your oracle knows what the target is, and it knows how to compare your population members to the target. How does it know that? Which module contains your CountMaxCompares function? For me to compile your code and test it I need that function :) [Actual I have no plans to compile it. I'll will re-write it in another language.] Mung

vel:

Make a claim on how ,who,what or when.

We can determine intelligent design BEFORE answering those questions. As a matter of fact we have to determine intelligent design is present before we even ask those questions. ID makes claims on the DESIGN. Those claims can and have been tested- and ID has passed those tests. OTOH unguided evolution has nothing but morons attacking ID with their blissful ignorance. Joe

How do you track down and change all the instances of your designed object to make a change?

Ask Noah. ;) Joe

Carpathian': How do you track down and change all the instances of your designed object to make a change? Since the most likely unnamed designer is both omnipotent and omniscient anything is possible so ID does not worry about actual practical problems of design, finite knowledge ,finite abilities , finite resources. velikovskys

BA: You ask “How does that falsify ID?” A dumber question perhaps could not be asked. I bow to your expertise on dumb ID specifically claims that intelligence, and only intelligence, can generate non-trivial functional information. Actually it claims to be the best explanation, what exactly is the dividing line between trivial and non trivial functional information? Thus, if what are perceived to be unguided material processes were ever observed to create non-trivial information/complexity, such as a code or a molecular machine, then that would falsify ID in its primary claim! Nope, ID would merely raise the bar which separates trivial from non trivial, see Lenski . Second, it would not disprove the actual first claim of ID that life was designed, the metric of design would have to be changed,see csi You are welcome to try to falsify ID. Make a claim on how ,who,what or when. velikovskys

Silver Asiatic:

Every mutation in every organism affects the whole ecosystem. Every response to environmental change does the same. Every change in bacteria colonies does the same.

I agree and that is exactly why ID cannot be used by anyone without the ability to see the future. As for the 'Best' in the code, it refers to best comparison count of two strings. It has nothing to do with biological fitness. I could have called it "IndexOfHighestComparisonCount" and it would have made no difference to the program. Carpathian

Vel, as to: "The test to falsify ID is, and always has been, for unguided material processes to create non-trivial functional information." You ask "How does that falsify ID?" A dumber question perhaps could not be asked. ID specifically claims that intelligence, and only intelligence, can generate non-trivial functional information. Thus, if what are perceived to be unguided material processes were ever observed to create non-trivial information/complexity, such as a code or a molecular machine, then that would falsify ID in its primary claim! You are welcome to try to falsify ID. Many Darwinists have been trying for years to falsify that primary claim of ID and no example presented thus far by Darwinists, that I'm aware of, has withstood scrutiny.

It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_

It is interesting to note that neo-Darwinism has no such falsification threshold that Darwinists will accept as a falsification of their theory. In fact, No matter how vast the probabilities against Darwinism are shown to be, Darwinists never accept that Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate as to the generation of non-trivial functional information. Alvin Plantinga has a humorous video on the issue:

Darwinism Not Proved Completely Impossible Therefore It Must Be True According to Darwinists - Alvin Plantinga - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/

of related note

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge http://izquotes.com/quote/147518

Also of note: Regardless of whether or not Darwinists are willing to accept falsification of their theory, the fact of the matter is that the recent finding of 'non-local' quantum information in molecular biology has in fact, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, falsified the materialistic claim that information is 'emergent' from a material basis. Thus since neo-Darwinism is based on reductive materialistic premises, neo-Darwinism is empirically falsified in its claim that information emerges from, or is reducible to, a material basis. bornagain77

Carpathian

If you release a new organism into an environment it affects the whole ecosystem.

At least you understand how it is impossible to model unguided evolution. Every mutation in every organism affects the whole ecosystem. Every response to environmental change does the same. Every change in bacteria colonies does the same. But you also haven't explained how you can model unguided evolution without adding your own intelligence. In the code you provided you appear to have a variable that counts the "best" of something. That's a teleological term - indicating direction. Evolution doesn't have the "best" of anything. Even "the most capable of surviving and leaving the most viable offspring" is not measurable since that term is affected by changes in the entire biosphere. You'll necessarily add your own assumptions and intelligent design to the model. Silver Asiatic

velikovskys:

Carpathian’s question is seems to be how does the designer adapt his designs to a changing environment, human design degrades over time.

Exactly. How do you track down and change all the instances of your designed object to make a change? Carpathian

I was under the impression you had done some programming. I must have mistaken you for someone else. char *Environment(char *Target, char *Pop[]) { int x, c, Best, BestCount; BestCount, Best, x, c = 0; while( Pop[x]) { c = CountMaxCompares(Target,Pop[x]); if( c > BestCount ) { BestCount = c; Best = x; } x++; } return(Pop[Best]); } This the oracle. Notice the oracle does not contain within itself anything relating to the actual target. You could enter a DNA string and it would work. The return value points to the new population string to mutate throughout the population. I don't think I need to write anything else. I also don't know if it will run as is but maybe someone could try it if they feel like it. Carpathian

Joe: Biological mistakes are eliminated, duh. And only a fool thinks ID needs to know the future. The designer makes mistakes? velikovskys

BA: Carp and Vel: The test to falsify ID is, and always has been, for unguided material processes to create non-trivial functional information. How does that falsify ID? Both could be true. Carpathian's question is seems to be how does the designer adapt his designs to a changing environment, human design degrades over time. Of course without some knowledge of how the designer implements his design in the first place, this seems impossible. velikovskys

Carpathian, are you going to show us your Wonderful Weasel program or not? The one you claim can accept any string and find it? Mung

Well unguided evolution can't introduce a new organism into anything, so no worries. Joe

If you release a new organism into an environment it affects the whole ecosystem. If your new organism is a carrier of a virus that can be passed to humans, there could be an epidemic. Notice that the organism itself is successful but has a negative effect on other organisms. You have to be able to recall your mistake quickly or know what the future is going to be before you release your design. Carpathian

The same holds true for modeling.

With modeling you have to actually understand what it is you are modeling. With biological evolution we don't have such an understanding so we can't model it. Joe

How does it fail? Just because there are recalls doesn't mean it fails. Biological mistakes are eliminated, duh. And only a fool thinks ID needs to know the future. Joe

Joe:

Intelligent Design is tested every day, and it passes those tests every day.

And it fails every day too. Look at all the car and truck recalls. How do we recall a ID biological mistake? It might be too late once discovered and that's why ID is so difficult to do by any entity that cannot foresee the future. Carpathian

Mung:

You know what would require a truly intelligent designer? Coding a software program that models unguided evolution.

It sounds like you don't understand where the test equipment ends and the "device under test" begins. kairosfocus like to mention the noise of current flowing through a Zener diode as being random. Measuring that noise with an instrument does not mean that the current flow through the diode is no longer mostly random. Using "designed" instruments to measure "natural" objects does not mean that we can consider those "natural" objects to now be designed. The same holds true for modeling. Carpathian

Zachriel:

It takes an intelligent designer to code a software program that models weather or planetary orbits too.

It is easy to model things that we understand. OTOH we don't even know what makes an organism what it is. And we have no idea how nor if a bacterial flagellum could evolve from a population that never had one. We couldn't model that if our lives depended on it. Joe

Silver Asiatic:

You might want to try to build the code without putting your own design-intelligence into it, and then let the software decide what to do after that.

That's what I intend on doing. I'll see how far purely random changes work and than I'll put in some feedback from the environment. This will be a proper controlled test, not a case of "let's change some random bits in the host OS and see what happens". Carpathian

Mung: You know what would require a truly intelligent designer? Coding a software program that models unguided evolution. It takes an intelligent designer to code a software program that models weather or planetary orbits too. Zachriel

You know what would require a truly intelligent designer? Coding a software program that models unguided evolution. Mung

SA: You could try to build some software without intelligent design and see what you come up with. Carp: That is exactly what I intend on doing. I’m going to model code that will self-replicate and mutate both randomly and as a result of their own actions.

You might want to try to build the code without putting your own design-intelligence into it, and then let the software decide what to do after that. You're creating parameters based on assumptions of randomness and 'result of their own actions'. In the end, it's your decisions that are reflected in the software. You are the Intelligent Designer. Silver Asiatic

Bright?from Louisiana? Just kidding. Does this dude have bio sci evidence FOR evolution? IF he IS bright then he should eh? I bet he does not. Just memorized things from high school. What do kids matter anyways. this dude is just famous because the establishment needed one to help fight creationism etc in that state. Its a fraud of the media. let the people decide what is taught in contentious issues in THEIR schools to THEIR kids in THEIR nation. Its freedom. Zack should like it or move to a nation more his style. Don't need him around eh. Robert Byers

Carp and Vel: The test to falsify ID is, and always has been, for unguided material processes to create non-trivial functional information. The main reasons why that will never happen are that unguided material processes do not have conscious awareness so as to take overall context of a particular situation into consideration. Nor do unguided material processes possess free will so as to implement desired intentions onto material substrates so as to arrange them for a desired purpose to accomplish a goal. The failure of computers to be able to take overall context into consideration is easily demonstrated with Google translate

What Is a Mind? More Hype from Big Data - Erik J. Larson - May 6, 2014 Excerpt: In 1979, University of Pittsburgh philosopher John Haugeland wrote an interesting article in the Journal of Philosophy, "Understanding Natural Language," about Artificial Intelligence. At that time, philosophy and AI were still paired, if uncomfortably. Haugeland's article is one of my all time favorite expositions of the deep mystery of how we interpret language. He gave a number of examples of sentences and longer narratives that, because of ambiguities at the lexical (word) level, he said required "holistic interpretation." That is, the ambiguities weren't resolvable except by taking a broader context into account. The words by themselves weren't enough. Well, I took the old 1979 examples Haugeland claimed were difficult for MT, and submitted them to Google Translate, as an informal "test" to see if his claims were still valid today.,,, ,,,Translation must account for context, so the fact that Google Translate generates the same phrase in radically different contexts is simply Haugeland's point about machine translation made afresh, in 2014. Erik J. Larson - Founder and CEO of a software company in Austin, Texas http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/what_is_a_mind085251.html

The fact that computers do not possess free will so as to implement desired intentions onto material substrates in order to accomplish a goal is reflected in the computers inability to create new axiomatic information:

Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information. http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf

The following site has some easy examples of the types of questions that would easily trip a computer up in a Turing test:

Artificial Intelligence or intelligent artifices? - June 3, 2013 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/artificial-intelligence-or-intelligent-artifices/

Since a computer does not possess free will so as to create new axiomatic information, nor does it possess conscious awareness so as to take overall context into consideration, then one of the simplest ways of defeating the Turing test is to tell, or to invent, a new joke:,,,

“(a computer) lacks the ability to distinguish between language and meta-language.,,, As known, jokes are difficult to understand and even more difficult to invent, given their subtle semantic traps and their complex linguistic squirms. The judge can reliably tell the human (from the computer)” Per niwrad https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/artificial-intelligence-or-intelligent-artifices/

Such as this joke:

Turing Test Extra Credit – Convince The Examiner That He’s The Computer – cartoon http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/turing_test.png

or this one

Turing Test - cartoon http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/turingTest.jpg

Here is a pertinent quote:

Can a Computer Think? - Michael Egnor - March 31, 2011 Excerpt: The Turing test isn't a test of a computer. Computers can't take tests, because computers can't think. The Turing test is a test of us. If a computer "passes" it, we fail it. We fail because of our hubris, a delusion that seems to be something original in us. The Turing test is a test of whether human beings have succumbed to the astonishingly naive hubris that we can create souls.,,, It's such irony that the first personal computer was an Apple. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/failing_the_turing_test045141.html

bornagain77

Intelligent Design is tested every day, and it passes those tests every day. Joe

Carpathian: What is wrong with testing ID? That would require something to test first. velikovskys

Your failure is not understanding that ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Joe

bornagain77:

Carp, to put your failure in logic as simply as possible:

What failure in logic? I am agreeing with you that an extremely powerful entity is required as the designer and that humans do not possess the knowledge to do that safely. I intend on seeing how well an intelligence to the degree that humans possess can use ID. Both ID and evolution will be tested under the same conditions. What is wrong with testing ID? Carpathian

Carp, to put your failure in logic as simply as possible:

Atheist's logic 101 - cartoon "If I can design life in my designed computer then I've proved no design was needed for life" http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/ee/v2/life-by-chance.jpg

If you finally understand your tremendous failure in logic, as a bonus, can you now prove to me that you are not merely a philosophical zombie?

Philosophical Zombies - cartoon http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11

bornagain77

What I’m going to try and do is measure the difference between ID and evolution.

Willfully ignorant it is, then. Joe

bornagain77:

Carp, how you can imagine something without foresight can design anything better that humans, or especially God, who both have foresight is beyond me.

But I agree with you and I've said it before. I believe ID cannot work for any beings without knowledge of the future. What I'm going to try and do is measure the difference between ID and evolution. In other words, at what rate can ID changes be made as opposed to evolution. With evolution I am restricted to small changes, while with ID I am restricted by my lack of knowledge of the future. Carpathian

Silver Asiatic:

You could try to build some software without intelligent design and see what you come up with.

That is exactly what I intend on doing. I'm going to model code that will self-replicate and mutate both randomly and as a result of their own actions. Carpathian

Carp, how you can imagine something that is completely without foresight can design anything better than humans, or especially God, who both have foresight, is beyond me. Especially since you have ZERO empirical evidence that what you propose for unguided material processes is even remotely possible in reality. But then again, I've lately come to realize that empirical evidence is of little concern to the committed Darwinist. It seems as if a committed Darwinist can simply imagine something to be possible for unguided material processes then that imagination, no matter how far fetched, becomes a surety for him that no amount of contrary evidence or reasoning, no matter how sound, will ever convince him otherwise. of semi related interest. Here is a neat quote from Darwin I found yesterday: “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Charles Darwin – On the Origin Of Species – page 433 https://books.google.com/books?id=eTfRotZTXI0C&pg=PA433&lpg=PA433&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false bornagain77

You could try to build some software without intelligent design and see what you come up with. Silver Asiatic

bornagain77: Evolution is guided in the sense that it cannot serve up a mutation that will not survive in its ecosystem. That's why change is slow. I am going through this process now as I try and put together a system that will allow me to make changes for a future I can't know. The actual task of ID has become harder than evolution. With evolution, I simply make thousands of incredibly small changes and see what survives. With ID, I have to make huge DNA changes which require a lot of planning and foreknowledge. Carpathian

Carpathian, it just happened, that's all, is not a scientific theory. Intelligently designed scientific experiments with their intelligently designed environments have repeatedly demonstrated that evolution is unguided. Mung

Carp, 'design constraints' are inevitable in any system that is designed. Imagining that unguided material processes are up to the task of designing entire ecosystems that are well balanced in regards to multiple competing 'feedback' factors, when they cannot even design a single molecular machine is, to put it mildly, delusional. bornagain77

bornagain77: I believe that "changing" an organism is extremely difficult regardless of how it is done. The problem is at a higher level than the genetic code. A complete organism with new or changed functionality may harm the environment it's dropped into. That is where the negative feedback from the environment becomes the prime limiter of change. If a designer introduces a new predator into an ecosystem, what happens to the food chain and the success of prey to reproduce? Because of this, ID is severely limited in the speed in which it can make changes. Whether ID is slower or faster than evolution is something to be studied. Carpathian

Carp, the limitations for the 'plasticity' of any particular organism are much more severe than you imagine and are only problematic for neo-Darwinists who believe all life arose by unguided material processes via virtually unlimited plasticity in organisms.

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. 38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ Overlapping Genetic Codes 12-6-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WZy0n60_ZU In the book "Biological Information: New Perspectives" Chapters 6 and 9 (at least) argue that stretches of DNA can have multiple functions encoded into them. We will partially evaluate the strength of the evidence behind that argument. 1. Marks, R. J. II et al. 2013. Biological Information: New Perspectives. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. - Book available in sections at http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8818#t=toc

bornagain77

bornagain77: Yes, changes are limited by the environment. After the genetic engineering is done, there is no guarantee that any changes will survive on their own in the ecosystem they are inserted into. That limitation is shared by ID and evolution. It also means that ID is limited to slow changes else you risk destroying the ecosystem you are targeting. This means you may threaten established organisms not simply newly engineered ones if you don't know completely the effect the new organisms will have. Carpathian

Carp you state: "In the hands of GMO scientists, genetics can make huge changes." Other than the fact that intelligent agents, not Darwinian processes, are purposely introducing genes, John Sanford, inventor of the "Gene Gun", and leading pioneer in GMO, would disagree strongly with your 'huge changes' boast. In fact, after years of research into genetics, he holds to the model of genetic entropy which directly contradicts the claims of neo-Darwinists. Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video https://vimeo.com/35088933 bornagain77

In the hands of GMO scientists, genetics can make huge changes. Carpathian

Evolution is limited, not by the environment but by what changes genetics can produce. Joe

Mung:

Intelligently designed scientific experiments have repeatedly demonstrated that evolution is unguided.

Evolution is limited by the environment. That is why some organisms with mutations don't survive and others do. In this sense, evolution is guided by its environment. Carpathian

podcast - "Micro to Macro: Neo-Darwinists Give Small Evidence for Big Claims" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2015-05-04T17_19_08-07_00 bornagain77

Intelligently designed scientific experiments have repeatedly demonstrated that evolution is unguided. Mung

Of course there is no evidence against Darwinian evolution for Zack because any evidence against it can be dismissed out of hand..... Andre

semi related note: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist - Norman Geisler, PhD - video https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-0zpu2toenaPM19kDyBsPibjaGAxup9K Christ Journey Church (2015) - Philosopher Norman Geisler speaks on Christian apologetics and the amount of faith it takes to be an atheist. bornagain77

Zack Kopplin is a confused chump. Joe