Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The same professionals who say chimps and I have a common ancestor?

Wait.


Are you saying you and chimpanzees DONT have a common ancestor?

 

[blackzeus]

No. I'm serious.

Why do people who seem to base all of their other assumptions in modern biology, disagree with you?

Where have you succeeded where the mainstream has failed?

Does anybody see the Waldo? I see two Anyways on this breh:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/john_mattick_on075241.html

John Mattick is a very well known professor of molecular biology at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia (you can find his lab webpage here). As of January 2012, he is also the executive director of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research.
Mattick is best known for his work on elucidating the functions of non-coding RNA, an area in which he has published widely (for a list of some of these publications, go here). You can see him in an interview on the importance and role of non-coding RNAs here.

Mattick recently published a paper in the HUGO Journal, responding to critics of last year's ENCODE results (Mattick and Dinger, 2013). In the paper, he contests the argument of Graur et al. (2013) that lack of evolutionary conservation implies non-function -- actually, there are many cases of known functional sequences that show no discernible evidence of sequence conservation (e.g., Vakhrusheva et al., 2013; Pang et al., 2006).

Mattick also briefly discusses the C-value enigma (which I've addressed here before), referring to the absence of correlation among eukaryotes between biological complexity and genome size, with differences in genome size being due largely to differences in the amount of non-coding DNA. Some argue that this provides evidence for pervasive non-functionality in the human genome (e.g., Doolittle, 2013; Eddy, 2012).

Protozoans in particular possess very large genome sizes. For example, Amoeba dubia has a genome size of around 670 billion base pairs. Amoeba proteus has a genome size of around 290 billion base pairs. The size of the human genome is only about 3 billion base pairs. The number of genes also bears little relationship to an organism's complexity. Humans (Homo sapiens), for instance, possess approximately 22,000 genes. Rice (Oryza sativa) has around 41,000 genes. The roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans possesses about 19,500 genes.

There are a number of ways in which the C-value paradox could be resolved, however, and it is likely a combination of a number of factors. We now know that through RNA splicing after transcription, a single gene can produce more than one protein. Humans, for instance, produce around 100,000 proteins from 22,000 structural genes. Thus, an organism's complexity cannot be viewed as a simple function of the number of genes it possesses.

Second, there is in fact a relationship between biological complexity and the extent of gene regulation. Roughly 9% of genes in Homo sapiens encode transcription factors. In Drosophila melanogaster, only about 5.5% of genes code for transcription factors; 4.2% of the genes of Caenorhabditis elegans code for transcription factors; only 3.4% of genes code for transcription factors in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (see Table 2 of Messina et al., 2004). When coupled with an increased network of transcriptional enhancers and promoters, such a difference could result in a much larger set of gene expression patterns. This could lead to a non-linear increase in organismal complexity (e.g. see Levine and Tjian, 2003).

There are other factors to consider as well -- for example, organisms with larger cell volumes (such as amoebas) tend to produce repetitive DNA, which serves structural purposes. As Thomas Cavalier-Smith explains, when cell size increases, "there is positive selection for a corresponding increase in nuclear volume; it is generally easier to achieve this by increasing the amount of DNA rather than by altering its folding parameters" (Cavalier-Smith, 2005). Another thing to consider is that time taken to transcribe long stretches of non-coding DNA such as introns can be of functional consequence (e.g. see Swinburne and Silver, 2011). There are thus so many different factors needing to be taken into account that it is difficult to make a watertight argument for junk DNA based on the C-value paradox.

Toward the end of his paper, Mattick weighs in on a potential source of motivation in the debate regarding the extent to which the human genome is functional. He writes,

There may also be another factor motivating the Graur et al. and related articles (van Bakel et al. 2010; Scanlan 2012), which is suggested by the sources and selection of quotations used at the beginning of the article, as well as in the use of the phrase "evolution-free gospel" in its title (Graur et al. 2013): the argument of a largely non-functional genome is invoked by some evolutionary theorists in the debate against the proposition of intelligent design of life on earth, particularly with respect to the origin of humanity. In essence, the argument posits that the presence of non-protein-coding or so-called 'junk DNA' that comprises >90% of the human genome is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionary debris by blind Darwinian evolution, and argues against intelligent design, as an intelligent designer would presumably not fill the human genetic instruction set with meaningless information (Dawkins 1986; Collins 2006). This argument is threatened in the face of growing functional indices of noncoding regions of the genome, with the latter reciprocally used in support of the notion of intelligent design and to challenge the conception that natural selection accounts for the existence of complex organisms (Behe 2003; Wells 2011).

Of course, Mattick goes on to state that "This case is, moreover, entirely consistent with the broad tenets of evolution by natural selection, although it may not be easily reconcilable with current population theory and current ideas of evolutionary neutrality."

Mattick himself is no proponent of intelligent design. But his willingness to state upfront that a common argument against ID has been "threatened in the face of growing functional indices of noncoding regions of the genome" (even providing a citation to Jonathan Wells's book The Myth of Junk DNA, and an open letter to Nature by Michael Behe) deserves commendation.

Mattick continues,

In any case, that our understanding of the remarkably complex processes underlying the molecular evolution of life, including the likely evolution of evolvability (Mattick 2009c), is incomplete should not be surprising. With the emergence of transformative technologies, such as massively parallel sequencing, which provide tools to view the inner molecular workings of the genome that were inconceivable less than a decade ago, it is as important as ever that we scientists remain open to observations that challenge even the most fundamental paradigms that exist within biology today.
It is not every day that we encounter such a humble attitude from a scientist who is prepared to candidly acknowledge the substantial incompleteness in our understanding of the mechanics of evolution. Mattick's scholarly attitude is one that up-and-coming scientists would do well to emulate.

You know it's bad when evolutionists are forced to fall back on their own website, enjoy breh

EDIT: You should focus on the last sentence, listen to your homies breh fall back and learn

Spoiler

EDIT: F*ck Dawkins

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Does anybody see the Waldo? I see two Anyways on this breh:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/john_mattick_on075241.html



You know it's bad when evolutionists are forced to fall back on their own website, enjoy breh

EDIT: You should focus on the last sentence, listen to your homies breh fall back and learn

Spoiler

EDIT: F*ck Dawkins

None of that supported intelligent design, it only raised unanswered questions in evolutionary theory and modern biology.

 

[blackzeus]

None of that supported intelligent design, it only raised unanswered questions in evolutionary theory and modern biology.

Breh, go out, go holler at some girls, this debate is not for you.

Cliff Notes: This recognized molecular biologist who is a leader of a medical research facility straight up admitted the argument of evolutionists to state that junk DNA is proof against ID is wrong, specifically because as the research comes out it appears that all that "junk DNA" is not really junk, and that he at his level still has a lot to admittedly learn, even went as far as to cite ID authors That's Nas-grade Ether to your "No True Scotsman" fallacious argument breh

Breh, if your brothers in arms are falling back, maybe you should as well

Spoiler

You talkin' about unanswered questions meanwhile a molecular biologist admitted their whole argument was wrong, you nikkaz can't be serious (dmx voice)

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Breh, go out, go holler at some girls, this debate is not for you.

Cliff Notes: This recognized molecular biologist who is a leader of a medical research facility straight up admitted the argument of evolutionists to state that junk DNA is proof against ID is wrong, specifically because as the research comes out it appears that all that "junk DNA" is not really junk, and that he at his level still has a lot to admittedly learn, even went as far as to cite ID authors That's Nas-grade Ether to your "No True Scotsman" fallacious argument breh

Breh, if your brothers in arms are falling back, maybe you should as well

Spoiler

You talkin' about unanswered questions meanwhile a molecular biologist admitted their whole argument was wrong, you nikkaz can't be serious (dmx voice)

no one currently things junk DNA (extrons) is junk.

no one has thought that for close to 15 years.

even further, this says NOTHING about intelligent design.

 

[blackzeus]

no one currently things junk DNA (extrons) is junk.

no one has thought that for close to 15 years.

even further, this says NOTHING about intelligent design.

Notes article is from 2013, further notes molecular biologist falls back and admits it was incorrect to use junk DNA as an argument against ID, then reads @Napoleon's post, and continues to be entertained

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Notes article is from 2013, further notes molecular biologist falls back and admits it was incorrect to use junk DNA as an argument against ID, then reads @Napoleon's post, and continues to be entertained

Doesnt matter when your late article was from.

We've known about the uses of non-coding DNA for over 10 years.

 

[blackzeus]

No. I'm serious.

Why do people who seem to base all of their other assumptions in modern biology, disagree with you?

Where have you succeeded where the mainstream has failed?

Breh, go out, go holler at some girls, this debate is not for you.

Cliff Notes: This recognized molecular biologist who is a leader of a medical research facility straight up admitted the argument of evolutionists to state that junk DNA is proof against ID is wrong, specifically because as the research comes out it appears that all that "junk DNA" is not really junk, and that he at his level still has a lot to admittedly learn, even went as far as to cite ID authors That's Nas-grade Ether to your "No True Scotsman" fallacious argument breh

Breh, if your brothers in arms are falling back, maybe you should as well

Spoiler

You talkin' about unanswered questions meanwhile a molecular biologist admitted their whole argument was wrong, you nikkaz can't be serious (dmx voice)

Doesnt matter when your late article was from.

We've known about the uses of non-coding DNA for over 10 years.

I truly don't care. Evidence is all I deal with.

 

[NoMayo15]

Yes, you're right, there's always the probability that order could come about without some guiding entity, however, the likelihood of that probability is so small it's not logical to consider that as a viable answer. Again, it takes more faith to believe against ID than to believe in it, but I am not here to tell you what you should believe, just pointing out the empirical facts.

Complexity implies design because complexity makes it highly improbable that randomness is true. The science is in the odds, in the probabilities breh. The math came to that conclusion, not me

The reasoning is flawed because you're eliminating one possible answer in place for another. It doesn't matter how unlikely one is because the probability of the other one, the one you've accepted as true, might actually be zero. You've accepted something which you have no justification for ... other than your misinterpretation of some probability. If you win the lotto, even though the odds are astronomical, it doesn't mean someone fixed it so that particular outcome would happen.

And we don't assume design because something is complex. We look at past experience; how many times have we observed the thing, laptops, watches, whatever being designed by intelligence, and how many we've observed occurring in nature. You can also speak to the individuals who actually created it, or look at their plans, etc. We compare X to other artificial or natural things and try to determine to which it's most similar.

 

[CHL]

You must spread reputation to at least 30 other user(s) before you can give reputation to Napoleon again.
keep putting in that work

OT how did he go from -500 rep to +10 in a couple days?

 

[blackzeus]

The reasoning is flawed because you're eliminating one possible answer in place for another. It doesn't matter how unlikely one is because the probability of the other one, the one you've accepted as true, might actually be zero. You've accepted something which you have no justification for ... other than your misinterpretation of some probability. If you win the lotto, even though the odds are astronomical, it doesn't mean someone fixed it so that particular outcome would happen.

And we don't assume design because something is complex. We look at past experience; how many times have we observed the thing, laptops, watches, whatever being designed by intelligence, and how many we've observed occurring in nature. You can also speak to the individuals who actually created it, or look at their plans, etc. We compare X to other artificial or natural things and try to determine to which it's most similar.

at the bolded

1) Breh, the cosmological rate of expansion being fixed for the entire universe is the statistical equivalent of the same person winning the lotto everyday everywhere in the world with the same sequence of numbers for his entire life. Terrible analogy with all due respect. And no breh, you need to study probability a little bit better, there is no way 1/6 could actually be 5/6 in probability and vice versa, that's just horrible posting man where the f*ck you go to school at breh? I apologize for the ad hominem breh, I know you are being sincere in your posting, but come on man, let's not get ridiculous here with the diatribe.

2) No, ID doesn't assume anything. You are assuming ID is assuming anything, for the hundredth time, ID simply states that the randomness being the genesis of the universe is statistically improbable due to empirical data, nothing more, nothing less. You can't assume anything without 100% proof, but you can assume the likelihood of something being true based on statistics, observation, and probability.

 

[NoMayo15]

at the bolded

1) Breh, the cosmological rate of expansion being fixed for the entire universe is the statistical equivalent of the same person winning the lotto everyday everywhere in the world with the same sequence of numbers for his entire life. Terrible analogy with all due respect. And no breh, you need to study probability a little bit better, there is no way 1/6 could actually be 5/6 in probability and vice versa, that's just horrible posting man where the f*ck you go to school at breh? I apologize for the ad hominem breh, I know you are being sincere in your posting, but come on man, let's not get ridiculous here with the diatribe.

Even if the bolded is true, that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter how unlikely it was to occur if that's what actually happened.

It's important to know if it's even POSSIBLE for some thinking agent, outside space and time, could even exist. You don't care about that though. You just want to look at the flaws from one side and say that since it's unlikely that this some other competing idea must automatically be right. I'm sorry, that's not how science works. It's like people who say "what about missing transitional fossils" when discussing evolution. Poking holes in one idea doesn't make another one correct by default.

2) No, ID doesn't assume anything. You are assuming ID is assuming anything, for the hundredth time, ID simply states that the randomness being the genesis of the universe is statistically improbable due to empirical data, nothing more, nothing less. You can't assume anything without 100% proof, but you can assume the likelihood of something being true based on statistics, observation, and probability.

Well this is just false. ID asserts more than that. It asserts that some thinking entity IS the cause of the universe, and supporters of ID have to DEMONSTRATE that if they wanna say it's true. And they need more than "this OTHER model is so improbable that my hypothesis is correct". I'm not saying they need 100%, but they need actually evidence.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

OT how did he go from -500 rep to +10 in a couple days?

He was at like -600 today

 

[blackzeus]

Even if the bolded is true, that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter how unlikely it was to occur if that's what actually happened.

It's important to know if it's even POSSIBLE for some thinking agent, outside space and time, could even exist. You don't care about that though. You just want to look at the flaws from one side and say that since it's unlikely that this some other competing idea must automatically be right. I'm sorry, that's not how science works. It's like people who say "what about missing transitional fossils" when discussing evolution. Poking holes in one idea doesn't make another one correct by default.



Well this is just false. ID asserts more than that. It asserts that some thinking entity IS the cause of the universe, and supporters of ID have to DEMONSTRATE that if they wanna say it's true. And they need more than "this OTHER model is so improbable that my hypothesis is correct". I'm not saying they need 100%, but they need actually evidence.

1) You're insinuating genesis by evolution actually happened, when that's not provable, has never been provable, and in fact statistically improbable

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation#Rules_of_inference

In logic, negation, also called logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition p to another proposition "not p", written ¬p, which is interpreted intuitively as being true when p is false and false when p is true. Negation is thus a unary (single-argument) logical connective. It may be applied as an operation on propositions, truth values, or semantic values more generally. In classical logic, negation is normally identified with the truth function that takes truth to falsity and vice versa. In intuitionistic logic, according to the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation, the negation of a proposition p is the proposition whose proofs are the refutations of p.

^^^You are coming more from a philosophical stance, and more of a begging the question, what is "is" type of statement, which is why I love math. Math is simply yes or no. If "p" is false, then "not p" is true. There are degrees of order, but there's no degree of chaos, chaos is complete and total. So until you define a 3rd state that is neither chaos nor order, automatically, if one is false, the other must be true. That's math, the ultimate arbitrator You may not know WHY the negation of p is true, but by mathematical logic it must be true, there's no if ands or buts in math (technically there's ifs and ands in Boolean logic, but you know what I mean, or for your sake I hope you do )

3) ID does not state a thinking entity is the cause of the universe, ID says the universe was intelligently designed. While it is REASONABLE to assume the Designer is a thinking entity, that is not what ID claims, ID claims the earth was intelligently designed, nothing more, nothing less. ID makes no claims as to the origins and characteristics of the Designer. Now, if a proponent of ID such as myself claims that a God-like figure is the Designer, then yes, you're 100% correct, I need to provide some evidence this God-like figure exists. But I make no such claims, I am only claiming ID is true.

 

[blackzeus]

THAT'S NOT THE TRUTH, BROTHER! "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" WAS DESIGNED (NOT TOO INTELLIGENTLY) BY CREATIONISTS WHO DESIRE TO FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ONTO AS MANY AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS AS THEY CAN, IN A VERY DISHONEST WAY, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC, AND I'M TIRED OF THE SOPHISTRY INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE, BROTHER, DUDE, MEAN GENE, JACK, TOUGH GUY, CHAMP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Had a chance to watch the first video breh (Damn near 1 hour! )

Couple things:

1) There's an immediate fallacy from the beginning, which is that proponents of ID are proponents of Creationism, that is not the case, that's simply false, many IDers are not even Christian!

2) If ID is based on empirical data, and is the statistically probable cause of the genesis of the universe, it has every right to be presented along with evolution as science.

3) There was a lot of diatribe about religion in the first video. ID isn't religion's answer to the evolutionary theory. ID existed BEFORE the evolutionary theory, just ask your founding fathers However, there are some interesting issues brought up in the debate, namely the purpose in one's life without the existence of a Christian God, which is an interesting topic for another thread.

4) It's wrong for religion to blend with science, and also wrong for evolutionists to claim ID = Christianity, the Christian faith needs to stand on its own two feet, and not try to claim ID as a scientific extension of the Christian faith. Religion /= science. If you believe in God, then believe in God, and the same for Jesus Christ, but if you're going to base yourself on the scientific principle, you are doing a disservice to science by claiming Christianity and science coexist, it's impossible, science says question everything, the Bible says believe everything God tells you. In their most fundamental respective principles science and religion are vastly different and incompatible.

I'll try to watch the other vids tonight, but they're long as f*ck man