Intelligent Design New Evidence

[tosca1]

Those are lame excuses!

 

[William Rea]

Those are lame excuses!

Indeed, the 'strong evidence' that you have not presented is poor.

 

[roughdraft274]

The DNA of an egg has the 'blueprints' or the design of something already within it before it develops, just as the ecosystem of the planet came about from the process of information being transferred from natural conditions.

It has the information already with in, not the design. Design carries with it the baggage that a sentient being has made that designed and planned things. Period. You can not bring in the word design without denoting that there was a sentient designer. Period. You're ****ting on the english language otherwise.

Evolution: the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Nature is involved in the process of transferring information of stimuli from environmental conditions to biological processes, which allows it to basically design things as it goes along.

Intelligent life arose from the simple into a more complex form, which is a result of natural selection. Natural selection is the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin, now more commonly referred to as selective breeding.

So, it appears that nature designed humans thru selective breeding. I didn't say a sentient force using predetermined plans was involved, other than humans trying to become the top of the food chain.

Saying that nature designed humans assumes that nature had an ultimate plan that it was following. This has not been shown. Period. You can't use the word design. I can't stress this enough. As far as we can tell, humans evolved with no planning.

You can say, though it might not be the most accurate term, that humans designed dogs through selective breeding of certain traits. Because there was an sentient intelligence behind the way the dogs were being bred. Therefor we can say that a certain dog was designed through breeding to be good for this task. Through planning from an intelligent being.

What you can't say is that "the world was designed by evolution" because that hasn't been shown that there was any planning or decisions being made by a sentient being.

 

[Deuce]

Those are lame excuses!

Amazing rebuttal.

To what? Nobody knows.

 

[grip]

It has the information already with in, not the design. Design carries with it the baggage that a sentient being has made that designed and planned things. Period. You can not bring in the word design without denoting that there was a sentient designer. Period. You're ****ting on the english language otherwise.




Saying that nature designed humans assumes that nature had an ultimate plan that it was following. This has not been shown. Period. You can't use the word design. I can't stress this enough. As far as we can tell, humans evolved with no planning.

You can say, though it might not be the most accurate term, that humans designed dogs through selective breeding of certain traits. Because there was an sentient intelligence behind the way the dogs were being bred. Therefor we can say that a certain dog was designed through breeding to be good for this task. Through planning from an intelligent being.

What you can't say is that "the world was designed by evolution" because that hasn't been shown that there was any planning or decisions being made by a sentient being.

Wrong. 'Design' works fine in this instance. You're simply pulling out meanings that were never stated or even implied.

 

[roughdraft274]

Wrong. 'Design' works fine in this instance. You're simply pulling out meanings that were never stated or even implied.

No, I'm using the correct definition of design. The word design infers a planning and a decision making process. Something that is not involved in evolution. Period. Natural selection is merely a force acting on entities. It is acting upon them, it is evolving them over many generations, but it is not designing them, because there is no planning process or decision making process that natural selection is undertaking.

The same way that gravity didn't "design" a rain storm. Gravity is merely acting on objects. It is not designing or planning or making decisions.

 

[grip]

No, I'm using the correct definition of design. The word design infers a planning and a decision making process. Something that is not involved in evolution. Period. Natural selection is merely a force acting on entities. It is acting upon them, it is evolving them over many generations, but it is not designing them, because there is no planning process or decision making process that natural selection is undertaking.

The same way that gravity didn't "design" a rain storm. Gravity is merely acting on objects. It is not designing or planning or making decisions.

Is the word 'design' used improperly in this link?

The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body

 

[roughdraft274]

Is the word 'design' used improperly in this link?

The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body

Yes. Because these "design flaws" are not the results of poor design or anything like that. They are not the results of any thought process or poor planning. They are merely unfortunate outcomes of a natural process.

He is using "design flaws" as a colloquial term, and doesn't mean design flaws in the true sense of the word. So yes, it's being used wrong. But it's being used wrong, in my opinion, even though the the author knows what he is talking about really aren't "design flaws". It's just a nice buzz word that draws readers attention.

 

[grip]

Yes. Because these "design flaws" are not the results of poor design or anything like that. They are not the results of any thought process or poor planning. They are merely unfortunate outcomes of a natural process.

He is using "design flaws" as a colloquial term, and doesn't mean design flaws in the true sense of the word. So yes, it's being used wrong. But it's being used wrong, in my opinion, even though the the author knows what he is talking about really aren't "design flaws". It's just a nice buzz word that draws readers attention.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a biomolecule that holds the blueprint for how living organisms are built. Sounds like a design or plan to me?

 

[William Rea]

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a biomolecule that holds the blueprint for how living organisms are built. Sounds like a design or plan to me?

The 'DNA is code' meme is not how Science understands it, it is a laymans analogy that does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

[grip]

The 'DNA is code' meme is not how Science understands it, it is a laymans analogy that does not stand up to scrutiny.

It's still preplanned information on how to build something, aka design...lol

 

[William Rea]

Yes. Because these "design flaws" are not the results of poor design or anything like that. They are not the results of any thought process or poor planning. They are merely unfortunate outcomes of a natural process.

He is using "design flaws" as a colloquial term, and doesn't mean design flaws in the true sense of the word. So yes, it's being used wrong. But it's being used wrong, in my opinion, even though the the author knows what he is talking about really aren't "design flaws". It's just a nice buzz word that draws readers attention.

Indeed, it seems that the good intentions of science communicators to write this kind of thing are always pounced upon by the ignorant to play word games with. Instead of inspiring them to go out and find out about science it seems to be an excuse to knock the very thing that has improved their lives.

 

[William Rea]

It's still preplanned information on how to build something, aka design...lol

No. Read what actual scientists say about it.

 

[roughdraft274]

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a biomolecule that holds the blueprint for how living organisms are built. Sounds like a design or plan to me?

1. Evolution isn't DNA. You are continually changing and mucking about with different terms. Words have meanings and you can't continually just interchange them. Do you understand that evolution is a process and DNA is an actual thing? Yes, they have to do with eachother, but they aren't interchangable. And even if DNA had design in it, it wouldn't show that evolution is a process of design.

THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.

2. DNA doesn't contain blue prints. DNA doesn't plan anything. It assists, but due to any plan. That's like saying that your heart has a plan to keep you alive because it pumps your blood. No, it pumps your blood because it pumps your blood and because of millions of years of evolution has resulted in this action.

Plan :a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something

: something that a person intends to do

: a detailed agreement for telephone service, medical care, insurance, etc.

Calling it a plan denotes the information that there is someone or some intelligence that has created that "plan".

DNA isn't code, it isn't a "plan and it isn't a design if you are using the true definitions of the words. They are just terms that are somewhat commonly used to convey idea's to the layman, not because they are the most accurate terms.

 

[roughdraft274]

Indeed, it seems that the good intentions of science communicators to write this kind of thing are always pounced upon by the ignorant to play word games with. Instead of inspiring them to go out and find out about science it seems to be an excuse to knock the very thing that has improved their lives.

Well, they are well meaning. It's just that some people don't understand that some of the terms are used for simplicitys sake, not because it's entirely accurate.

 

[grip]

1. Evolution isn't DNA. You are continually changing and mucking about with different terms. Words have meanings and you can't continually just interchange them. Do you understand that evolution is a process and DNA is an actual thing? Yes, they have to do with eachother, but they aren't interchangable. And even if DNA had design in it, it wouldn't show that evolution is a process of design.

THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.

2. DNA doesn't contain blue prints. DNA doesn't plan anything. It assists, but due to any plan. That's like saying that your heart has a plan to keep you alive because it pumps your blood. No, it pumps your blood because it pumps your blood and because of millions of years of evolution has resulted in this action.

Plan :a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something

: something that a person intends to do

: a detailed agreement for telephone service, medical care, insurance, etc.

Calling it a plan denotes the information that there is someone or some intelligence that has created that "plan".

DNA isn't code, it isn't a "plan and it isn't a design if you are using the true definitions of the words. They are just terms that are somewhat commonly used to convey idea's to the layman, not because they are the most accurate terms.

When a person has sex for the purpose of procreation that's called, 'sentient planning' or 'design'.

Before anything is made by humans in this world, it preexist as thoughts and ideas in our imaginations. They then go down on paper as 'designs' and 'plans', mimicking what nature does with DNA and genes. Natural selection thru adaptation to an environment is natures way of building (evolving) biological life to fit into an ecosystem.

Sentient thought is a result of the instinct to survive and a derivative of emotions. Intelligence is merely a more complex form of communicating emotional needs and desires, giving one the notion of self. The brain may tell the heart what to do but the heart gives the brain a reason to be.

Your real problem is trying to separate humans and our abilities from nature, which is not possible. Conscious awareness, sentient being and intelligence aren't something divided from the cosmos, we were created by the energy, elements and information of the universe and are a part of it, not something other. Thru our minds and bodies, we're able to interact with our environment and each other in a unique way, which it has evolved us too.

 

[William Rea]

When a person has sex for the purpose of procreation that's called, 'sentient planning' or 'design'.

Before anything is made by humans in this world, it preexist as thoughts and ideas in our imaginations. They then go down on paper as 'designs' and 'plans', mimicking what nature does with DNA and genes. Natural selection thru adaptation to an environment is natures way of building (evolving) biological life to fit into an ecosystem.

Sentient thought is a result of the instinct to survive and a derivative of emotions. Intelligence is merely a more complex form of communicating emotional needs and desires, giving one the notion of self. The brain may tell the heart what to do but the heart gives the brain a reason to be.

Your real problem is trying to separate humans and our abilities from nature, which is not possible. Conscious awareness, sentient being and intelligence aren't something divided from the cosmos, we were created by the energy, elements and information of the universe and are a part of it, not something other. Thru our minds and bodies, we're able to interact with our environment and each other in a unique way, which it has evolved us too.

You are trying to anthropomorphise nature using analogies that only work at a very superficial level. It doesn't work.

 

[grip]

You are trying to anthropomorphise nature using analogies that only work at a very superficial level. It doesn't work.

Tell me what part of 'humans are part of nature' escapes you?

 

[William Rea]

Tell me what part of 'humans are part of nature' escapes you?

The concepts of 'analogy' and 'actuality' clearly escape you.

Humans being part of nature does not equate to nature behaving like humans.

Did you read anything that actual scientists say yet? Thought not. Get a grip on yourself man.

 

[grip]

The concepts of 'analogy' and 'actuality' clearly escape you.

Humans being part of nature does not equate to nature behaving like humans.

Did you read anything that actual scientists say yet? Thought not. Get a grip on yourself man.

I'll try again in a different way.

In a letter written from Albert Einstein to Schrodinger in 1950, Einstein says, "that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality — reality as something independent of what is experimentally established."

The point being, even Einstein knew that trying to take the human element out of the equation of scientific discovery in physics would lead to misinterpretations. How we perceive and understand nature, affects its very meaning and is not independent of the observer.

The reason the human consciousness can't be fully understood yet is because it's not entirely located in the brain. It's a combination of the central nervous system that regulates the body and thoughts, but also relies on sensory input from the outside environment. The brain interacts with it's environmental input and experiences to create the human mind, just as the body relies on oxygen, gravity and pressure to function. And so-called “consciousness” is simply an aspect of mind and mind is how we escape being locked into the actual present, a capacity that allows us to “visualize” and “actualize” different potentials and possibilities.

Mind (ego) is not completely a property of matter per se, but rather it is an emergent property of a nervous system interacting with it's environment that has reached a certain level of complexity and organization. This is similar to the way in which life emerges from inanimate matter when it reaches a certain state of complexity and organization.

Animal Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

http://uwf.edu/jgould/documents/mind-brainandconsciousnessproblem_000.pdf

 

[William Rea]

I'll try again ...

How does that work? It's quite simple, DNA is not a code, it is a molecule that reacts in chemical processes just like other molecules do. You are trying to assign meaning to a chemical reaction that simply is not there.

 

[grip]

How does that work? It's quite simple, DNA is not a code, it is a molecule that reacts in chemical processes just like other molecules do. You are trying to assign meaning to a chemical reaction that simply is not there.

And you're simply not seeing the obvious that we're a product of nature. The universe stores and uses information. Max Tegmark said, "he suspects the mind, which is the feeling of a conscious self, will ultimately be unified with the body, which is a collection of moving particles.

Tegmark is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is the scientific director of the Foundational Questions Institute.

Universe Is Made Of Math, Cosmologist Says

 

[William Rea]

And you're simply not seeing the obvious that we're a product of nature. The universe stores and uses information. Max Tegmark said, "he suspects the mind, which is the feeling of a conscious self, will ultimately be unified with the body, which is a collection of moving particles.

Tegmark is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is the scientific director of the Foundational Questions Institute.

Universe Is Made Of Math, Cosmologist Says

It isn't obvious. You are simply trying to assign meaning where there is none, I have no idea why but, if that's your bag then you are at liberty to do so, just don't try to claim that it is science.

On the specific question of DNA, it is a molecule that is subject to chemical processes, it is simple enough, you can even Google it and get an explanation as to why this is the case from Biologists, very easily.

My **** is a product of a chemical process in nature, it doesn't necessarily make nature like my **** (although that is probably a closer analogy than DNA is to code).

Frankly, either Tegmark has been misinterpreted by journalists or he is full of new age bull****; there appears to be a string of these types in academia that feel a need to mix this crap with science, most likely to increase their appearance fees on the University lecture circuit. Mathematics is a human construct that we can use to model reality, because we can use it to model reality it does not mean that it was used to make reality.

But, I am not going to simply critique every piece of bull**** internet journalism that you care to cut and paste. Go away and do some proper homework.

 

[grip]

It isn't obvious. You are simply trying to assign meaning where there is none, I have no idea why but, if that's your bag then you are at liberty to do so, just don't try to claim that it is science.

On the specific question of DNA, it is a molecule that is subject to chemical processes, it is simple enough, you can even Google it and get an explanation as to why this is the case from Biologists, very easily.

My **** is a product of a chemical process in nature, it doesn't necessarily make nature like my **** (although that is probably a closer analogy than DNA is to code).

Frankly, either Tegmark has been misinterpreted by journalists or he is full of new age bull****; there appears to be a string of these types in academia that feel a need to mix this crap with science, most likely to increase their appearance fees on the University lecture circuit. Mathematics is a human construct that we can use to model reality, because we can use it to model reality it does not mean that it was used to make reality.

But, I am not going to simply critique every piece of bull**** internet journalism that you care to cut and paste. Go away and do some proper homework.

I don't why you keep saying DNA isn't able to store information or code, because that's all I get when I Google it. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

You ask me to look up scientists, and I've quoted many of the leading professors and geniuses of their fields and you call them B.S. I guess you're smarter? :lamo

Deoxyribonucleic acid is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses.

DNA is well-suited for biological information storage.

DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The answer lies in a molecule called deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which contains the biological instructions that make each species unique. DNA, along with the instructions it contains, is passed from adult organisms to their offspring during reproduction.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet

 

[grip]

It isn't obvious. You are simply trying to assign meaning where there is none, I have no idea why but, if that's your bag then you are at liberty to do so, just don't try to claim that it is science.

On the specific question of DNA, it is a molecule that is subject to chemical processes, it is simple enough, you can even Google it and get an explanation as to why this is the case from Biologists, very easily.

My **** is a product of a chemical process in nature, it doesn't necessarily make nature like my **** (although that is probably a closer analogy than DNA is to code).

Frankly, either Tegmark has been misinterpreted by journalists or he is full of new age bull****; there appears to be a string of these types in academia that feel a need to mix this crap with science, most likely to increase their appearance fees on the University lecture circuit. Mathematics is a human construct that we can use to model reality, because we can use it to model reality it does not mean that it was used to make reality.

But, I am not going to simply critique every piece of bull**** internet journalism that you care to cut and paste. Go away and do some proper homework.

Quotes from another misrepresented scientist full of it?

Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck was one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918; he is considered to be the founder of quantum theory.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."