What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

by hooberus 96 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  hooberus

  Naturalists have an a priori bias according to you. Its fairly clear that you want to limit the span of time for observations so as to eliminate evidence that counters your own a priori belief in an intelligent designer. Nearly from the beginning of this thread, Leolai essentially made this same point. Do you recall a previous post of hers that used the example of investigating a crime? Just because the detectives weren't there to physically witness the event as it happened, doesn't negate the validity of any connected evidence that they find afterwards. But you've chosen to ignore this point. (As well as her point that an intelligence could have yielded complex systems so much more quickly than what has been deduced.) You've chosen to keep to a timeframe that only shows microevolutionary processes.

  My point regarding observation was not intended primarily to exclude the possibility of complex design coming about by unintelligent means, but rather to emphasize that if a dogmatic claim is made (as often is) that only unintelligent design be considered as a valid "scientific explanation" that such a dogmatic claim really should be backed up by numerous strong observed examples. As I said before:

  Of course I realize that the claimed extreme "slowness" of the process involved will be the primary response by evolutionists to the lack of observation for "unintelligent" biological system design.

  However, the fact remains that such a dogmatic claim that only unintelligent design be considered as a valid "scientific explanation" should be backed up by numerous observed examples. (Especially given the fact that virtually all (if not all) observed complex systems analogous to life seem to have required an intelligent designer for their origin as well as the chemical and probability difficulties in envisioning the formation of such systems).
• 

  seattleniceguy

  I should agree with Narkissos that the opposite of Intelligent Design is not necessarily "unintelligent design," but I think there is a simple and common example that should satisfy the original question.
  
  Viruses are commonly observed to develop resistance to drugs. You could legitimately see the drug resistance as a new feature in the virus. No one sat down and devised a new version of the virus that would be drug resistance. The new feature arose as a natural result of evolutionary principles.
  
  SNG
• 

  DanTheMan

  Cell division is an example of where an entity that doesn't possess a mind is is able to produce an exact replica of itself. You probably observed this happening in your high school biology class.

  Cells have never been observed coming from anything else but other cells.
• 

  Narkissos

  No one sat down and devised a new version of the virus that would be drug resistance.

  So this is not a Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiracy?

  *Yes thread-knitting can be fun...*
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  My point regarding observation was not intended primarily to exclude the possibility of complex design coming about by unintelligent means, but rather to emphasize that if a dogmatic claim is made (as often is) that only unintelligent design be considered as a valid "scientific explanation" that such a dogmatic claim really should be backed up by numerous strong observed examples.

  And to that I say: Of course. Its rational to want some hard evidence to back up a claim. In fact, I'm very inclined to your general stance. I'd like to see something with my own eyes too. But for things that have happened prior to my being there, I have to resort to making plausible connections with observable details in the present.

  There is a good amount of persuasive evidence and examples of macroevolution having taken place if you give the process the appropriate span of time. You didn't address those points. What do you think about, not only one but 2 new enzymes having evolved to degrade a man-made chemical? I know its not a complex system (the time frame you asked for precludes it), but its definitely an example of a novel feature having arisen without a deliberate designer. The building blocks for macro-evolution.
• 

  Leolaia

  My point regarding observation was not intended primarily to exclude the possibility of complex design coming about by unintelligent means, but rather to emphasize that if a dogmatic claim is made (as often is) that only unintelligent design be considered as a valid "scientific explanation" that such a dogmatic claim really should be backed up by numerous strong observed examples.

  Burden of proof, my friend. What about your "dogmatic claim" that an Intelligent Designer must have been involved in creation? I believe the burden of proof is on substantiating the claim that an external intelligence is involved in designing life in at least some cases, rather than the claim that natural processes are involved generally in these processes. For instance, would a scientist have to prove that IN EVERY CASE that it occurs, only natural processes are involved in precipitation? Would the scientific explanation of metereology only be correct if scientists successfully exclude the possibility of an external unseen intelligence making it rain? Or is the burden of proof on believers of a rain god to show that such a god does take part at least some of the time in facilitating rainfall? Since it is impossible to disprove the idea that a rain god makes it rain (raising the same questions I raised about the Intelligent Designer.... how many rain gods are there? Do rain gods compete with each other? Is there one rain god per continent, etc.), as this is an unfalsifiable proposition, it necessarily lies beyond scientific inquiry.
• 

  Elsewhere

  What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

  http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/adrianth/TEC99/node22.html
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus

  
  
  Consider the man-made chemical PCP. There are some soil bacteria that can degrade it and use the resulting products as a carbon source. So what right? Well what would you say to the confirmation of a soil bacterium that uses PCP as its sole source of carbon, and (here's the relevant point) has evolved, a new enyme to degrade said PCPs? But maybe the evolution of new enzymes and their incorporation into the cell's metabolic pathways isn't complex enough for you? Check it out anyway.

  Nature. 1983 Nov 10-16;306(5939):203-6.

  Evolutionary adaptation of plasmid-encoded enzymes for degrading nylon oligomers.

  Flavobacterium sp. KI72 metabolizes 6-aminohexanoic acid cyclic dimer, a by-product of nylon manufacture, through two newly evolved enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid cyclic dimer hydrolase (EI) and 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase (EII). These enzymes are active towards man-made compounds, the cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of 6-aminohexanoic acid respectively, but not towards any of the natural amide bonds tested. The structural genes of EI (nylA) and EII (nylB) are encoded on pOAD2, one of three plasmids harboured in Flavobacterium sp. KI72. This plasmid contains two kinds of repeated sequence (RS-I and RS-II); one of the two RS-II sequences, RS-IIA, contains the nylB gene, while the other, RS-IIB, contains a homologous nylB' gene. From comparisons of the nucleotide sequences and gene products of the nylB and nylB' genes, we now conclude that EII enzyme is newly evolved by gene duplication followed by base substitutions on the same plasmid

  There was an arcticle written on this in a recent Technical Journal :

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
• 

  Jeffro

  I am surprised that no-one has mentioned the anthropomorphic principle in this discussion.

  It very basically boils down to 'we exist because the universe exists in the way it does'. Some say that the universe is deliberately fine-tuned because we are meant to exist, and the universe exists for us. However, it is more likely that we are here as a result of the way the universe happens to be, which is really behind the supposed magic of why the universe seems so finely tuned for our existence.

  It is basically arrogance to say that the universe exists because of us (i.e. to allow for our existence) and not the other way around.
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus

  My question is: What complex objects (analogous to biological systems or mechanical systems), has "unintelligent design" been observed to produce? And are these examples (if any) in themselves sufficient to merit the rejection of the consideration of intelligent biological design as science?

  Once again, a Creationist ignores his beliefs has no foundation (i.e. to postulate complex object need intelligent design is to postulate the intelligent designer as a complex object ALSO need an intelligent designer ad ludicrousness).

  Why should I play silly games you THINK will somehow make it look like you have a decent argument when you DON'T have a decent argument and can only pretend you have by means of ignoring the self-refuting nature of your philosophy?

  Hell, we have neo-nazis and anti-Semites who make posts here that, on the surface if accepted at face value SEEM reasonable, and who will avoid topics they can't respond to to their satisfaction, and who will define things to fit their agenda.

  Rather than building self-refuting castles in the air, why not show you have ONE DECENT ARGUMENT that doesn't ignore GAPING HOLES in your philosophy?

  It's like you constantly banging on about the Flood when you can't prove it happened or refute the clear evidence it DIDN'T happen. You ignore this and carrying on making arguments about an an event that couldn't of happened as you say it did.

  You attempt to give yourself the appearance of reason; "ooo, no, that is discussed in THIS thread (self-refuting nature of ID-otism)". Again, this is to GIVE the appearance of reason. Examination of that thread reveals this massive flaw in your arguments is dispensed with IN YOUR MIND by saying something without an origin needs no designer. The convenient nature and absolute lack of evidence for this postulation is something you ignore.

  Oh, and what OBSERVATION has there been of intelligent design? Don't say the Bible, as I'll immediately point our every creation myth from every culture also CLAIMS to have 'observations' of intelligent design, all contradict the observed world to one degree or the other, and the Bible's claims are indistinguishable in validity.

  But then Midget-Sasquath goes and hoists you by your own petard. Yay!

  Leolaia calmly and intelligently gives you enough rope to hang yourself with, and you do...

  And Narkissos pulls the logical wings of your argument

  .. so maybe it is worthwhile responding to you as you always get such an illustrative whupping in these debates...

  Tetra

  can someone say undemonstrable tautology?

  Undemonstrable tautology!!
  Undemonstrable tautology!!
  Undemonstrable tautology!!

  hooberus said;

  Walter ReMine

  *Hysterical laughter*. Ah yes, the favoured Creationist technique of referencing what is normally the equivalent of a vanity-published book that someone would have to buy, because it looks like they are being reasonable; 'this guy's right, you will understand of you read this'. No attempt to provide an abstract or condensed version of the argument - as that would result in the reason for my hilarious laughter at your mention of ReMine to be obvious. Go on hooberus; explain the basis of his theory...

  And you provide a half-decent AiG artical to refute that provided by Sasquatch.

  P. aeruginosa was first named by Schroeter in 1872.10 It still has the same features that identify it as such. So, in spite of being so ubiquitous, so prolific and so rapidly adaptable, this bacterium has not evolved into a different type of bacterium. Note that the number of bacterial generations possible in over 130 years is huge—equivalent to tens of millions of years of human generations, encompassing the origin of the putative common ancestor of ape and man, according to the evolutionary story, indeed perhaps even all primates. And yet the bacterium shows no evidence of directional change—stasis rules, not progressive evolution. This alone should cast doubt on the evolutionary paradigm. Flavobacterium was first named in 1889 and it likewise still has the same characteristics as originally described.

  This is presented in a way to make an IGNORANT reader feel evolutionary theory has doubt cast on it by this simple fact. This is false. Again, you use AiG when it displays bad science and deceptive presentation of data.

  It spoils the good part of the article, which is however, inconclusive;

  It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution.11 Further research will, I expect, show that there is a sophisticated, irreducibly complex, molecular system involved in plasmid-based adaptation—the evidence strongly suggests that such a system exists.