What is Intelligent Design..... and what it isn't

[Passerine]

I would not go that far.........evolution is real....but is it random given billions of years or does it have some kind of force or programing behind it that leads to more advanced life forms.

I mean how does the ID'er think the universe started?

If there was a force or program or design behind it I don't think it was an act of magic but maybe an act of science that is beyond our comprehension.

Unclesharkey:

Briefly, evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequency in a population over time", where:
Allele frequency = the percentage of a population having a specific allele (form of gene)
Population = a number of individuals of the same species (sometimes the phrase "who interbreed" may be added)

So, in plain English, evolution occurs when the kind or frequency of traits in a number of organisms changes over a period of time.

Now, to answer your question: evolution is not entirely random. While the appearance of mutations may be random, the process of selection is not random. Rather, individuals who survive to reproduce pass on their genes; if a particular trait is more beneficial in this regard, a higher percentage of individuals with this allele will reproduce that those without the allele. This will eventually lead to a change in allele frequency over a period of several generations (evolution).

Evolution also occurs through genetic drift, and the trait distribution within a species may be influenced by population bottlenecks, either through natural disasters or through founder effects (ie. a pregnant rat surviving a shipwreck gives birth on an island devoid of rats; the genes of the mother and her mate will strongly influence the traits of future generations). These are what can be said to be essentially random events of evolution.

For speciation to occur, evolution must normally be coupled with some sort of reproductive or behavioral isolation. I can explain that if you like, but it's not entirely relevant to your question.

[Passerine]

Come on...We know the earth is flat. Are you trying to say we KNOW that we have all come about by a purely random process without intelligent guidance? You analogy isn't a good one IMO.

There are many many people...scientists included that believe that the world we see around us, was brought about more as a guided design, and not random processes. ID holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. I don't see why that is any different than the scientist who insist on the opposite.

But I have to say that the ID debate is no where near as settled as the flat vs non flat earth case.

Well, for one we KNOW that evolution is not random (see my reply to Unclesharkey).

There may well be "many many people" who disbelieve evolution, but this is a logical fallacy: argument from popularity, without evidence to back up that the popular argument is the correct one. Furthermore, it has been my experience that those working in fields relevant to evolutionary biology, paleontology, archaeology, physics, geology, and astronomy are not ID proponents; those scientists and (especially) engineers who are in favor of ID are generally not involved in the fields listed above.

Natural selection is not random; this non-randomness is inherent in its name. If the rate at which those who survived with a given allele did not depend on how well that allele allowed them to survive to reproduction, evolution would be random, existing mainly as genetic drift and would take much longer to occur. Really, without directional selection, evolution in large populations would essentially cease.

The problem with the statement (to paraphrase) "ID is as valid as evolution" is that, while evolution is based upon a valid, testable theory that has stood up to inquiry for more than a century, Intelligent Design has no evidence and is largely a theological argument.

Intelligent Design is bad theology and bad science. Actually, it's not science because there is no way to test any of the proposed models. And, actually, it's dishonest theology-- you assert that the designer didn't have to be God, yet from your arguments you seem to be directly implying that God is the Designer. Really, ID is recycled theology founded upon shaky premises, painted with a veneer of sciency-sounding terminology, and sold as a new and exciting "theory".

[unclesharkey]

Unclesharkey:

Briefly, evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequency in a population over time", where:
Allele frequency = the percentage of a population having a specific allele (form of gene)
Population = a number of individuals of the same species (sometimes the phrase "who interbreed" may be added)

So, in plain English, evolution occurs when the kind or frequency of traits in a number of organisms changes over a period of time.

Now, to answer your question: evolution is not entirely random. While the appearance of mutations may be random, the process of selection is not random. Rather, individuals who survive to reproduce pass on their genes; if a particular trait is more beneficial in this regard, a higher percentage of individuals with this allele will reproduce that those without the allele. This will eventually lead to a change in allele frequency over a period of several generations (evolution).

Evolution also occurs through genetic drift, and the trait distribution within a species may be influenced by population bottlenecks, either through natural disasters or through founder effects (ie. a pregnant rat surviving a shipwreck gives birth on an island devoid of rats; the genes of the mother and her mate will strongly influence the traits of future generations). These are what can be said to be essentially random events of evolution.

For speciation to occur, evolution must normally be coupled with some sort of reproductive or behavioral isolation. I can explain that if you like, but it's not entirely relevant to your question.

Yes thanks, but I was really hoping to get some answers from the ID people about the origins and beginning of the universe and their evidence. Do they think the beginning of the universe was pre-programed prior to release? So humans were in the programing? And therefore the universe had the potential to create higher life forms prior to it coming into existence. That would mean that everything that we see and have including things we "humans" have created were in the programming. Also the laws of nature etc....were all included.



Of course if you think about it the universe must have had the potential of everything we see.....right....the strings, atoms and molecules just had not come together in the right combination to form us at the start. It took a really long time....... ;-P

[mrblack]

Before beginning, I must warn you, Mr. Black, that you have exceeded the quote limit as dictated by the talk forum's Terms of Service. Please keep this in mind while making future posts; the above reposting of the original message is to help me read what you originally wrote while responding (I have a small screen)

You appear to have several grave misconceptions about what science is and isn't; this is quite evident in your post here. The first is that scientists "keep quiet" those who disagree with the mainstream theory. I, by contrast, have had experience (albeit limited thus far) in biology, and more specifically in evolutionary biology, and know that the modern synthesis is tested every time an experiment is run. Furthermore, one of the principle roles of the scientific method is to continually challenge the accepted paradigm in order to refine it (and, in very rare cases, overturn it altogether). Your repeated assertions that mainstream scientists make sure that dissent is not heard, that job security for those dissenting is endangered, and that science has something to hide echoes the blatant dishonesty perpetrated in "EXpelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

Your second significant error in this post is in using the terms "ID theorists" and "ID theory". A theory in science is a conceptual model that has been rigorously tested, modified (in evolution's case, modified from its original form from 150 years of examination of evidence), and generally found to hold up to scientific scrutiny. While scientists reserve some uncertainty, there is a mountain of evidence in its favor as opposed to barely (if any) evidence to the contrary. Basically, a theory is as close to absolute certainty that a scientist can get. A hypothesis is an untested but testable model; it is the logical conclusion based on data and theories that point in its general direction, but is currently unverified. Intelligent design, by contrast, is not science. There are no theories because nothing has been tested rigorously; there are no hypotheses because nothing put forward to date by those following the philosophy of Intelligent Design can be tested; there is currently no data to suggest that Intelligent Design is even viable as a valid science.

Your third error is in your choice of "encyclopedia". New World Encyclopedia constantly refers to evolutionary biologists as "Darwinists" and "Evolutionists", denigrating terms largely used by creationist sources that suggest that we worship or otherwise idolize a man who was a mere bit player in the development of the cornerstone of biology. When choosing sources, it is best to pick one that treats the subject at hand in an unbiased manner. Furthermore, although part of WikiMedia, it seems that the particular source you chose for the above message does not allow entirely free editing of its material; rather, it is in done in collaboration and under the guidance of "researchers". That's not really an issue per se, though it does raise questions about whether the source is biased (though I grant that it is not nearly as bad as creationwiki or Conservapedia).

Just too much semantical criticism to even respond to it all. I especially liked your definition of a theory. And the threatening WARNING. Its kinda creepy!

And certainly I appreciate you telling us how insignificant our thoughts and ideas and the thoughts and peer reviewed papers of ID scientists are and how they just don't deserve to be even considered for science.

What if ID theorists took every critique of them and actually implemented changes to them? The real truth is that they would still be unacceptable to some of the elitist eggheads.

Its political. ID just doesn't come to the correct conclusions. And thats the reality of why --even if it produces good solid science-- it will never be accepted and the detractors of ID like all good liberal/lefties will use the courts to implement the left wing agenda.

[mrblack]

Well, for one we KNOW that evolution is not random (see my reply to Unclesharkey).

There may well be "many many people" who disbelieve evolution, but this is a logical fallacy: argument from popularity, without evidence to back up that the popular argument is the correct one. Furthermore, it has been my experience that those working in fields relevant to evolutionary biology, paleontology, archaeology, physics, geology, and astronomy are not ID proponents; those scientists and (especially) engineers who are in favor of ID are generally not involved in the fields listed above.

Natural selection is not random; this non-randomness is inherent in its name. If the rate at which those who survived with a given allele did not depend on how well that allele allowed them to survive to reproduction, evolution would be random, existing mainly as genetic drift and would take much longer to occur. Really, without directional selection, evolution in large populations would essentially cease.

The problem with the statement (to paraphrase) "ID is as valid as evolution" is that, while evolution is based upon a valid, testable theory that has stood up to inquiry for more than a century, Intelligent Design has no evidence and is largely a theological argument.

Intelligent Design is bad theology and bad science. Actually, it's not science because there is no way to test any of the proposed models. And, actually, it's dishonest theology-- you assert that the designer didn't have to be God, yet from your arguments you seem to be directly implying that God is the Designer. Really, ID is recycled theology founded upon shaky premises, painted with a veneer of sciency-sounding terminology, and sold as a new and exciting "theory".

Ridiculous. You have essentially stated that we cannot now nor we will ever be able to recognize design features in biological organisms. That's a pretty strong statement and one I think is the core of your disqualification. I think its flatly wrong. Irreducible complexity is one first step (and ID is in its infancy) at doing just that.

And the fact that you admit that even evolution is not random is quite interesting. I agree. It looks a lot like an algorithm to me. It looks like its obeying some ordered rules. Hmmmm. Interesting. Where do those rules come from? Either they randomly formed or perhaps....no I better not say it.

[mrblack]

Lets start from the top:

your 'doctor' is uninformed

1. Any insertion mutation that is selected for adds information to the genome by definition

2. Re-arrangement can add information -- consider chromosomal junk re-ordered by some frame shift or transcription error -- now it codes for a protein that does something

3.

a.) plasmid transfer of entirely new genetic material between bacteria is a documented scientific fact of information being added to a genome

b.) viral rna/dna transfer occurs all the time -- information is added to a specific virus by another

c.) here is an example of a 6 base pair insertion of new information in a strain of HIV -- apparently this insertion of new material did not confer any extra resistance to protease inhibitors

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs...ournalCode=aid


4. Apes did not become humans YOU MORON apes and humans had a common protohominid ancestor roughly 38-50 million years ago -- the evolution of humans, chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and the other apes simply took divergent paths

5. viruses can not be caused by human DNA being altered by contaminants ( cancer can, and viruses can cause cancer) perhaps you conflated the two thoughts

-- are you really this scientifically stunted ??? -- perhaps you are referring to snippets of viral DNA that are known to have been inserted by viruses within the protohominid-human genome over the past several million years -- that some scientists postulate may be able to be 'reconsituted' to form a viable virus -- still not what you said.

Just wow....I especially like the larged type "you moron". It just added to the credibility of the post.

HIV...again the criterion was that the added information was beneficial to the organism. You have not showed that anywhere. I think the Dr. was quite correct. But feel free to type larger bolder insults.The larger and bolder the insults are the truer they are. They like viruses add beneficial information to your posts. I think your posts are evolving rather nicely.

[paco]

4. Apes did not become humans YOU MORON....

If nothing else, this poster has starkly demonstrated the evolution of an unanalytical thought process, i.e.: invective in the support of materialist dogma.

[karlydee]

Just wow....I especially like the larged type "you moron". It just added to the credibility of the post.

HIV...again the criterion was that the added information was beneficial to the organism.

No it wasn't:

quoted from your post misspellings and all:

"Its an information systems transfer problem and certainly shows at least that any random chance hasn't been able to introduse new information into a genome."

And by saying humans came from apes you are either:

a. A MORON

or

b. being intentionally disingenuous


still have not answered bacterial plasmid transfer -- new information, and beneficial -- there I hit your moving target --( it is called bacterial conjugation and is enabled by plasmids or transposons look it up)

as far as HIV:

http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/.../7593389a.html

"Role of a dipeptide insertion between codons 69 and 70 of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase in the mechanism of AZT resistance"

"Therefore, the insertion appears to be critical to enhance AZT resistance in the sequence context of multidrug-resistant HIV-1 RT."

[mrblack]

No it wasn't:

quoted from your post misspellings and all:

"Its an information systems transfer problem and certainly shows at least that any random chance hasn't been able to introduse new information into a genome."

And by saying humans came from apes you are either:

a. A MORON

or

b. being intentionally disingenuous


still have not answered bacterial plasmid transfer -- new information, and beneficial -- there I hit your moving target --( it is called bacterial conjugation and is enabled by plasmids or transposons look it up)

as far as HIV:

http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/.../7593389a.html

"Role of a dipeptide insertion between codons 69 and 70 of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase in the mechanism of AZT resistance"

"Therefore, the insertion appears to be critical to enhance AZT resistance in the sequence context of multidrug-resistant HIV-1 RT."

Glad to see you sticking with that "a Moron". Its working for you.

As far as spelling errors..Guilty as charged.

As far as bacteria or even Viruses adapting into ...bacteria and viruses... they seem designed to do so.

As far as HGT here's a link where its discussed. (Don't want to over quote)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/biolo...litely-buried/

[Red Baron]

What is intelligent design? On this forum, it's beating a dead horse. And another chance for Mr. Black to spew the baloney that he was spewing on, geez, how many other threads?

Looks like you are still plagiarizing your arguments and taking comments out of context like on every other ID thread.

[canis]

[QUOTE=mrblack;4883964]

ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent.

This seems very vague and titillating, like the beginning to a Twilight Zone episode. Can you give us some ideas of some possibilities of intelligent agents that could possibly exist?

[mrblack]

What is intelligent design? On this forum, it's beating a dead horse. And another chance for Mr. Black to spew the baloney that he was spewing on, geez, how many other threads?

Looks like you are still plagiarizing your arguments and taking comments out of context like on every other ID thread.

Have you ever...contributed something germane to the topic or is every post you make going to be of this flavor?

Either you are correcting my spelling , or chiding me for not quoting correctly or trying to find some other obscure critique.

Intelligent Design is scrutinized not so much for its science, but for what its logical conclusion might lead to.

For example if I state the following:

The theory of natural selection holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an unguided cause, not a directed process such as intelligent design.

I would get a much different response then when I state the following:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The rejection and frankly the hatred of Intelligent Design is mostly political and philosophical not based on bad science.

If I showed the resume of many of the leading ID scientists and didn't tell you they were ID scientists you'd be impressed. However because they are ID scientists ...they really aren't allowed to be real scientists.

Denying this is patently ridiculous given the posts I have seen here.

[mrblack]

[QUOTE=canis;4891181]

This seems very vague and titillating, like the beginning to a Twilight Zone episode. Can you give us some ideas of some possibilities of intelligent agents that could possibly exist?

Read some of their posts, but if you ask me the most obvious agent would be a creator God. And of course that's the problem. If the ID folks dotted every i and crossed every t, its this obvious conclusion if their theory proved to be correct, that sinks the ship for them. It isn't the science, else the ID proponents could correct the reported problems (as they continually attempt to do) and just move on. Its philosophical more from Scientific establishment side then it is from the ID side IMO.

[georjec2]

Ok Mrbalck....

I see nothing but intellegence in the life force. I don't see the problem. When the millions of human sperm heading toward the egg during conception see (?) a defective sperm, one with say..two tails and is attacked by 2-3 healthy sperm to prevent it from reaching the egg...that's imtellegence !?!. Hell that's more intellegent than some people I meet.

I see the life force in all of nature and believe you me ..it's intellegent.

Ever notice the mathematics in everything ? We (humans) did not discover or invent math ..it was here working before us. The laws of physics works everywhere the same ( in our univwerse).


Speaking of intellegence we humans are not as intellegent as we like think we are.

[canis]

[QUOTE=mrblack;4891268]

Read some of their posts, but if you ask me the most obvious agent would be a creator God. And of course that's the problem. If the ID folks dotted every i and crossed every t, its this obvious conclusion if their theory proved to be correct, that sinks the ship for them. It isn't the science, else the ID proponents could correct the reported problems (as they continually attempt to do) and just move on. Its philosophical more from Scientific establishment side then it is from the ID side IMO.

If it is something that when fully unmasked is based on religious philosophy, do you believe that it merits being taught in a science curriculum?

[mrblack]

Ok Mrbalck....

I see nothing but intellegence in the life force. I don't see the problem. When the millions of human sperm heading toward the egg during conception see (?) a defective sperm, one with say..two tails and is attacked by 2-3 healthy sperm to prevent it from reaching the egg...that's imtellegence !?!. Hell that's more intellegent than some people I meet.

I see the life force in all of nature and believe you me ..it's intellegent.

Ever notice the mathematics in everything ? We (humans) did not discover or invent math ..it was here working before us. The laws of physics works everywhere the same ( in our univwerse).


Speaking of intellegence we humans are not as intellegent as we like think we are.

Wow I agree with everything you said. Especially the last sentence. (just check my posts for spelling)

[Uncle Spike]

Either you are correcting my spelling , or chiding me for not quoting correctly or trying to find some other obscure critique.

Something "obscure" like the mischaracterization of macroevolution and the actual scientific Theory of Evolution and the attempt to equate a philosophical theory with a scientific one and the repeatedly intellectually dishonest assertions such as claims of peer review and publication in reputable scientific journals?

Intelligent Design is scrutinized not so much for its science, but for what its logical conclusion might lead to.

This would be a stunning example of the intellectual dishonesty. ID has no science, it is not a scientific theory or even a scientific hypothesis in any way. It is a theologically based attempt to discredit the scientific Theory of Evolution.

[mrblack]

[QUOTE=canis;4891333]

If it is something that when fully unmasked is based on religious philosophy, do you believe that it merits being taught in a science curriculum?

Look...one of the biggest questions in life, physics etc. is what started all this.

One option is an undirected random process. (which i think is patently ridiculous)

Another is that it was a guided intelligent design.

As long as scientific methods are used to support either theory, then they both should be taught and studied.

The real problem is...that the one IS SEEN TO HAVE religious implications and so it is dumped on. IMO the other has just as many philisophical implications and roots.

[mrblack]

Something "obscure" like the mischaracterization of macroevolution and the actual scientific Theory of Evolution and the attempt to equate a philosophical theory with a scientific one and the repeatedly intellectually dishonest assertions such as claims of peer review and publication in reputable scientific journals?



This would be a stunning example of the intellectual dishonesty. ID has no science, it is not a scientific theory or even a scientific hypothesis in any way. It is a theologically based attempt to discredit the scientific Theory of Evolution.

No...like many scientific theories it offers an alternative view and merits the same amount of respect as say the debates that Einstein had with many QM theorists. Or Hertz and Tesla ... or how many others down through scientific history.

[Red Baron]

Intelligent Design is scrutinized not so much for its science, but for what its logical conclusion might lead to.

Which means there is no proof for it. Ergo it is a myth.