Proof of ID (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 21:30 (3994 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Matt: There is NO TEST here. There is an observation that a protein requires 319 bits to encode it. 
> > 
> > An observation is NOT a test. Therefore, this isn't an hypothesis. 
> > 
> > 
> > "An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional complexity"
> > 
> > Again, what's the test?
> 
> I agree with you that it is not a test. It appears to me to be an observational truth. By exclusion, what else can produce statistically significant levels of functional complexity? I would use the kidney as an example. They appeared de novo in the Cambrian. Don't quote the 10 million years, they appeared when they appeared and there are no precursors. I have talked dhw out of chance. Besides a 'mind' I can think of no other possibility.-The precursor thing is something I don't immediately buy. I've read plenty of biochemical studies, such as the lactamase study I posted some years back, where the bacterial cells under selective pressure created a new (not identical) gene that allowed them to metabolize lactose. -We know for a fact that evolution works by modifying existing proteins. Even epigenetics requires modification of existing material. I don't think that the geologically sudden appearance of kidneys need an appeal. -Consider this: We have strong reason to believe that mitochondria were originally their own organism, and that they began a symbiotic relationship at some point. If we have to resort to kidneys popping out of thin air, what about a similar path for cells that processed waste into harmless by-products that eventually gained prominence due to selective pressure? Cells quite obviously have a social life, and when you even consider that our guts are their own ecosystem, I don't see that innovations have to come purely from one set of DNA.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"