Intelligent design (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, November 09, 2011, 01:44 (4742 days ago) @ Abel

...

Now I will address some the gaps in evolutionary theory itself. There are a number of structures with the cell that constructed from components that have no function unto themselves. Why would they evolve separately when they only make sense as an assembly? Molecular motors, rotors, dimeric and tetrameric proteins, etc, are examples of these.

In the evolutionary record itself, there are huge gaps where life seems to take a leap from one form to another without any intermediates.

Intelligent design logically addresses all of these observations. It does not make any stipulations about the nature of the engineer(s). Whether it was an all-powerful God (as theists believe) or a race of beings whose technology is so advanced (and strange) that it appears to be magic (my belief) is not a part of that theory.

Logically, but not evidentially... from an objectively decisive viewpoint. David likes to say "Intelligence is like pornography. I know it when I see it." I'm not so "common-sensical." We have devised no test that can truly determine intelligence from non-intelligence. At best, claims of intelligence sit in the morass.

The vast majority of scientists reject this theory because of politics and faith, certainly not because of good science.

Not exactly. There is NO valid and universal test for intelligence, therefore, there is no objective measure of intelligence. That life is complex, is not in itself, evidence of intelligence. If evolution by NS is tautology, so too is God. And then we're left with determining which explanation is better... and by and large man sides with the reproducible...

Consider this, if the Mars rover found words etched into a rock that said “welcome to mars, zebo was here first” would we believe this was eroded into the rock by the action of wind and sand? What if we found a tool as simple as a kitchen knife? Would we believed it evolved? If we did find those things on Mars and a scientist suggested they “evolved’ there, he/she would be laughed out of the room.

Reworded watchmaker.

I have done the calculations to determine the odds of randomly assembling an mRNA strand coding for a functional 300 AA protein, using a racemic mix of RNA. That number quite easily exceeds the number of seconds that the universe has existed, multiplied by the number of bosons in the known universe. Given that life appeared on earth about 200 million years after it was cool enough to even possibly support it, it seems that we won a cosmic lottery with the very first ticket we bought. I don’t believe it for a New York minute, and any scientist that does is a good candidate to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.

But did you account for multiple, parallel, simultaneous trials?<--If you answer nothing, answer that. As a computer scientist I&apos;m well aware of the power of an exponential growth of adding &quot;processors&quot; to a problem. The impossible becomes probable. The probable becomes likely. The likely becomes routine.

When abiogenesis occurred it happened in a much larger pool of matter, over a much longer period of time, someplace where entropy was not tearing every macromolecule to shreds before the first chapter of the book of life could be written. The beings that evolved on that world are the ones that seeded this one and tried to guide evolution (it’s like herding kittens) to create the intelligence that they desired. Call this race the first race, the ancients, the Elohim, God, god(s), ET’s, angels, archangels, whatever you want, the archaeological evidence of their existence is in the tools that they made.&quot;

Strictly speaking, abiogenesis is a purely unknown field... strictly speaking: We don&apos;t know.

Clearly, SOMETHING had to happen to animate matter. As for me... I&apos;m not prepared to state with any level of certainty, WHAT or HOW.

Thanks again.

--
\"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.\"