Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: I don't have enough faith to be a Darwinist

Expand Messages
  • Pasha
    ... Corey responds:  If the designer cared about impressing some boss who was out for capatolistic profit, you might have a point here, Randy. Did it ever
    Message 1 of 64 , Oct 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      > Randy writes:  I've been an engineer for more than 40 years. I know

      > quite a bit about designs.


      > ANY engineer who designed something that was 95% (or more)

      > pure junk would be fired for incompetence immediately!


      Corey responds:  If the designer cared about impressing some boss who was out for

      capatolistic profit, you might have a point here, Randy. Did it ever

      occur to you that the designer could have simply been creating life

      forms for simple personal pleasure, with no one to answer to for his

      whims of design? Here is an old saying that might help you grasp this

      idea more clearly.

      Rev 4:11

      Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou

      hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

      Pasha responds:  Your book also says that humans were designed in the image of God.  I don't know any human being who would intentionally design something that was 95% junk, whether they were trying to make a profit or not.  I mean, I have heard of planned obsolescence, but still the products created have WAY more than 95% utility.

      Corey:  Sometimes, when you have a genuine sense of what is motivating the

      designer, you can begin to truly appreciate that the designer in

      question may not need to go all out in order to accomplish what he wants

      to accomplish.

      Pasha responds:  I fail to recognize the genius of purposefully designing broken toys with large amounts of useless junk.  Come to think of it, artists high on coke and LSD might do something like that.  You're not implying God is a junkie, I hope?

      Randy: That engineer would be fired because they had proven that

      they were NOT intelligent.

      Corey:  And yet, no one has yet come up with a better formula for bringing

      about such diversity and sustainability of life on such a grand scale.

      Imagine that, Randy! It's going to take more than belly aching to show

      that the designer is not intelligent. Not that you paused long enough

      to consider that obvious reality here.

      Pasha responds:  Well yes, I believe Randy has been arguing all along that evolution may very well have occurred in much the way as you describe.  Gluadys certainly has.

      Randy: Let me put it another way. Would you buy a car that was

      95% useless junk?

      Corey:  Of course, that is a poor example, Randy, because 5% useful data in

      a programming code could be millions of lines of code. You can get a

      lot of use out of 5%, if it is coded right, even if the rest is complete

      junk. If 95% of DNA is junk, we still function as well as we do,

      despite knowing it is 95% junk. Where a car that only functions with 5%

      useful parts might not fair quite as well.

      Pasha responds:  Wow.  I have been maintaining the same system for the past 25 years.  When we acquired it we never turned on probably 15% of the modules.  The payroll system alone was about 5% of the code, and we never used it at all.  Later on we abandoned a large part of our business, and another 15% of the code fell out of use.  That's about 30%.  As file descriptions change I don't always update the code we never used, effectively mimicking mutations in introns.

      Microsoft Office Professional retails for $680.  I suppose if you bought it and used only the e-mail portion, perhaps close to 95% of the code would not be used.  Not used and useless, however, remain radically different things.  And all this "intelligent design" still mimics the evolution of biological code--save for the intentional design part.

      Randy: Or would you be like EVERYONE else and say that such a

      car was NOT intelligently designed?

      Corey:  If I say it was or it wasn't, it still doesn't help your argument

      out of the ditch...

      Randa declares:  Creationists ask the silliest questions.

      Corey replies:  That isn't the problem here, Randy! The problem is that you are to

      unwilling to pause long enough to grasp the simple reality that if a

      designer intentionally designed the data in the code to be 100% junk

      data, for example, it is still a product of design. So, your strong

      indicator is now in jeopardy, once that realization comes into the light.

      Pasha responds:  That is one huge, implausible if, Corey.  We don't really have good examples of intelligent designers producing predominantly junk.  Normal, rational human beings (supposedly "designed" after the image of God) certainly don't conform to that image.

      Note:  Nothing I have written above should in any way be construed to imply I don't think God exists or can't exist.  I don't pretend to understand God's motives.  Nor do I claim God had to have created anything the way humans would have done it.  Personally, I think that is utterly ridiculous--insisting God had to have created all species simultaneously six thousand years ago because that is what you or I might have done.

      God is patient, and if God chose to produce something like human beings across half a billion years of metazoan evolution, that is entirely up to God.  I'm not going to say He couldn't have done it that way.  I'm especially not going to contradict that on the basis of the evidence that indicates evolution occurred, whether God had any direct hand in it or not.

      =============  Same-o  ===================

      > >> Sure an UNINTELLIGENT designer - a "tinkerer" if you

      > >> will - could create such a completely wasteful

      > >> mechanism. But surely it can't be the result of any

      > >> sort of INTELLIGENT designer!


      > > Why not?


      > Randy: Why not?


      Yes, Randy, Why not? Did I studder?

      > Randy: Silly question noted.


      Corey asks:  Failure to provide grounds for calling the question silly noted.

      Pasha responds:  You misspelled "stutter."  That seemed a bit silly.

      I suddenly realized I don't have a horse in this race.  If Corey is suggesting God created all species through gradual evolutionary change--that could certainly be consistent with what we find.  What is a miracle?  Is it something utterly impossible?  Or is it an everyday occurrence?  I find the love of my wife miraculous.  My children are little miracles.  Every perfect snowflake inspires a sense of awe in me.  Soap bubbles--those are miraculous, even if the physical explanations are somewhat prosaic.

      It is Halloween, when every year we commemorate Christ rising from the dead to eat the brains of Christian fundamentalists.  :(

      ============   Insufficient Faith to be a Scientist =============

      Jim (?):  The experiment proves that a creator is required to create the results.


      Sutherland's synthetic creation of ribonucleotides under carefully

      controlled laboratory conditions provides convincing evidence that life

      could have arisen via undirected chemistry only to those who are already


      Charles notes:  Pareidolia is a type of apophenia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia>.


      Pasha responds:  Excellent point, Charles.  Folks who find design patterns in simulations of natural conditions certainly are kidding themselves.

      On the other hand, I'm getting me one of them toasters that burns the image of Jerry Garcia into the bread.  Those things are wicked awesome!

      In astra lumina, Veritas!

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gluadys
      ... But there are an estimated 700-900 genes on chromosome 15 and according to the Wikipedia article, it is different genes which produce these syndromes. The
      Message 64 of 64 , Nov 12, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
        > There is no "junk DNA"... (unless you can see things that other people
        > cannot see). The epigenome controls the genome. These are the switches
        > that turn genes on and off.
        > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1128045835761675934#
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_15_(human)
        > Please read the Angelman syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome information.
        > Chromosome 15 is the cause of both conditions. However, it depends upon
        > which parent caused the switch to go "on" and which parent caused the switch
        > to go "off".
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        But there are an estimated 700-900 genes on chromosome 15 and according to the Wikipedia article, it is different genes which produce these syndromes. The Angelman syndrome is produced when the maternal UBE3A gene is inactive. Prader-Willi syndrome is produced when the paternal copies of the imprinted SNRPN and necdin genes along with clusters of snoRNAs: SNORD64, SNORD107, SNORD108 and two copies of SNORD109, 29 copies of SNORD116 (HBII-85) and 48 copies of SNORD115 (HBII-52).

        All of these genes are located in the same general area of the chromosome in the region 15q11-13. What they also hold in common is sex-linked imprinting (UBE3A is normally expressed through the maternal gene and silenced on the paternal gene; the reverse holds for the genes producing PWS.)

        What I have not seen in any of the Wikipedia articles is a connection to environmental exposure in either the parents or earlier generations that causes the chromosomal problems.

        Nor do I see any connection here to junk DNA or switches that turn genes on or off (are you referring to Hox genes? You do realize that Hox genes and other regulatory genes are still genes, right?)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.