Posts by hooberus

96

What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

by hooberus in

millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.

) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.

however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.

hooberus

you creationists and your "origins" crap...
hoob,
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?
analogous to? so not including biological systems? because ALL biological systems have come into existence on their own. why do you want to exclude biological systems if behe himself goes on ad infinitum regarding them, and you yourself list one in your example? am i sensing the start of a false dillema?

My comments were not to meant to exclude complex biological systems (in fact these would be the best possible examples)- In fact if you have any biological systems that have been observed to come about by unintelligent design than please list them.

analogous?
ice crystals. rocks. waves. clouds. solar system. universe. if you do not agree that these sytems are sufficiently analogous to bio and mech systems, then you are simply not looking hard enough. take a step back, a deep breath, and look again (not that i think you will, but it was just fun to say anyways.

No one observed the origin of the solar system or universe, so I don't see these as being valid examples.

We can observe the formation of rocks, waves, and clouds. However, I fail to see the analogy to any sort of complex biological or mechanical system.

Regarding ice crystals: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/snowflakes.asp

96

What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

by hooberus in

millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.

) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.

however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.

hooberus

Millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers. However, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
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?

* For example the following is a brief description of what is involved in obtaining vision from one componet (photoreceptor) of even "simple" eyes (It can be verified by comparing it with a college level biology textbook). Keep in mind that photoreceptors are reqired for even the simplest eyes, and also the below treatment does not discuss the complexity of the sub-compontets named (ie: rhodopsin) etc. source (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51)

Here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision. When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

(This thread is not about speculated claims of examples of "bad design" by evolutionists (such as the "inverted retina" http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2476), of which the origin of was not observed by them, but rather about observation.)

22

A couple of thoughts on the whole global flood thing...

by Hecklerboy in

jw
friends

i was watching the history channel this weekend and they had a show on the global flood story.

it was pretty interesting, mostly the same old stuff and some commentators from different religions.

while i was watching this, two thoughts kept coming to mind:.

hooberus

OMG. ridiculous hooberus. those links are laughable. you YEC's are like energizer bunnys man. you just keep going and going and going.
you reek of religious motive and agenda. i don't even have the energy or will to deal with you guys anymore... it's all so banal and repititous...
i feel sorry for the lurkers who come here to this site, bleeding from WTS wounds, and you freaking creationists just keep ripping their wounds open wider and wider with lies and false science.
ahem. ad hominem? ya, you got it. an ad hominem is what it is... enjoy.
TS

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp

22

A couple of thoughts on the whole global flood thing...

by Hecklerboy in

jw
friends

i was watching the history channel this weekend and they had a show on the global flood story.

it was pretty interesting, mostly the same old stuff and some commentators from different religions.

while i was watching this, two thoughts kept coming to mind:.

hooberus

Resources supporting a recent global flood:

http://www.biblicalgeology.net/resources/resources.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

167

Of Late Many Here Seem To Be Preaching Aethiesm..

by Qcmbr in

jw
friends

when i first came here a while back there was plenty of discussion around and about jw topics and general chit chat but of late i've felt quite a sharp increase in posts that are: .

1/ preaching aethism (as opposed to putting it forward in a respectful way as an alternate viewpoint.

2/ vitriolic attacks on those who dare have another view ('damn those stupid heretical believers') .

hooberus

funkyderek said:

Not only that, but hooberus's beliefs require an absurdly fast rate of evolution.

See my previous post for comments on the word "evolution."

hooberus believes that a little over 4,000 years ago the earth's population consisted of Noah and his three sons and their wives. Mr. and Mrs. Noah were well past breeding age, so the maximum number of alleles that could have existed in the breeding population then for any one gene was twelve (and that would require two mutations in Noah's sons). There is at least one human gene with over 300 known alleles (HLA-DRB1). Getting from there to here (about 200 generations, probably less) would require a functional mutation to occur more than once every generation.

The gene that you mentioned is taken from from the most highly polymorphic coding region in the human genome, however I don't see much of problem generating the 300 alleles from far fewer originals within a recent time frame. Given the fact that:
1. It seems to be from a hypervariable region, (thus possibly prone to mutation).
2. Many mutations are neutral.
3. There is no requirement that beneficial mutations be generated in the above scenario.
4. There is no requirement that any specific allele reach fixation through selection in the entire population (something that according to evolutionists usually takes much time).
5. And most importantly there are currently (and have been for some time) hundreds of thousands to millions of individuals in the human population in each generation, each receiving several different mutations from their parents.

And that's just for one gene! Many other genes have dozens of alleles. The rate of mutation hooberus requires us to believe in is mind-boggling. No such mutation rates have ever been observed.

Given the above factors (ie: netural mutation, no fixation required, large population numbers, etc.) I don't see a requirement for a "mind-boggling" unobserved mutation rate.

167

Of Late Many Here Seem To Be Preaching Aethiesm..

by Qcmbr in

jw
friends

when i first came here a while back there was plenty of discussion around and about jw topics and general chit chat but of late i've felt quite a sharp increase in posts that are: .

1/ preaching aethism (as opposed to putting it forward in a respectful way as an alternate viewpoint.

2/ vitriolic attacks on those who dare have another view ('damn those stupid heretical believers') .

hooberus

nicolaou said:

hooberus
You've fallen into the same hole as the good Dr Batten you like to quote - you need to prove your premises before you build on them.
As previously pointed out, mutations would have arrisen since creation and the flood generating many additional allele variants beyond the initial four alleles at a given locus.

Though I framed my answer within the context of the creation and the flood (since that is what is being argued against by you in your genetics argument) the fact also remains that the basic genetics point in my answer is itself independently valid. (The genetics point being that even starting with only two population founders -with four alleles betwen them- that over time mutations within the descendants will increase the number of alleles in the population. Therefore, the fact that more than four alleles are eventually found in a population does not invalidate that they all descended from two original beings.)

And anyway, do you realise that you very nearly propounded evolution?
"mutations would have arrisen [sic] ........ generating many additional allele variants beyond the initial four alleles at a given locus."

It depends on what you mean by "evolution". If you define "evolution" as "any" type of heritable "biological change", then yes this type of change (ie: mutation) could be said to "propound" "evolution". However, such a type of mutational change (termed lateral/ horizontal variation) as advocated by creationists does not necessarily involve evolution in the disputed vertical sense (that is increasing complexity, the generation of new biological structures, etc.)- let alone acceptance of the historicity of the claim of evolution in the molecules to man sense.

167

Of Late Many Here Seem To Be Preaching Aethiesm..

by Qcmbr in

jw
friends

when i first came here a while back there was plenty of discussion around and about jw topics and general chit chat but of late i've felt quite a sharp increase in posts that are: .

1/ preaching aethism (as opposed to putting it forward in a respectful way as an alternate viewpoint.

2/ vitriolic attacks on those who dare have another view ('damn those stupid heretical believers') .

hooberus

nicolaou said:

I did, and in fact you quoted me in your previous post. Now unless Adam & Eve each had many more than 23 pairs of chromosomes (which would make them non-human) how would you account for the incredible genetic diversity that exists amongst humans today?
Remember, two people can carry four alleles at most between them for any given locus [The position that a given gene occupies on a chromosome.]

As previously pointed out, mutations would have arrisen since creation and the flood generating many additional allele variants beyond the initial four alleles at a given locus.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/39893/574203/post.ashx#574203

167

Of Late Many Here Seem To Be Preaching Aethiesm..

by Qcmbr in

jw
friends

when i first came here a while back there was plenty of discussion around and about jw topics and general chit chat but of late i've felt quite a sharp increase in posts that are: .

1/ preaching aethism (as opposed to putting it forward in a respectful way as an alternate viewpoint.

2/ vitriolic attacks on those who dare have another view ('damn those stupid heretical believers') .

hooberus

Dr Batten should know better. His reasoning appears to be based on two unproven assumptions. [1] That at some point in history humanity had not 'fallen', i.e. was perfect and [2] that about 4500 years ago there was a worldwide flood. Let him first prove those mere assertions then he can proceed to build a theory upon them.

I wish him luck.

nicolaou, you are the one on this thread that first made assertions (ie: that genetics somehow disproves the Genesis account) when you stated: "The human race cannot be decended from the restricted gene pool of 8 'post-flood' humans, much less 2 'edenic' ones!" - Therefore, perhaps you should "first prove" your own assertions.

167

Of Late Many Here Seem To Be Preaching Aethiesm..

by Qcmbr in

jw
friends

when i first came here a while back there was plenty of discussion around and about jw topics and general chit chat but of late i've felt quite a sharp increase in posts that are: .

1/ preaching aethism (as opposed to putting it forward in a respectful way as an alternate viewpoint.

2/ vitriolic attacks on those who dare have another view ('damn those stupid heretical believers') .

hooberus

hooberus:

The human race cannot be decended from the restricted gene pool of 8 'post-flood' humans, much less 2 'edenic' ones!

why not?
Now hooberus, you already know the answer to that one. Observed rates of evolution are far too slow to explain all the different alleles in the human species if we are descended from two humans a trifling 6,000 years ago.

Creationists assert that humanity began as 2 individuals around six thousand years ago. But this cannot account for the current genetic diversity we see in humans, since two people can carry four alleles (at most) between them for any given locus (Each person has two copies of each gene one from the father, and one from the mother, each copy being called an allele.). Furthermore, Creationists assert that humanity was again narrowed down to 8 people after the Flood. Again, this runs counter to everything we see in the current genetic diversity of human beings. (Never mind every other organism on the planet.)

A similar argument to these was previously responded to here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/39893/574203/post.ashx#574203

167

Of Late Many Here Seem To Be Preaching Aethiesm..

by Qcmbr in

jw
friends

when i first came here a while back there was plenty of discussion around and about jw topics and general chit chat but of late i've felt quite a sharp increase in posts that are: .

1/ preaching aethism (as opposed to putting it forward in a respectful way as an alternate viewpoint.

2/ vitriolic attacks on those who dare have another view ('damn those stupid heretical believers') .

hooberus

GeneticsThe human race cannot be decended from the restricted gene pool of 8 'post-flood' humans, much less 2 'edenic' ones!

why not?