Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Intelligent Design » Confirmation of intelligent design predictions

Confirmation of intelligent design predictions

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Admin


Admin
Confirmation of intelligent design predictions

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1659-confirmation-of-intelligent-design-predictions

Many critizise that intelligent design is not science. But when ID is one of the possible mechanisms of origins, then we must be able to recognize and observe what constitutes a intelligently designed system - no matter if man made, or encountered in nature. And based on that, make hypotheses, test them , and get positive or negative conclusions.

To use design as a basis for scientific predictions is compatible with the scientific process because it does exactly what science is supposed to do. It puts our theories and hypotheses out in the open to be discussed, to be supported by accumulating evidence, or refuted by the evidence. Some may object to this, but if we  are seeking for truth, why should we not  do it? Intelligent design theory seeks  evidence of design in nature. Intelligent design starts with observation in the natural world, and tries to find out, how the  origin  of given phenomenon can be best explained. Since there are basically two possible mechanisms, design, and natural, unguided, random events, both should be considered, and evaluated against each other.

The beginning of the universe requires a cause. The fine-tuning of the universe requires a tuner. Coded Information which is complex and instructional/specified found in epigenetic systems  and genes, and irreducible , interdependent molecular machines and biosynthetic and metabolic pathways in biological systems point to a intelligent agent as best explanation of their setup and  origins. 
 
Observation: Intelligent agents  act frequently  with an end goal in mind, constructing functional irreducibly complex  multipart-machines, and  make  exquisitely integrated circuits that require a blueprint to build the object. Furthermore, Computers   integrate  software/hardware and store  high levels of instructional complex coded information. In our experience, systems that either a)require or b)store  large amounts of specified-instructional complex information  such as codes and languages, and which are constructed in a interdependence of hard and software invariably originate from an intelligent source. No exception.

Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns, metabolic pathways similar to electronic circuits, and irreducible structures  that perform  specific functions -- indicating high levels of  Information, irreducible complexity, and interdependence, like hard/software.

Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA, epigenetic codes, and metabolic circuits indicate that biological molecular machines and factories ( Cells ) are full of information-rich, language-based codes and code/blueprint-based structures. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests in proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences, in order to provide  function, require highly instructional complex coded information stored in the Genome.   Additionally, it has been found out, that cells require and use various epigenetic codes, namely  Splicing Codes,  Metabolic Codes,  Signal Transduction Codes,  Signal Integration Codes Histone Codes, Tubulin Codes, Sugar Codes , and The Glycomic Code. Furthermore, all kind of irreducible complex molecular machines and biosynthesis performing  and metabolic pathways have been found, which could not keep their basic functions without a minimal number of parts and complex inter wined and interdependent structures. That indicates these biological machines and pathways had to emerge fully operational, all at once. A step wise evolutionary manner is not possible. Furthermore, knock out experiments of all components of the flagellum have shown that the flagellum is irreducible complex.

Conclusion: Unless someone can falsify the prediction, and  point out a non-intelligent source  of  Information as found in the cell, the high levels of instructional complex coded information, irreducible complex and interdependent molecular systems and complex metabolic circuits and biosynthesis pathways, their origin is   best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.


Objection: It's not the job of science to investigate the supernatural.
Answer: There are basically two possible mechanisms that explain the origin of the natural world. A intelligent designer, through power, information input, wisdom, will, or natural, non-guided, non-intelligent  mechanisms, that is : random chance or physical necessity, long periods of time, mutation and natural selection, or self organisation of matter.  Science is perfectly apt to find out if the natural world points to the requirement of intelligent action to setup the biological and biochemical systems we observe in nature. Intelligent Design theory does not pretend to explain how intelligence implemented the material world, nor who the designer is. That belongs to the realm of philosophic and theological inquiry. 

Objection: Suppose a probe to the planet Mars found evidence of artifacts there that could only have been produced by an intelligent civilization. Would you expect the scientists who made that discovery to say "Well, we're not going to try figure out who might have produced them. That belongs to the realm of philosophic and theological inquiry"?
Answer: Of course, in that case, science would try to figure out about this civilisation. That would hoever still not explain the ultimate cause of a) this civiliation , and b) the cause of the universe as a whole.

Objection: You really need to take time to define who this supreme being is before you can assert  it actually exists. 
Answer: No proponent of Intelligent design makes conclusive absolute assertions that a Intelligent Designer exists. One of the best solutions to handling the issue of evidence and arguments for God’s existence is to utilize what is called inference to the best explanation. The inference to the best explanation model takes into account the best available explanation in our whole range of experience and reflection. Since we as humans can’t observe God as a material object, one way to approach this issue is to look at the effects in the world and make rational inferences to the cause of the effect. Remember, evidence is always evidence for (or against) something.  
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2256-atheists-err-when-asking-for-material-evidence-to-prove-god-s-existence

Objection: We have never observed a being of any capacity  creating biological systems and life.  
Answer: We do not need direct observed empirical evidence to infer design.  If investigators know that someone was deliberately killed, is their conclusion invalidated because they don't yet know exactly who did it and how?
When a detective arrives at the crime scence, and sees a bullet in the chest of the victim, and no arm nearby that could be a hint to suicide, the detective can with a  degree of certainty conclude the victim was shot in the chest and killed. So its a murder crime scence.
Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design.

In order to make design predictions, it must be established what can be recognized as design in nature - Something having the PROPERTIES that we might attribute to that of a intelligently designed system: 

( Follwing requirements which consist in a unsurmountable problem for unguided naturalistic processes are met ) :

1) IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX.  The requirement and existence of  individual parts of a biological system which are indispensable to keep the basic function of a system,  which have no survival advantage or functional purpose by their own, nor in a  intermediate evolutionary stage. ( biologically useful or significant genetic sequences )
2) The hability to find and recruit and select the right  materials, and to form molecules with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into tissues, organs, and organ systems in a highly complex, functional, specified, correct, spacial order.
Making the individual parts and materials available at the same construction site, perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.
Coordinating and instruct  the assembly of the parts in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a system are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.
The parts must have the right size, form and material, and must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if sub systems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. The individual parts will be held together and connected in the right manner through various different mechanisms, like fine tuned covalent and non-covalent bonds, electrostatic forces, cell junctions etc.
3) Establishment of communication systems. Most signal-relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signalling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind.  The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them.  Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design.  Acts as an informational processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware can only be setup all at once through intelligent input )
4) Selecting the most optimal and efficient genetic code and hability of minimizing the effects of errors.
5) A system which uses a cipher, translating  instructions through one language  ( the universal genetic code) which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and Apobetics, and assign the right triplet code to the right amino acids
6) Appearance of highly complex dependencies thus giving the appearence of Implicit intelligence (although not intelligent itself, indicates an origin involving intelligence.. )
7  Use of molecular machinery on a scale and complexity which mankind has never IMAGINED possible - all with appearence of exact purpose, intent, function and dependencies
8  exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory genes controlling gene expression - conceptually the same as a logical software layer controlling the underlying system. 
9) another layer of complex 3 Dimensional control and access, and adaptation to environment: Epigentics 
10) Implicit built in ERROR checking from the get go: reducing mutations to a minimal
11) Advanced inbuilt repair mechanisms which are essential for the proper function of certain biological systems and proteins right from the start.
12) Precise optimisation and fine-tuning of biological, chemical, biochemical and physical  systems.
13) Display the DESIGN of complex software, designed to adapt and EVOLVE in a very controlled and careful way - while at the same time minimizing mutations. A system designed to EVOLVE and SURVIVE. (gene splicing )
14) The hability of provide the precise instruction and coding for development of biological systems. 
15) Something which as well as exhibiting all of the above, also has no conceptual way of coming into existence through naturalistic means, : or something whose existence and origins appears to defy all known scientific understanding. Something which requires the application of alot of FAITH and IMAGINATION of some theories to describe its origins through natural means alone.
16) So the application of COMMON SENSE and inference, from observations from the world around us (information processing systems) might indicate to us certain things having these above PROPERTIES, would fall into the category of things that have been DESIGNED.
17) One of the most intelligent concepts in the known universe is the concept of Evolution itself.

Proponents of evolution frequently argue that intelligent design is not science, since it doesn't make predictions. Following a list of predictions made by intelligent design, and the confirmation:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1659-confirmation-of-intelligent-design-predictions

Predictions in  biology: 
- High instructive coded information content will be found throughout the genome, in " junk DNA", and the epigenome– (already proven)
- The non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view to explain biodiversity.  Proven. We know that Membrane targets and patterns,  Cytoskeletal arrays, Centrosomes, Ion channels,  Sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code), Gene regulatory networks, the Splicing Code,  the Metabolic Code, the Signal Transduction Codes,  the Signal Integration Codes,  the Histone Code,  the Tubulin Code the Sugar Code  and the Glycomic Code define morphology,  development, cell  and body shape. Basically, macroevolution ( the origin of morphological novelties ) is a falsified prediction, while ID is confirmed. 
- Machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found – (already proven, and a undeniable fact.   Ken Millers  rebuttal is not a compelling refutation )
- Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors – ( well known)

- Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms – ( proven)
- The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA” – (being proven over & over today)
- Few or no intermediate forms will found giving a clear and gradual pathway from one family to another.  There are none so far.
Mechanisms for error detection and correction will be abundant within the genome of all organisms – (already proven)
Mechanisms for *non-random* adaptations, coherent with environmental pressures, will be found (already found)
So called vestigial organs will be found to have specific purpose and usefulness – (already proven)
Few mutations will end up being beneficial in the long run – (already proven)
Genetic entropy will be found to cancel our most if any beneficial mutations

In astronomy/astrophysics
- an increase (and not a decrease), as science progresses, in the number of finely-tuned parameters pertinent to the laws and constants of physics

Predictions in Paleontology
- The observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity.
- Saltational, or abrupt, appearance of new life forms without transitional precursors.

Knock out experiments and tests provide empirical evidence that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, as Scott Minnich  testified at the Dover process: 

Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108, Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added

We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they can't swim. Now, to confirm that that's the only part that we've affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the gene from the wild type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene. One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.
(Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108, Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added)


High prescriptive information content will be found throughout the genome – (already proven)

Laws of chemistry and physics, which follow exact statistical, thermodynamic, and spatial laws, are totally inade-quate for generating complex functional information or those systems that process that information using prescriptive algorithmic information". Organization requires control, which requires  formalism as a reality. Each protein is currently the result of the execution of a real computer program running on the genetic operating system.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2110-what-might-be-a-protocells-minimal-requirement-of-parts

Machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found – (already proven, and no K. Millers poor rebuttal is no refutation at all)


High information content machine-like irreducibly complex and interdependent structures,  of which photosynthesis, the eye, the human body, nitrogenase, the ribosome, the cell, rubisco, photosystem II, the oxygen evolving complex etc. are prime examples, are commonly found in nature.
Since Evolution is unable to  provide a advantage of adaptation in each evolutionary step, and is unable to select it,  1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2166-a-list-of-irreducible-complex-systems

Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors – (already known)

"A record of pre-Cambrian animal life, it appears, simply does not exist. Why this lamentable blank? Various theories have been proposed; none is too satisfactory. It has been suggested, for example, that all the Pre-Cambrian sediments were deposited on continental areas, and the absence of fossils in them is due to the fact that all the older animals were seadwellers. But that all these older sediments were continental is a theory which opposes, without proof, everything we know of deposition in later times. Again, it is suggested that the Pre-Cambrian seas were poor in calcium carbonate, necessary for the production of preservable skeletons; but this is not supported by geochemical evidence. Yet again, it is argued that even though conditions were amenable to the formation of fossilizable skeletal parts, the various phyla only began to use these possibilities at the dawn of the Cambrian. But it is, a priori, hard to believe that the varied types present in the early Cambrian would all have, so to speak, decided to put on armour simultaneously. And, once again, it has been argued that the whole evolution of multicellular animals took place with great rapidity in late Pre-Cambrian times, so that a relatively short gap in rock deposition would account for the absence of any record of their rise. Perhaps; but the known evolutionary rate in most groups from the Cambrian on is a relatively leisurely one, and it is hard to convince oneself that a sudden major burst of evolutionary advance would be so promptly followed by a marked 'slowdown'. All in all, there is no satisfactory answer to the Pre-Cambrian riddle."

Romer Alfred S. [late Professor of Zoology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The Procession of Life," The World Publishing Co: Cleveland OH, 1968, pp.19-20.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1701-does-fossil-record-support-the-evolution-model-of-gradual-and-small-changes

Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms – (already proven)

The argument of the highly similar DNA sequences 
1. If functionally unconstrained yet highly similar DNA sequences were found in different species, then evolution would be false.
2. In fact, the DNA sequences are extremely similar and even identical in different species.
3. There is currently “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.”
4. Since some of these sequences are found across a wide range of different species, the sequences, and whatever selective forces preserved them, must have been present very early in history.
5. On the other hand many of these sequences point to evolution’s nemesis, lineage-specific biology.
6. Highly similar DNA sequences in different species are a proof of the same intelligent designer using a similar genetic pattern to design different species. All men call him God.
7. God exists.


The insect eye and the vertebrate eye are two examples of structures said to be analogous ( Analogous structures are similar or resembling in certain respects, e.g. in function or in appearance but not in evolutionary origin or developmental origin. An example is wings of a butterfly and wings of a hummingbird are analogous.) . However, they can be shown to both be based on the expression of the Pax-6 gene , and it is probable that the vertebrate and insect (and cephalopod) eyes are the modified descendents of a basic metazoan photoreceptive cell that was regulated by Pax-6.

Research at the molecular level has failed to demonstrate the expected correspondence between gene product changes and the organismal changes predicted by evolution.
Evolution by DNA mutations 'is largely uncoupled from morphological evolution'

Some regulatory genes that have similar DNA sequences are found to regulate similar structures in different phyla where those structures are thought to have "evolved" independently. These homologous genes that regulate analogous structures might encourage the Darwinist to reconsider whether those structures might actually be homologous due to common ancestry. However, in consideration of the evidence that different phyla do not have common ancestors, these "homologies of process" are better explained as evidence of intelligent design, where the designer reused the same control mechanism for the development of similar structures in unrelated organisms.


http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2191-the-developmental-genetic-toolkit-and-the-molecular-homologyanalogy-paradox


The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA” – (being proven over & over today)


When all sorts of peripheral genetic elements were discovered, evolutionary geneticists referred to them as “junk DNA” on the assumption that they were nothing but useless remnants left over from evolutionary predecessors. Come to find out, these regulatory elements are the key to cellular health and development, as well as the primary link to disease when not operating properly.

The massive store of apparently unused DNA components in every cell, which Richard Dawkins, incredibly, once dismissed as “99% junk”, now appears to hold multiple layers of subtle logic which are only beginning to be unravelled, with serious and long-lasting implications.



An article in the 7 September 2012 issue of Science was titled "ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA". "This week, 30 research papers... sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decadelong project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose". "The ENCODE effort has revealed that a gene's regulation is far more complex than previously thought, being influenced by multiple stretches of regulatory DNA located both near and far from the gene itself and by strands of RNA not translated into proteins, so-called noncoding RNA."--


During my time at Discovery Institute, we have also seen some of ID’s longstanding scientific predictions spectacularly fulfilled. Exhibit A: The ENCODE project’s discovery of widespread function for non-coding DNA. Again, since the late 1990s I’d been hearing ID-critics say “junk DNA refutes ID.” At that time, my rejoinder was “We haven’t even studied this ‘dark matter of the genome’ enough to know what it does. Let’s just wait and see.” Well, we’ve been waiting and now we’ve seen: ID was correct all along. Early indications of this mass-functionality first came to light in 2007 when ENCODE published its preliminary results suggesting that a great portion of our DNA is transcribed into RNA. But in 2012 ENCODE published its main results, showing that over 80 percent of the genome gives strong evidence of function. Papers uncovering specific functions for specific “junk” genetic elements continue to pour forth.

Pennisi, Elizabeth. 7 September 2012. Science, Vol. 337, pp. 1159-1161.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/is-the-discovery-institute-falling-apart/#comment-1286343

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1812-junk-dna-has-function?highlight=junk+dna

Few intermediate forms will found giving a clear and gradual pathway from one family to another – there are none so far.  Most of the claimed ancestors will be shown to have serious problems – already historically proven

Michael Denton stated:

“It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today

anthropologist Edmund Ronald Leach stated:

“ Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so

One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted,

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1693-transitional-fossils

Mechanisms for error detection and correction will be abundant within the genome of all organisms – (already proven)

At least four excision repair pathways exist to repair single stranded DNA damage:

Nucleotide excision repair (NER)
Base excision repair (BER)
DNA mismatch repair (MMR)
Repair through alkyltransferase-like proteins (ATLs)

Natural selection cannot act without accurate replication, yet the protein machinery for the level of accuracy required is itself built by the very genetic code it is designed to protect.  Thats a catch22 situation.  It would have been challenging enough to explain accurate transcription and translation alone by natural means, but as consequence of UV radiation, it  would have quickly been destroyed through accumulation of errors.  So accurate replication and proofreading are required for the origin of life. How on earth could proofreading enzymes emerge, especially with this degree of fidelity, when they depend on the very information that they are designed to protect?  Think about it....  This is one more prima facie example of chicken and egg situation. What is the alternative explanation to design ? Proofreading  DNA by chance ?  And a complex suite of translation machinery without a designer?


http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2043-dna-repair?highlight=repair

Mechanisms for *non-random* adaptations, coherent with environmental pressures, will be found (already found)


The genome has traditionally been treated as a Read-Only Memory (ROM) subject to change by copying errors and accidents. In this review, I propose that we need to change that perspective and understand the genome as an intricately formatted Read-Write (RW) data storage system constantly subject to cellular modifications and inscriptions. Cells operate under changing conditions and are continually modifying themselves by genome inscriptions. These inscriptions occur over three distinct time-scales (cell reproduction, multicellular development and evolutionary change) and involve a variety of different processes at each time scale (forming nucleoprotein complexes, epigenetic formatting and changes in DNA sequence structure). Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1476-how-life-changes-itself-the-read-write-rw-genome?highlight=genome

So called vestigial organs will be found to have specific purpose and usefulness – (already proven)

Darwin argued in The Origin of Species that the widespread occurrence of vestigial organs -- organs that may have once had a function but are now useless -- is evidence against creation. "On the view of each organism with all its separate parts having been specially created, how utterly inexplicable is it that organs bearing the plain stamp of inutility... should so frequently occur." But such organs, he argued, are readily explained by his theory: "On the view of descent with modification, we may conclude that the existence of organs in a rudimentary, imperfect, and useless condition, or quite aborted, far from presenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the old doctrine of creation, might even have been anticipated in accordance with the views here explained."



Many of the organs that are claimed to be useless actually do have a use. Granted, many of these uses were not identified for a long time, which led to the misnomer that they were functionless. This leaves me skeptical of other and future accusations for useless organs whether on humans or other animals. As Mention points out, “The problem with declaring any organ to be without function is discriminating between truly functionless organs and those that have functions that are simply unknown. Indeed, over the years nearly all organs once thought to be useless have been found to be functional. When we have no evidence for function of an organ, we need to bear in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” (Menton, 231).

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1811-vestigial-organs?highlight=vestigial

Few mutations will end up being beneficial in the long run – (already proven)

Proponents of evolution maintain there must have been “beneficial” mutations on occasion to allow uphill drift of genetic information. Although there are small handfuls of mutations which make it easier for an organism to survive in an extreme environment, so by definition are “equivocally ” beneficial, none are “unequivocally ” beneficial or “uphill” in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1388-mutations-are-rarely-beneficial

Genetic entropy will be found to cancel our most if any beneficial mutations

Ratio of beneficial vs. detrimental mutations:
There are numerous published estimates ranging from 1/1000 to 1/1,000,000. A 1998 paper published in Genetica suggests a beneficial mutation rate (vs. the total mutation rate) of approximately 1 in 1,000,000 (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998). Given that a significant portion if not most of the human genome is functional to one degree or another, to a similar degree those mutations that are not beneficial would be functionally detrimental to one degree or another. In short, the ratio of beneficial vs. detrimental is very small - most likely well below the ratio of 1/1000.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2208-mutation-rates



Last edited by Admin on Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:13 am; edited 63 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1659-does-intelligent-design-make-predictions-can-it-be-falsified#2574

Predictions In Astronomy/Cosmology 1

  • ID predicts that the Universe had a beginning.

  • ID predicts an increase (and not a decrease), as science progresses, in the number of finely-tuned parameters pertinent to the laws and constants of physics.


Predictions in Biology

  • ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.

  • ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations.

  • ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems.

  • ID predicts that complex molecular convergence will happen routinely.

  • ID predicts the presence of irreducible complexity with respect to macromolecular systems and organelles.

  • ID predicts that the prevalence of functional protein folds with respect to combinatorial sequence space will be extremely small.

  • ID predicts that evolutionary pathways to new protein functions will require multiple co-ordinated non-adaptive mutations (more so than likely to be achieved by a random process).

  • ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.

  • ID predicts delicate optimisation and fine-tuning with respect to many features associated with biological systems.

  • ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).


Predictions in Paleontology

  • ID predicts the observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity.

  • ID predicts saltational, or abrupt, appearance of new life forms without transitional precursors.



http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_idtheoryoverview.htm

http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info/Index.htm

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, which the Discovery Institute states, "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," http://www.intelligentdesign.org/.

Here's 8 bullet topics for evidence for testable means that would support Intelligent Design Theory:

1. Complex Specified Information (CSI); No Free Lunch theorems (http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/complex-specified-information-csi-an-explanation-of-specified-complexity/; http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/response-to-the-mark-perakh-essay-there-is-a-free-lunch-after-all-william-dembskis-wrong-answers-to-irrelevant-questions/)

2. Irreducible Complexity (http://www.scribd.com/doc/106728402/The-Bacterial-Flagellum; http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/irreducible-complexity/)

3. Quantum Biology (http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n1/full/nphys2474.html)

4. Natural Genetic Engineering (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/epigenetics-iii-epigeneti_b_1683713.html; http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf)

5. Cell Cognition (cognition (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/cell-cognition_b_1354889.html)

6. Origin of Life research based upon Information Theory (https://asunews.asu.edu/20121212_dawnoflife; http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.4803v2.pdf; http://www.livescience.com/25453-life-origin-reframed.html)

7. Bioinformatics (http://designinference.com/dembski-on-intelligent-design/dembski-writings/; http://www.evoinfo.org/index/).

8. Predictions based upon there being multiple simultaneous mutation events as opposed to gradual successive modifications one mutation at a time.

In re item #3, quantum biology, see my recent post on the ID - Official Page, here, https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/597929196917352/.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1659-does-intelligent-design-make-predictions-is-it-testable#2574

As Dr Behe said:

Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.

In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.

Modeling Irreducible Complexity

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1319#critique

The paper made one profound finding when it accurately modeled true irreducible complexity (first full paragraph, pg. 143). Michael Behe has defined irreducible complexity as:
"An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002; iscid.org/)

When Lenski et al. created a simulation with high irreducible complexity, i.e. there was no selective advantage until the target function arose, EQU never evolved! Consider this quote from the Lenski paper:

"At the other extreme, 50 populations evolved in an environment where only EQU was rewarded, and no simpler function yielded energy. We expected that EQU would evolve much less often because selection would not preserve the simpler functions that provide foundations to build more complex features. Indeed, none of these populations evolved EQU, a highly significant difference from the fraction that did so in the reward-all environment (P ~= 4.3 x 10-9, Fisher's exact test)."

In other words, when there is no selective advantage until you get the final function, the final function doesn't evolve. In this case, their simulation probably DID model biological reality because irreducible complexity claims that there is no advantage until you get the final function. In fact in such a scenario, it found that the evolution of such a structure was impossible. In other words, they just proved that irreducible complexity is unevolvable.



The Lenski paper can only be seen as a scientific response to the claims of ID proponents, published in a high profile journal such as Nature. Despite the fact that the authors of the Lenski paper would likely deny this fact, there are many clues which show that the article is intended as a rebuttal to the claims of ID proponents. Not only does this validate the work of ID proponents as posing a legitimate challenge to Darwin's theory, but it also indicates that the claims of ID proponents are eminently testable, falsifiable (though as discussed above, not yet falsified), and therefore also scientific in nature.


http://creationwiki.org/Intelligent_design#Bombardier_Beetle

Predictions in Biology

ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.
ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations.
ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems.
ID predicts that complex molecular convergence will happen routinely.
ID predicts the presence of irreducible complexity with respect to macromolecular systems and organelles.
ID predicts that the prevalence of functional protein folds with respect to combinatorial sequence space will be extremely small.
ID predicts that evolutionary pathways to new protein functions will require multiple co-ordinated non-adaptive mutations (more so than likely to be achieved by a random process).
ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.
ID predicts delicate optimisation and fine-tuning with respect to many features associated with biological systems.
ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).

Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1659-does-intelligent-design-make-predictions-is-it-testable?highlight=intelligent+design

The Short Answer: Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!

The Long Answer:

Are Predictions Important?
Yes, they are. Without predictions, there is essentially no way to test if a hypothesis is true. Although there is no definition of science agreed upon by all philosophers of science (Lauden, 1988) many scientists and philosophers have suggested that scientific explanations are:
1. Based upon results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. (NAS, 1998)
2. Subject to testing because scientists can observe the natural world to see if the explanation holds up. (Ayala, 1974; Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963)
3. “Falsifiable,” in the sense that some type of observations could conceivably count against the theory. (Ayala, 1974; Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963)
4. "Tentative," meaning that they are not held absolutely but are held subject to state of the evidence. (NAS, 1998)
The National Academy of Sciences explains that observations (often via experimentation) are fundamental to science:
Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not a part of science…The statements of science are those that emerge from the application of human intelligence to data obtained from observation and experiment. (NAS, 1998)
According to the National Academy of Sciences, "[s]cience is a particular way of knowing about the world." (NAS, 1998). Additionally, the National Academy of sciences states that a primary goal of science is to understand nature, where "understanding" means "relating one natural phenomena to another and recognizing the causes and effects of phenomena." (NAS, 1998) Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. Intelligent design is one such cause for natural phenomena, and thus would represent progress in science.

At the heart of science is observations, which is what forms the beginning of the scientific method. These observations allow us to make a hypothesis which make testable predictions about what we would expect to find if that hypothesis were true.

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_idtheoryoverview.htm

http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info/Index.htm

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, which the Discovery Institute states, "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," http://www.intelligentdesign.org/.

Here's 8 bullet topics for evidence for testable means that would support Intelligent Design Theory:

1. Complex Specified Information (CSI); No Free Lunch theorems (http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/complex-specified-information-csi-an-explanation-of-specified-complexity/; http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/response-to-the-mark-perakh-essay-there-is-a-free-lunch-after-all-william-dembskis-wrong-answers-to-irrelevant-questions/)

2. Irreducible Complexity (http://www.scribd.com/doc/106728402/The-Bacterial-Flagellum; http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/irreducible-complexity/)

3. Quantum Biology (http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n1/full/nphys2474.html)

4. Natural Genetic Engineering (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/epigenetics-iii-epigeneti_b_1683713.html; http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf)

5. Cell Cognition (cognition (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/cell-cognition_b_1354889.html)

6. Origin of Life research based upon Information Theory (https://asunews.asu.edu/20121212_dawnoflife; http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.4803v2.pdf; http://www.livescience.com/25453-life-origin-reframed.html)

7. Bioinformatics (http://designinference.com/dembski-on-intelligent-design/dembski-writings/; http://www.evoinfo.org/index/).

8. Predictions based upon there being multiple simultaneous mutation events as opposed to gradual successive modifications one mutation at a time.

In re item #3, quantum biology, see my recent post on the ID - Official Page, here, https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/597929196917352/.



The Argument for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design in Biology

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-god-real-the-argument-for-gods-existence-from-the-appearance-of-design-in-biology/#sthash.VLjoHQC5.dpuf

(1) Human artifacts (like watches) are products of intelligent design

(2) Biological systems and cellular micro-machines resemble human artifacts

(3) It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, biological systems and cellular micro-machines are the product of intelligent design

(4) But, biological systems and cellular micro-machines are vastly more complex and sophisticated than human artifacts

(5) It is reasonable to conclude, then, the designer responsible for such biological systems and cellular micro-machines must be vastly more intelligent and sophisticated than any human designer

(6) God is vastly more intelligent and sophisticated than any human designer

(7) God is, therefore, the most reasonable candidate for the Intelligent Designer responsible for biological systems and cellular micro-machines


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html

Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology. Although the main practitioners of the field attribute the presence of such things to the outworking of natural selection, they cannot avoid using design language and design concepts in their research, and a straightforward look at the field indicates it is really a design approach altogether.
(David Snoke, "Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design," BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2014 (3).)

Meyer, Stephen C(Signature in the Cell (p. 496).)
.

-------------------------------------------
A Dozen ID-Inspired Predictions:
-------------------------------------------

• No undirected process will demonstrate the capacity to generate 500 bits of new information starting from a nonbiological source.
• Informational accounting will reveal that sources of active information are responsible for putatively successful computer-based evolutionary simulations.
Future experiments will continue to show that RNA catalysts lack the capacities necessary to render the RNA-world scenario plausible.
• Informational accounting will reveal that any improvements in replicase function in ribozymes are the result of active information supplied by ribozyme engineers.
• Investigation of the logic of regulatory and information-processing systems in cells will reveal the use of design strategies and logic that mirrors (though possibly exceeds in complexity) those used in systems designed by engineers. Cell biologists will find regulatory systems that function in accord with a logic that can be expressed as an algorithm.
• Sophisticated imaging techniques will reveal nanomachines (turbines) in centrioles that play a role in cell division. Other evidence will show that malfunctions in the regulation of these machines are responsible for chromosomal damage.
• If intelligent design played a role in the origin of life, but not subsequently, prokaryotic cells should carry amounts of genetic information that exceed their own needs or retain vestiges of having done so, and molecular biology should provide evidence of information-rich structures that exceed the causal powers of chance, necessity, or the combination of the two.
• If a designing intelligence acted discretely in the history of life, the various subdisciplines of biology should show evidence of polyphyly.
• The fossil record, in particular, should show evidence of discrete infusions of information into the biosphere at episodic intervals as well as a top-down, rather than bottom-up, pattern of appearance of new fossil forms.
• If an intelligent (and benevolent) agent designed life, then studies of putatively bad designs in life— such as the vertebrate retina and virulent bacteria— should reveal either (a) reasons for the designs that show a hidden functional logic or (b) evidence of decay of originally good designs.
• If the flagellar motor was intelligently designed and the type-3 secretory system devolved from it, the genes that code for the bacterial flagellar motor should be older than those that code for the proteins in the T3SS, and not the reverse. Alternatively, if the T3SS and the flagellar motor arose by design independently, T3SS should have unique (nonhomologous) genes that are not present in the genome for the flagellar motor.
• The functional sequences of amino acids within amino acid– sequence space should be extremely rare rather than common




What are some scientific predictions from Intelligent Design?

http://www.arn.org/docs/booher/scientific-case-for-ID.html

Meyer discusses 13 specific examples of scientific predictions from Intelligent Design.140

I will cover five of them here as a sampling of what Intelligent Design can do in the way of scientific predictions.
“Junk DNA” is actually useful.
Functional sequences of amino acids should be extremely rare.
The flagellar motor genes should be older than those of a subsystem (T3SS) that code for proteins.
D. The fossil record should show evidence of discrete infusions of information into
the biosphere.
E. Studies of the putatively bad designs in organisms should show either 1) the designs have a hidden functional logic or 2) evidence of decay of originally good designs.

A. “Junk DNA”. DNA that does not code for proteins is frequently found in the genomes of both one-celled organisms and multicellular plants and animals. This DNA is generally thought of as nonfunctional DNA or “junk.” The explanation of evolutionary theories of origins, both chance and neo-Darwinian, is that this nonfunctional DNA accumulated in both the first simple (prokaryotic) organisms and the genomes of eukaryotic organisms (organisms whose cells contain nuclei) as useless or “junk” DNA. This “junk” DNA is thought by evolutionary theories to show “a kind of remnant of whatever undirected process first produced functional information in the cell.”141 These nonprotein coding regions have been taken as confirming the expectation of naturalistic evolutionary theories and disconfirming intelligent design. “As Michael Shermer argues, ‘Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragmented copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution.’”142

Intelligent Design predicts significantly different results from “junk DNA” “We predict that the functional DNA (the signal) should dwarf the nonfunctional DNA (the noise), and not the reverse.”143 Evolutionary theories expect much useless DNA, while Intelligent Design expects most DNA, including “junk” DNA to exhibit function. Meyer states: “The discovery in recent years that nonprotein-coding DNA performs a diversity of important functions has confirmed this [ID] prediction.”144 Intelligent Design not only makes a discriminating prediction about the nature of “junk DNA”, but recent discoveries are showing its predictions to be true. As examples: Nonprotein-coding regions of the genome have been found to:

direct the production of RNA molecules that regulate the use of protein-coding regions of DNA
regulate DNA replication
regulate transcription
mark sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material
influence the proper folding and maintenance of chromosomes
control the interactions of chromosomes with the nuclear membrane (and matrix)
control RNA processing, editing, and splicing modulate translation, regulate embryological development
repair DNA
aid in immunodefense or fighting disease, and
in some cases, to code functional genes.14
B. Rare functional sequences of amino acids. Intelligent design predicts that functional sequences of amino acids should be rare rather than common as expected by evolutionary theories. More specifically, the question to be answered is “How rare or common are functional protein folds within their corresponding amino-acid-sequence space?”146 Douglas Axe designed a specific test of the efficacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. He reasoned “that if functional sequences were common enough for mutations to stumble upon them relatively easily, mutation and selection might be able to build otherwise extremely improbable structures in small increments”. However if functional proteins are extremely rare within the sequence space, then mutations will not have a realistic chance of finding them in time for selection to have anything much to work on. This would greatly work against evolutionary explanations of a way to produce biological information. Axe has already done some experimental testing of this question. The first results published in the Journal of Molecular Biology show the ratio of functional to nonfunctional amino acids is extremely small, 1 in 1074 for a protein fold 150 amino acids in length.147 In other words, the functional sequences of amino acids are rare rather than common. Again an intelligent design prediction has, initially at least, been confirmed.



Last edited by Admin on Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN

http://www.discovery.org/f/986

Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):
(1) Intelligent agents think with an “end goal” in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by
taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex
and specified information):
“Agents can arrange matter with distant goals in mind. In their use of language, they routinely ‘find’
highly isolated and improbable functional sequences amid vast spaces of combinatorial possibilities.”2

“[W]e have repeated experience of rational and conscious agents-in particular ourselves-generating or
causing increases in complex specified information, both in the form of sequence-specific lines of code
and in the form of hierarchically arranged systems of parts. … Our experience-based knowledge of
information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes
and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent.”3
(2) Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems:
“Intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of
information, since we have considerable experience of intelligent agents generating informational
configurations of matter.”4
“We know from experience that intelligent agents often conceive of plans prior to the material
instantiation of the systems that conform to the plans—that is, the intelligent design of a blueprint often
precedes the assembly of parts in accord with a blueprint or preconceived design plan.”4
(3) Intelligent agents ‘re-use’ functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g.,
wheels for cars and airplanes):
“An intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in different systems, without there
necessarily being any material or physical connection between those systems. Even more simply,
intelligent causes can generate identical patterns independently.”5
(4) Intelligent agents typically create functional things (although we may sometimes think something is
functionless, not realizing its true function):
“Since non-coding regions do not produce proteins, Darwinian biologists have been dismissing them for
decades as random evolutionary noise or ‘junk DNA.’ From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely
unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much ‘junk.’”6

(1) Biochemistry Natural structures have been found that contain many parts arranged in
intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and
specified information), such as irreducibly complex machines in the cell.
The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. The specified complexity of
protein bonds, or the simplest self-reproducing cell are other examples.8
Yes.
(2) Paleontology Biological novelty appears in the fossil record suddenly and without
similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is the prime example.9

Yes.
(3) Systematics Similar parts have been found in organisms that even Darwinists see as
separated by more closely related forms that do not contain the similar
parts in question. Clear examples include genes controlling eye or limb
growth in different organisms whose alleged common ancestors are not
thought to have had such forms of eyes or limbs.10

Yes.
(4) Genetics Genetic research continues to uncover functions for “junk-DNA,” include
functionality for pseudogenes, introns, LINE, and ALU elements.
Examples of unknown DNA functions persist, but design encourages
researchers to investigate functions, whereas Darwinism has caused some
scientists to wrongly assume that non-coding DNA is junk.11

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

4 Intelligent Design and Predictions on Sun Oct 18, 2015 3:21 pm

Admin


Admin
Intelligent Design and Predictions1


Intelligent Design (ID) theorists often receive accusations and complaints from Darwinists that ID doesn’t make any predictions. Here is one that I received in a debate:

“ID makes no predictions at all, in fact, and for this reason (and others), simply fails to be a scientific theory.”

Of course the only reasonable reaction to such a glaringly false statement is some hearty laughter! … Or perhaps tears of sadness  over such an impoverished and ignorant statement. Yet this single statement is repeated over and over by Darwinists and not one of them can back it up! Willful ignorance and copy/pasting from talk origins and the usual web dens of Darwinian fanatical folly.

“When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, ‘All that was new was false, and what was true was old.’ This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism.” -Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

As for ID predictions, here is a short summary view:

1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):

Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.
Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.
‘Re-use parts’ over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).
Therefore:

2. Some Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):

High prescriptive information content will be found throughout the genome – (already proven)

Machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found – (already proven, and no K. Millers poor rebuttal is no refutation at all)


Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors – (already known)


Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms – (already proven)


The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA” – (being proven over & over today)


Few intermediate forms will found giving a clear and gradual pathway from one family to another – there are none so far  Most of the claimed ancestors will be shown
 to have serious problems – already historically proven


Mechanisms for error detection and correction will be abundant within the genome of all organisms – (already proven)

Mechanisms for *non-random* adaptations, coherent with environmental pressures, will be found


So called vestigial organs will be found to have specific purpose and usefulness – (already proven)


Few mutations will end up being beneficial in the long run – (already proven)


Genetic entropy will be found to cancel our most if any beneficial mutations


Many other predictions could be listed.

Worse than that though is that any genuine biblical creationist model would also have to predict genetic entropy and thus loss of information in most mutations and therefore eventual mutational meltdown (extinction events) in all species! Which is exactly what we’re finding out today!

Dr. John Sanford, author of the Darwinism killing book “Genetic Entropy”, was asked what the Darwinist response to his book was.  His answer was, “complete silence.”  Curiously, while there are now at least 100,000 know mutations that are directly related to diseases, how many data bases do you know of documenting the beneficial ones? My guess is either none or precious few, and if any at all exist they must be pathetically trivial.

Now before the Darwinists start the usual screaming of, “20/20 hindsight!”, most of these predictions were made decades ago and many before the current ID movement! Besides a theory’s predictions are inherent within it and not invented afterwards. Predictions are logical consequence of a theory, if it is correct. Not all of the logical consequences will necessarily be stated officially even though inherent.  That means that any “20/20 hindsight!” complaints have no validity anyway.

Now let’s look at a dictionary definition of the scientific “theory”:

“A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a ‘theory’ in science is called a hypothesis. -http://www.whatislife.com/glossary/t.htm
Now compare the above definition of ‘theory’ to the following quote:

“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” -Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007

Thus, according to the definition and the remarks of a well known evolutionist, Darwinism is so inundated with speculative hypotheses that it doesn’t really even qualify as genuine scientific theory!

Not only so, but Darwinisms predictions have been falsified over and over again. Failure after failure is easily seen on the predictions level of this inane hypothesis, yet the theory still MUST be true. Why? Well because “there is no God” and “no sensible God would have done it that way.”! Religion, that’s why.

Thus, the Darwinists are always crawling back under their rock of materialist metaphysics to seek security from the glaring light of the discoveries of molecular biology, genetics and information sciences, that more and more reveal levels of algorithmic sophistication that simply are not possible without intelligence.

Highly functional networking within any system doesn’t just happen as we know from information systems theory.

The image below shows a map of functional networking in the genome and gives a small idea of the highly specified complexity of the genome:


Functional Network Map

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Some Predictions of Intelligent Design


Critics of intelligent design often argue that the theory cannot be tested, because it makes no predictions. The charge turns on a fundamental misunderstanding of how historical scientific theories are tested. Primarily, such testing is accomplished by comparing the explanatory power of competing hypotheses against already known facts.

Historical scientists usually do not make predictions or deduce outcomes in advance. Instead, historical scientific theories typically explain events after the fact and can be tested by
comparing their explanatory power against that of their competitors.

The theory of intelligent design, like other theories about the causes of past events, is testable, and hasbeen tested, in just this way. That said, the theory of intelligent design also has predictive consequences. Since the design hypothesis makes claims about what caused life to arise, it has implications for what life should look like. Moreover, the explanatory framework that intelligent design provides leads to new research questions, some of which suggest specific predictions that are testable against observations or by laboratory experiments. Some of these predictions can help adjudicate proposals that invoke either intelligent causes or materialistic mechanisms as explanations for various features of life or events in life’s history. Other predictions can help discriminate between competing ideas of how a designing intelligence influenced the history of life—for instance, between design hypotheses that affirm universal common ancestry and those that envision more discrete or discontinuous intelligent activity in the history of life. Indeed, depending upon how scientists envision intelligent design playing a role in the history of life, they may formulate different kinds of design hypotheses, each entailing different though testable predictions.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum