3.1

I've read so much stupidity from FFF that i had to laugh all the time while i was reading...

" that there is a not a scrap of paper of any civilization which claims to be the creator of the Stonehenge"

lol... paper didn't exist at the time and the first "grand" civilazations were thousands of years away in the future.

We know those tools belonged to human beings. we even know there were settlements of primitive humans around it.

are you denying that the stonehenge was done by humans now? because you IGNORE the evidence for that?

btw...if there are lots and lots of hammer marks in a cave and the structural analysis can prove that the only for the structure is hominid intervention, so those caves were built by hominids.

" Why is intelligent design an absolute necessity for the origin of Stonehenge? "

I have a very interesting question:

If you create things that originate from mindless trial and error...is that sign of intelligence? i mean: of thoughtfull and carefull intellegent planning?

what if a rock carved by a primitive human had the sole purpose of looking "pretty"?

or what if the rock was just the playground for "hit-the-stone" game?

You are also forgetting one simple thing: WE PERCEIVE the designers of stonehenge.

" that there is a directed process which can account for the origin of Stonehenge"

what process is that?

" If Daniel disagrees with my above process to come to the conclusion that Stonehenge demands intelligence, I ask him to describe the process entailed. "

I also disagree. I dare you to prove me wrong: Stonehenge was built by a race of 8 limbed green aliens. they done a replica of their stonehenge on earth, using primitive tools.

How's that?

" What then, precisely, is the problem with using the same method to conclude that intelligence is necessary for the origin of life? I can find none whatsoever."

that's because you are...........b

The stonehege can't grow, can't replicate, can't die. this three things DEFINE life. Hence your analogy is utter bullshit.

Life is UNIQUE. unless you can't find me a system that can grow, replicate and die, ALL of your comparisons to inanimated object WILL always fail. ALL people of science will point the mistake for you, but somehow you creationists keep being ignorant and simply do not get the falacy that you present...

tell me: can the stonehenge grow? replicate? die?no, no and no. hence it's not like life.

has man been able to create life by artificial methods?

" that there is no known undirected process which can account for the origin of protein primary structure"

yes there is and its called: CHEMICAL BONDS! that comply to the laws of physics, defined by the elements that exist in that protein!

stop being an ignorant and intelectually dishonest person!

" there is a directed and intelligent process which can account for the origin of protein primary structures"

LIKE WHAT? tell me! do you think a cell needs a lab to make protein structures?

" that this process can be experimentally verified and tested by replicating the engineering of protein primary structures."

no, that just tells you that you can replicate the formation of proteins. But you are NOT using the same methods that exist in a cell.

" Therefore, we conclude" that FFF keeps being full of bullshit.

tell me... where is the intelligence in Insulin formation?

Mainstream Science vs. Clark

"Intelligent design is entirely natural – as equally natural as humanity or other species of organisms."

no, it is not. It is an act. it's not "someone".

ID is utter bullshit because it implies a supernatural agency. therefore: fantasy assumption of an agent.

Archeology: is the study of past human societies, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data which they have left behind

archeology is not assuming a supernatural intelligent act, it assumes HUMANS as the causative agent.

" an utter lack of knowledge on how they could be produced through un-intelligent processe"

But this is just utter complete bullshit! this is a clear lord og the gaps logical falacy! this idiot, FFF, keeps assuming "god" just because he claims there is no evidence! LOL

lack of knowledge?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=mcb&part=A517

ffs! educate yourself! you ignorant person!

" I am entirely utilizing the methods used by archeology and the forensic sciences to detect intelligent design in biological features."

No, you are utilizing the methods of a delusional mind of yours!

" archeology and the forensic sciences "

the first assumes ONLY the causative agent being human

the second assumes NO intelligence at the start. You need evidence for that. If you see a man drown in a pool with no signs of strugle, did he jump? suicide? heart attack?

ALL natural explanations that don't involve a causative external agent.

" “How is it that such methods of detecting design may be used in archeology and in the forensic sciences but that exact same method cannot be used to detect design in the biological world?”"

It's very simple. you can use them.

let's see... archeology assumes HUMANS as the causative agent. Were there humans a billion years ago? no. hence no humans that created life.

forensic sciences: life grows, replicates and dies with no need of some supernatural cause. Life can even evolve by random mutations and natural selection with ZERO supernatural intervention, with just NATURAL intervention.

uhm... so why would life need an ID agent in order to change and be what it is now? it doesn't and all evidence shows us: NO ID!

origin: we can assume there was an ID agent. but, again, where is the evidence for that?

Heresy In Science

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/263008/heresy

do you read in ANY part of that page the word science?

do you realize that science is not a doctrine? doesn't promote doctrines or dogmas?

" 1906 Scientific American ran an article debunking the Wright brother’s airplane and posing them as frauds?"

more intelecual dishonesty...

i just find it incredible that creationists like FFF still use examples from the past that are actually mistakes that we learned from and many times you solved a long time to.

the article from SA was done with ZERO scrutiny. They sent no one to verify the "airplane" claims! not one person! it was in a time that journalists did not have to account for what they were saying in the press. ffs... stories of monsters were told as if real during that time!

Btw...SA eventually gave credit to the brothers. But that was because evidence was presented!

" because they claimed it was too remote from reality – and that they only published it after Fermi’s work had been widely accepted in scientific circles?"

and this has a reason! because papers need PEER-REVIEW! for each of Fermi- like papers there were other HUNDREDS of scientific papers that were PURE bullshit! really really far from reality!

again FFF presents people with an intelectual dishonesty show!

another old old example that tells nothing from what happens today!

If we were not to put papers under peer-review scrutiny more DISASTERS like Wakefield/vaccines or Linus Pauling/vit-c would exist!

" nor do i think it is an adequate argument against my articulations. "

oh, but i do. Since the time of the examples that you provided the existence of a scientific community is what stops THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of utter bullshit from ever reaching the lay minds as if true.

The scientific method HAS a reason for its existence.

Answering Questions

" It would be interesting to hear a response to this from an anthropologist"

- there are no ancient machines buil by humans other like civs capable of doing any kind of biochemical lab work like we do now.

"Again, one must simply look to Stonehenge"

built after humans existed. as evidence tells.

there is nothing capable of originating life, before life's existence. except the natural world itself.

" Because of the process I described above. This is the same process intelligent design proponents use to detect design."

so therefore you are wrong: there are no ancient labs capable of "playing" with Ribossomes.

Plus: ribossomes structures evolved. unintelligently.

" assure you that around my house one will not find a single tool that would indicate it was constructed through intelligence"

it's called: human hands. look at them.

" would they conclude it was intelligently designed or that it sprouted through chance processes?"

you do know that we can tell the age of timber, right? that an archeologist can see that the shelter was PRECISELY built an year ago, it will also be able to tell the season of its construction.

" This is what the anthropologists would undoubtedly conclude as there would be not a tool to be seen, or any ‘trace’ of intelligence whatsoever. "

even though the size of the shake, the weight, and one or two biometric traces would exist around... etc etc...

I keep pointing it out to you, but you don't get it:

stuff that can't grow, can't replicate and can't die ARE very bad examples to compare vs life...

Chance and ID are not in the same ground. We have evidence for no ID, here lies your problem.

So stop talking so much hypothetical bullshit and present what daniel has asked you to present: EVIDENCE!

" Since I still cannot grasp the point of this question"

WHY so much diversity? what is the point in a virus having RNA instead of DNA? why would a designer or designer make such a thing!?!?!?!?

why 2 arms? why not 4 arms?

Why is that child born with 12 fingers?

etc etc etc....

On Probability

" there is a goal in life. That goal is survival. "

no. there are TWO goals, CLEAR in ALL life forms that exist:

Reproduction and survival. to die in the end.

" It is therefore quite patent that there is a goal even in protein primary structures."

No. There is a goal in survival and reproduction. protein structures don't exist according to our intent. We have to "eat" the materials and then "work" on them. or use them directly from the environment, according to how much there are of it.

By this i can conlude that protein structures don't exist according to "need".

" I see no problem at all with using the formula W=m^N to calculate the probability of said case "

I do. Because there are epigenetic factors that can create stable sequences and then only the others reshuffle. because there is a GENETIC code that influences such sequences of proteins. because there are MULTIPLE sequences of genes with the exact same result and multiple protein structures with the same or similar result.

The probability isn't defined by your stupid formula. There are rules to the biology we see. with its exceptions.

" however, protein primary structures separating exceedingly long, functional protein primary structures, there is a general lack of functionality. "

complete stupid argument. baseless with no evidence at all.

" that proteins find themselves in cells"

not all of them. in multicellular organisms zillions of proteins spend their time outside cells.

" Consequently, I could care less about the environment the protein is in. Whether the cell finds itself in a boiling hot-spring or a freezing wasteland of the North, it is completely irrelevant. "

and this is why i know you are a dumb person...

YOU IDIOT! (sorry clark)

a cell HAS different expression of proteins ACCORDING TO external stimuli!!!!

A cell living in different environemts WILL have different proteins and DIFFERENT biochemical reactios!

ALL of it the result of evolution! you dumbass!

Semantics

i'll just ask to the dumbass FFF:

tell me...if you weight the functionality of an Heme group vs another protein, that has a primary structure , in a human being, what would you say is more "important"?

I'll talk about the rest later. i am tired of reading so much stupidity written from a human eing.

2nd reply

The ET Hypothesis

I think i grasp what you mean by your ID definition. But that is the same of believing in god has the "rational agent" behind life.

Plus evolution is clearly an event where random events occur and originate NOVEL information.

This means that after abiogenesis no "rational agent" had any possible actions. Unless you mean there were interventions in during evolution.

no evidence for that also.

btw... you do have the bias of being a believer. how do you cope with your religion and your claims of evolution not being a "god act"?

Design As An Explanation

"certain features of the universe and biosphere are better explained by the actions of a rational agent than purely undirected processes."

like what?

" it is implausible that certain protein primary structures can arise through Darwinian mechanisms"

so? your personal incredulity doesn't mean you ASSUME a more unlikely cause like supernatural intervention.

Also doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen if some proteins were really "tweaked" by external ET intelligence.

"it is implausible that certain protein primary structures can arise through Darwinian mechanisms"

no, it is perfectly possible that you are ignorant.

" directed enzyme evolution techniques, i.e. intelligent design, can engineer these proteins"

how?

" I therefore conclude" based upon assumtions...

1) it has an explanation for any "x" you choose to pick

2) i am yet to see a mechanism of ID being presented here.

3) therefore you are not presenting a conclusion but an exercise of imaginary thinking.

" Ribosomal engineering techniques"

there are changes inside the ribosomes due to polimorphisms and random mutations. meaning: even if were engineered a BILLION years of evolution changed a lot of those "ET machines".

" How could "longer and more complex proteins ?"

it's called: MOLECULAR BONDS. read about it. pick a chemistry book, for example: Atkins.

" What is the origin of the complex metabolic pathways involving glycolysis?"

Molecular biology of the cell, 4th edition. glycolysis evolution: purely natural and more than one possibility. all natural.

" Why do some viruses use RNA, some use single strand DNA, and some use double strand DNA for their heritable material? "

evolution. virus might have arisen after life started. the type of DNA or RNA plus membranes probably determined the different virus types.

Lastly...virus are debatable in terms of them being considered "life" or not.

"Why is this protein or this system or this anatomical part used instead of this other one?"

You are born with a genotype, a phenotype grows and its selected. there's no reason but pure physical interactions.

A Case Of Bad Probabilities?

"there is indeed virtually no chance of protein primary structures evolving through Darwinian mechanisms"

bullshit

" Since there is a goal, it is extremely improbable for certain protein primary structures to evolve through Darwinian mechanisms."

bullshit, the darwinian mechanisms might be precisely the WAY for such logic of yours to exist.

plus your "ultimate evolution" is purely assumptious.

lastly: you live inside personal incredulity. those proteins are even being replicated in lab experiments.

" royal flush being obtained? Next to nil"

not nill. and in trillions upon trillions of molecules and a BILLION years, that change gets close to 1. therefore we exist.

Amino Acids And The Genetic Code

" certain features of the biosphere are more adequately explained by the intelligent design proposition."

like what?

" I believe this is precisely the case regarding amino acids and the genetic code. "

we see aminoacids in space, we see nucleotides in space. we see membranes being formed naturally. All the building blocks are there. billion years and molecular interactions result in the physical possibility: LIFE.

you failed to present any other option except an imaginary mechanism where someone "built" life. A thing that wouldn't even result in rejecting evolution theory.

" Darwinian synthesis offers no explanation for the origin of this peculiar feature"

it's called physics. The structures were there with a certain properties and by random chance or some sort of physical more likely possibility, not yet known well, that originated like that.

or you can believe in grey man dressed in pink dresses designing a versace model of a cell...whatever you feel more likely...LOL

your external agent creating life isn't a possible hypothesis that would devoid Evolution theory of any value. for the 20th time: how life started is independent of evolution being a fact.

The Case Of Nylonase

" I fail to realize how this applies directly to this conversation on protein evolution."

it means that random mutations and natural selection ARE what causes life diversity. not a supernatural agent.

Answering Critiques Of My Previous Post

" The potential to evolve the functionality of synthesizing nylon was already present, as it did not require natural selection to ‘browse’ through an endless array of non-beneficial protein primary structures."

wrong by your part. the "potentiaL"? no. there was a RANDOM mutation that introduced A NOVEL trait in one population. ALL the others that didn't evolve such trait kept being of smaller number, the individuals with no use for nylonase eventually got extinct because the nylonase ones spread all over the "environemnt" they were living.

ffs... you didn't even read the papers...

"200,000 years ago homo sapiens appeared on earth. "

best estimates: between 300000 to 150000 years.

or it could have been 178923 years ago. who knows for sure?

" I hold that homo sapiens was the last act of design the intelligent designer did. Why do I hold to such a proposition?"

it's called: brain damaged inside your skull...

" linear curve imposed upon phylogeny"

no, there isn't.

" definite progression of more unintelligent animals to a more intelligent class of animal."

that's because there is the possibility for that. doesn't mean there wss a supernatural agent.

" Humans are the most intelligent"

lol...why?

I would say it is ants. they are great in number and they keep being more adaptable and more prolific than the entire human specie.

just a tought.

" first products that evolution is supposed to have produced are the least intelligent."

no, the more simple, more like it.

" the most intelligent of all organisms, mankind, would be the last species engineered by the intelligent designer. "

that's pure bullshit. I would say ducks were the last ones! lol...

" it’s possible the intelligent designer is still designing things on earth"

the area 51 hypothesis!

" find plasmids containing insert DNA of zebras for example in the genome of wasps"

maybe a bacteria is infecting both species. or a lab artifact. but hey! supernatural unexistent entities are far more cooler to imagine! lol

" Prions for example, are suspected to not need a way to store heritable traits."

because prions are not even considered life...

" I believe that intelligent design"

you said it all: you only believe.

Response nr1

Where shall i start...

The ET Hypothesis

1- there might be digital, semantic, etc codes. But the GENETIC code is unique in its dimensional properties. The genetic code is neither semantic, digital, or whatever. It is a group of molecules that when organized in X or Y manner can translate into other proteins. end of.

2- read what you post... "ET"? seriously...between you writing elfs or extraterrestrial life the validatity of the claim remains exactly the same... methaphysical claim, hence it is the product of purely magic thinking.

3- the "truth" is when you present evidence for an "ET", until then saying gods, et or whatever baseless unproven "entity" means the same: fantasy claim.

4- i see no evidence of intelligent designed proteins, except in a lab by modern science. Neverthless random chance would still act upon any kind of future "designed" dna. Random interactions with your "design" would screw any kind of prediction that you would try to make for the rest of your generations.

Tools Of The Intelligent Designer

The genetic code has exceptions, there are different nucleotides and ultrastructures possible for a DNA or RNA molecule all around us and there is a growing science of epigenetics proving to us that what surrounds the DNA is as much important as the DNA itself.

The fact that we KNOW that these structures can change and that there are different nucelotides that can RANDOMLY enter the code screws any kind of "design", or intelligent design.

saying that the genetic code is evidence for an ID is as saying that hydrogen is example of design... lol

"darwinian evolution" only appears after the FIRST form appears, so i don't even know where is this "darwinian" model being refuted... if you failed to mention what are the tools for that "directed evolution"...you just mentioned a model of "intelligent design" of a first form.

The Case Of Nylonase

The irrationality of your thinking process is astonishing....

How can a trait that DIDN'T exist before, suddently is claimed by you as "it was there all along". No it wasn't.

The trait DID NOT exist prior to the RANDOM unintelligent mutation that suddently introduced a NEW trait in the bacteria.

Example:

OUSE

doesn't tell you anything...

but if you put an M, you get MOUSE

but if you put an H, you get HOUSE

a "simple" point mutation does create NEW "meanings" to what WASN'T there before.

a "merely" one mutation, random and unintelligent destroy all of your ID arguements.

Because WE ARE looking into a NOVEL function. ffs... the ability WASN'T there before.

if ID was over more than 2000000 years ago... (let's say the truth: more than a billion years ago) since then we have Evolution.

The Known, The Unknown, And The Known Again

Yes you are presenting arguements from ignorance and yes you are not presenting a mechanism.

The origin of the "first" protein structures is explained by Abiogenesis, not evolution. Since abiogenesis, yes, ALL protein NEW structures are the result of a "darwinian" model.

The Nylon eating bacteria IS an example of "highly integrated protein structures and functions" (whatever that means...)

If the ID "camp" think they can present a model based on the scientific method, i am more than curious to read the method they want to use in order to take a picture of those ETs working in a lab billions of years ago...

"All observations in the physical world demonstrates that complex biocatalytic functions are only a derivative of intelligence rather than undirected processes."

uhm.... let me see if i can pinpoint the logical falacies:

1- "all observations demonstrates"...name me 10 published demonstrations of such? none? thought so

2- "complex biocatalytic" - care to define a list of those "complex" functions? you know...the word "complex" is merely subjective.

3- "only a derivative of intelligence"- chemical reactions don't need an intelligence to make them occur, just the molecules interacting with each other.

4- "undirected process"- quick question: is the event: "raining" directed?

I am yet to see any kind of "directed evolution". You speak as if in the middle of 1000 individuals in a g0 all of them would repoduce with success the g1 individuals....

Let's be serious... you cannot explain any kind of "ID directed" with you model. But we do SEE a natural world acting unintelligently upon life.

Now going for the numbers:

1- there is no goal. If there was, RANDOM mutations are here to screw any kind of "intended" offspring.

2- It is a known fact that even in the middle of a closed controled system in breeding farms, a "black sheep" might always appear. Why? because even though you do try to control ALL variables. You can't control what happens at a close to atomic interaction level, where an extra nanometer to the side, will make one of the nucleotides slide and not pair.

Occam's razor can apply to all things, some say. One important rule in any kind of claim inside a scientific method is that all prepositions must have an empirical validity, meaning: they must be real. "rational design" is merely an invalidated magic thinking idea... hence, not real.

Plus the mere fact that it can't explain anything at all. For example: Why do we see those "black sheeps"?

"There IS a mechanism for the design of proteins and ezymes, and one that is entirely testable, repeatable, and observable."

Where?

All i read is a magic idea of yours on how a "first" protein might have arisen...not how it evolved in what we see today.

I think that concept of a designer is the same of a creator or a god. You can even replace the word "designer" with santa claus or "aliens" (can it be the Vulcans? :P).....

So, as one can see, we are left with nothing at all... i end up not having a clue how the heck a "directed evolution from some rational designer" could have caused a single nucleotide to change into another.... While "darwinism" states: Random mutations introduces variety. Hence that random mutation explains how a new protein that WASN'T there before suddently appears.

Amino Acids

(1) how so? care to tell me where in all of your biochemistry training did you lack an answer from a darwinian model?

(2) ID tells you nothing plausible. That's why LM keeps not telling all of us what mechanism are those.

(3) hence its all a bunch of lies. ID can't tell me why there are "black sheeps". while random mutations as explained in the evolutionary model, can.

I am starting to wonder why do you need people to ask you to explain your "ID mechanisms"....

"to demonstrate one type of chemical reaction which spontaneously produces only one entantiomer"

are you serious? you do know what is Enantio Convergent synthesis, right?

The thing about homochirality and life is that in the "start" both chiralities existed and one competed against the other, by mere chance one won over the other. again: ungodly, unintelligent mere chance. Personaly i doubt it in this case. I would argue that that first "pond scum" had more of one chirality than the other, which provided an advantage for one side.

The Genetic Code

ID can't explain me the origin of the genetic code. Saying that "ET did it" is as valid as saying "god did it"... nevertheless both are useless to explain me the emergence of the genetic code. Abiogenesis explains the origin of the genetic code, not "Darwinism".

DNA is, if you look at it, by microscope or any other method were you can make a 3d representation of its structure, first: a molecular structure. It's not a written ACTG in a black piece of paper. It is a real form of matter, a molecule.

It is as much a language as a crytal structure made out of NaCl...

- I'll also present a claim that you will not be able to present a reasonable counter argumentation ( i hope you do, i always like to make fun of people that try to apply Zipf law to biology): DNA is not a "language".

Why? because when you mix iron with molecular oxygen the result is not the result of some sort of "language". It is matter interacting with matter.

Matter defines its laws of interactions, this process is unintelligent and natural. There is no language at all within a strand of DNA. It is a molecular structure that can interact with its environment, react and a produce a new molecular structure by chain reactions.

"switch gates and logic nodes which are found in the central dogma of molecular biology" - what page of the Moleculat Biology of the Cell, 4th edition such concepts arise?

Protein Primary Structure And Utility

"That EPSP synthase had a different function before is largely irrelevant to the discussion; the function is not what matters"

interesting... are you saying that if a function is deleterious, it will have the same fitness of a beneficial or neutral function? you must read some biology books... your crazy ideas are making you forget what really matters.

There is no functional use in not having proteins that would allow us to use energy from the sun, like plants have. Our ancestors evolved in a different manner. Because what decides if there is a benefial or not functionality is the environment. What really matters is the simple fact that if an useless function does not provide a benefit but also no deleterious effect, it has a likely chance to remain.

Humans don't have hands to drive cars, play music or write, but our hands can do all of those things. None of those activites were usefull in the past, nevertheless our hands did evolve in what they are now in order to have an adaptative usefullness in certain activites like hunting, gathering,...

My point is: neutral functions remain, if they aren't removed from the gene pool.

your opponent hasn't the need to present anything at all. Your "number of aminoacids" hypothesis is a joke, i'll assume.

Proteins And Probability

(1) lol... no it would not colapse. in fact they are strong because of it.

"Darwinians claim that the probability of endogenous retroviruses inserting themselves randomly into a host’s genome yet displaying a beautiful evolutionary tree is next to nil."

care to name me one "darwinian" saying that?

Ofc you don't understand the points your opponent is trying to make... you clearly have not a clue to the FACT that neutral structures do remain in the gene pool.

Abel and the others are mere hypothetical fools. Their work has not one single empirical validation, not mentioning the sheer denial in recognizing that neutral genetic codes remain in the gene pool.

In Brief

ID is exactly the same as saying there is a god, elfs or ETs. both three can be considered "intelligent agents".

In all of your magic thinking i failed to see how any diversification of the species can "fit" an ID model.

In all of your magic thinking i read an individual that can't tell the difference between evolution and abiogenesis; that clearly has no idea about what is chemical evolution; that clearly has a lot and i mean a LOT of misconcenptions, misunderstandings and a a LOT of ignorance about biology. Specially molecular biology.

In the beggining there was matter