The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

Started by lord xyz51 pages

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
common sense, let's say they could get a new trait via mutations if all the bacteria die how can they get a new trait if they're dead?
ermm,
1. All the bacteria doesn't die
2. They aren't 'already immune' which you posted before. Bacteria doesn't die instantly, it suffers. If there is a great deal, they'll die, if not, the cell shall defend itself by past knowledge of 'fighting' threats into it, and these 'fighters' shall change due to the thing they're 'fighting'. Then it shall learn from this and be better at future attacks.
We act the same way when infected by a virus. The anti-bodies fight off the bacteria, and if the disease is new, the anti-body...

Well, if you've had true education past 7th grade, you probably already know this. It's a bit hard for me to explain, though.

Originally posted by lord xyz
ermm,
1. All the bacteria doesn't die

I just said that.

Originally posted by lord xyz
ermm,

2. . If there is a great deal, they'll die, if not, the cell shall defend itself by past knowledge of 'fighting' threats into it, and these 'fighters' shall change due to the thing they're 'fighting'. Then it shall learn from this and be better at future attacks.
We act the same way when infected by a virus. The anti-bodies fight off the bacteria, and if the disease is new, the anti-body...

Well, if you've had true education past 7th grade, you probably already know this. It's a bit hard for me to explain, though.

Since your only 14 I won't rag on you much, but that made no sense Is "fighting knowledge" supposed to mean resistence, because bacteria doesn't have any memory or know martial arts either, doesn't matter anyway aquired traits can't be passed down.also you did not mention what makes it change "Fighting knowledge"? 😆

EDIT: when a pathogen enters your body it takes time for white blood cells to kill it, once the invasion is over anti body's remember the pathogen. how is that the same as mrsa?

There is no pathogens involve in antibiotics they just use killer molecules that kill bacteria, the bacteria can't fight back how... oh forget it.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Then why do you act like you do XYZ?

Again there is no proof that enough micro changes can result in speciation , I don't believe it because there is no proof. But it is a fact that natural selection along with genetic drift , and genetic variation can result in speciation. The new species has less traits or some other factor that creates a species barrier. I explained it best when I responded to jaden's "herring claim"

And arachnoid freak your no expert, you said all species have the same traits then why does genetic homeostasis disprove this?

I did not say they had the same traits, they have the potential for the same traits. Enviroment is a huge factor in natural selection, adaption would change any species. Also, Animal cells are in obviously every animal, they create everything, it's not impossible that they create something similar to a different species given the necessary conditions.

Evolution only takes place at the point of reproduction and only on a very small scale. Time is what makes differences we notice around us.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Also, Animal cells are in obviously every animal, they create everything, it's not impossible that they create something similar to a different species given the necessary conditions.

But again there is no proof that it.

I posted them 3 times

im not talking about the opinion that something is complex therefor it must have been designed

im talking about documented proof of a single species that has been designed

you say there is no species that has been proven to have evolved from another...fair enough...you're entitled to that statement despite evidence to the contrary which has been posted a hell of a lot more than 3 times

but you have failed utterly to even back up your opinion of ID with any links to studies backing the theory

and i think we both know why

oh...and you sure do miss alot when you nip out to the pub for a few jars of the good stuff

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I just said that.

Since your only 14 I won't rag on you much, but that made no sense Is "fighting knowledge" supposed to mean resistence, because bacteria doesn't have any memory or know martial arts either, doesn't matter anyway aquired traits can't be passed down.also you did not mention what makes it change "Fighting knowledge"? 😆

EDIT: when a pathogen enters your body it takes time for white blood cells to kill it, once the invasion is over anti body's remember the pathogen. how is that the same as mrsa?

There is no pathogens involve in antibiotics they just use killer molecules that kill bacteria, the bacteria can't fight back how... oh forget it.

hence the inverted commas.
Originally posted by jaden101
im not talking about the opinion that something is complex therefor it must have been designed

im talking about documented proof of a single species that has been designed

you say there is no species that has been proven to have evolved from another...fair enough...you're entitled to that statement despite evidence to the contrary which has been posted a hell of a lot more than 3 times

but you have failed utterly to even back up your opinion of ID with any links to studies backing the theory

and i think we both know why

oh...and you sure do miss alot when you nip out to the pub for a few jars of the good stuff

there are no evidience for ID. They made it up.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
But again there is no proof that it.

Sure there is. Take an animal and put him in a constatly changing enviroment. You know, like planet Earth has been since it's beginning.

STILL no proof of ID?

since shit like this is scientific, would anyone like to start a thread about the "sciences" of phrenology, physiognomy, and racial hygene?

Wow. Like five pages of Blue Nocturne and XYZ power spamming each other and the random post by AF, Omega, and Jello here rendering logical thought.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Wow. Like five pages of Blue Nocturne and XYZ power spamming each other and the random post by AF, Omega, and Jello here rendering logical thought.

thanks very much for completely ignoring me...i'll remember that come your birthday 😛

Originally posted by jaden101
thanks very much for completely ignoring me...i'll remember that come your birthday 😛

And he didn't say anything about my smart-ass remarks. 😛

Originally posted by jaden101
thanks very much for completely ignoring me...i'll remember that come your birthday 😛

Hey, you didn't have a sig image. You got passed up in Skim Post Mode... lol

Same with you, Shak.

Originally posted by jaden101

you say there is no species that has been proven to have evolved from another...fair enough...you're entitled to that statement despite evidence to the contrary which has been posted a hell of a lot more than 3 times

It's funny when you say evidence to the contrary, most of your evidence of macro evolution are just examples of micro evolution, your logic is "Since micro evolution is true then so is macro evolution" Despite you haven't given a shred of evidence that mutations create new traits.

Originally posted by jaden101
im not talking about the opinion that something is complex therefor it must have been designed

Proof of common design:

"The golden ratio, otherwise known as the Divine Proportion or Phi, is a mathematical ratio with special properties and aesthetic significance. An enormous number of things in the universe are engineered around the ratio, ranging from the human body to snail shells to the orbits of the planets. Some argue that the prevalence of the Golden Ratio is positive evidence of a common design plan uniting a wide variety of phenomena.

The ratio itself
Phi is derived by dividing a line segment into two parts in such a way that the ratio of the smaller segment to the larger segment is the same as the ratio of the large segment to the whole.

The number is irrational, meaning it never ends or repeats in a decimal system. To the first ten decimals, it is 1.6180339887 ...

A golden rectangle is one in which the ratio of length to height is 1 phi.

The divine ratio also makes an appearance in the Fibonacci sequence. the fibonacci sequence is derived by starting with 0 and 1, and then calculating the next number in the sequence by adding the last two togther. Thus the sequence is 0, 1, 1 (0+1), 2(1+1), 3(1+2), 5(2+3), 8(3+5) and so on. The ratio of a number to the previous number in the sequence approximates the golden ratio, and comes to approximate it more closely as the values increase. Thus:

8/5 = 1.6

144/89 = 1.6179775280

10946/6765 = 1.6180339985

Instances of the ratio
Because Phi is irrational, it is impossible for anything to measure at "precisely" the golden ratio. However, a large number of things approximate the golden ratio to a startling degree.

Aesthetics
The divine ratio and golden rectangles appear throughout ancient architecture and art. It was believed to be the most aesthetically pleasing and harmonious means of design. Statistical analysis seems to indicate that "people involuntarily give preference to proportions that approximate to the Golden Section." The Oxford Companion to Art, Ed. Harold Osbome, First Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978, p.489.

Egyptian pyramids were designed with reference to the golden ratio. Slant height / distance from center to perimeter = Phi;
Greek Parthenon designed and constructed out of golden rectangles;
Modern credit cards are golden rectangles;
The painting, The Last Supper, is based on the golden ratio;
The Notre Dame cathedral in Paris is based on the golden ratio;

Humans
The human head forms a golden rectangle;.
The mouth and nose are each placed at golden sections of the distance between the eyes and the bottom of the chin.
Whole body height / head to fingertips = Phi;
Top of head to fingertips / head to navel and elbows = Phi;
Top of head to navel and elbows / head to pectorals and inside top of arms = Phi;
Top of head to navel and elbows / width of shoulders = Phi;
Top of head to navel and elbows / length of forearm = Phi;
Top of head to navel and elbows / length of shinbone = Phi;
Top of head to pectorals / top of head to base of skull = Phi;
Top of head to pectorals / width of abdomen = Phi;
Length of Forearm / length of hand = Phi;
DNA
Each cycle of the DNA molecule measures 34 angstoms long by 21 angstroms wide. 34 and 21 are fibonacci numbers, as noted above. 34/21 is 1.619, approximating phi.
Other life
The bodies of dolphins are defined by the golden ratio
The bodies of ants are defined by the golden ratio
Snail shells and many seashells are golden spirals, that is, a spiral formed by making successively smaller golden rectangles.
In plants, petals, leaves, sections, and seeds, pinecones, pineapples and sunflowers all exhibit fibonacci numbers;
Fruit seeds form in golden spirals.
Astronomy
Golden ratio in the planets: The orbital periods, mean distances, and orbital velocities of the planets in the solar system are all related by phi to a statistical significance of over 99%.[1]
The rings of Saturn form two golden sections, divided by the Cassini division.[2]
Implications

Order from chaos

Order from chaos demonstrates in mathematical terms that a system can only become more ordered when the system is acted on by energy more ordered than the system itself; further, that a system decreases in order when it is acted on by energy less ordered than the system itself;

From this it is inferred that "mutation and natural selection" are inherently incapable of increasing information and order in a system, because random mutations are less ordered than the genome itself, and therefore capable only of decreasing the order in the genome. Natural selection is merely a "quality control" mechanism whereby the worst mutations and those characteristics not suited to a particular environment are weeded out. However, neither mutation nor natural selection are capable of accounting for an increase in genetic order and information.

Entropy, disorder, and randomness
When entropy is examined statistically it can be considered a measure of randomness. Now the more random a system is the more disordered it is. The formula for statistical entropy is:

S is entropy.

k is the Boltzmann Constant =

is the number of equivalent equally probable configurations. This is a direct measurement of disorder.

Random or disordered systems have such a significantly higher number of equivalent equally probable configurations, that they can basically be considered inevitable. Now entropy is not quite the same as disorder, but entropy is logarithmically related to disorder. Entropy can be considered a measurement of disorder in the way that the Richter Scale is a measurement of earthquakes or decibels are a measurement of sound. The result is that it is accurate to call entropy a measure of disorder. This means a reduction in entropy does result from an increase in organized complexity.

While the following concept is related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it extends beyond the basic concept of the second law. It comes from a statistical analysis of how energy is applied to a system affects entropy. The fact that how energy is applied is critical to an increase or decrease in entropy is evident from the difference between construction work and a bomb.

Consider a pile of wood. If a group of people work to organize the pile of wood, a building can be built that has less entropy than the pile of would. If however a bomb of equal energy is applied to the pile of wood, the result is that the pile is scattered with more entropy than the pile of wood.

Now any time energy is applied to to a system there is some degree of randomness to how it is applied. The result is that randomness of the system is moved towards that of applied energy.

= The number of equivalent equally probable states of the system.

= The number of equivalent equally probable states of the application of energy.

Now the statistical formula for entropy is:

This results in:

and

The result is that:

or

(1)

Where:

= Entropy of system.

= Entropy of energy application.

= Maximum change in entropy.

The result is that if energy is applied to a system in a manner more random than the system, then it becomes more random. If the same amount of energy is applied to a system in a manner less random than the system, then it becomes less random. This explains why organized work can build buildings, but a bomb will bring it down. The more organized application of energy would be an organizing force.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolutionists claim that natural selection communicates information from the environment to populations of organisms In fact natural selection communicates nothing. All it is, is a quality control mechanism. Natural selection can only select from what already exists. In and of itself, Natural selection causes no changes in DNA. The real source of genetic change for evolution is random changes in DNA called mutations.

Now DNA is very organized, while mutations are very random. This results in the following:

then

Plugging this in to formula 1:

This results in:

This means that random mutations can only increase the entropy of DNA. Furthermore since:

then

This means that mutations will increase the randomness of DNA. As a result the best that natural selection can do is to remove the most randomized DNA. So natural selection cannot communicate anything, therefore the general theory of evolution has no oganizing force and no program. The result is that since the general theory of evolution needs to decrease the entropy of DNA and lacks an oganizing force it would seem to contradict the laws of Thermodynamics.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
It's funny when you say evidence to the contrary, most of your evidence of macro evolution are just examples of micro evolution, your logic is "Since micro evolution is true then so is macro evolution" Despite you haven't given a shred of evidence that mutations create new traits.

Proof of common design:

"The golden ratio, otherwise known as the Divine Proportion or Phi, is a mathematical ratio with special properties and aesthetic significance. An enormous number of things in the universe are engineered around the ratio, ranging from the human body to snail shells to the orbits of the planets. Some argue that the prevalence of the Golden Ratio is positive evidence of a common design plan uniting a wide variety of phenomena.

The ratio itself
Phi is derived by dividing a line segment into two parts in such a way that the ratio of the smaller segment to the larger segment is the same as the ratio of the large segment to the whole.

The number is irrational, meaning it never ends or repeats in a decimal system. To the first ten decimals, it is 1.6180339887 ...

A golden rectangle is one in which the ratio of length to height is 1 phi.

The divine ratio also makes an appearance in the Fibonacci sequence. the fibonacci sequence is derived by starting with 0 and 1, and then calculating the next number in the sequence by adding the last two togther. Thus the sequence is 0, 1, 1 (0+1), 2(1+1), 3(1+2), 5(2+3), 8(3+5) and so on. The ratio of a number to the previous number in the sequence approximates the golden ratio, and comes to approximate it more closely as the values increase. Thus:

8/5 = 1.6

144/89 = 1.6179775280

10946/6765 = 1.6180339985

Instances of the ratio
Because Phi is irrational, it is impossible for anything to measure at "precisely" the golden ratio. However, a large number of things approximate the golden ratio to a startling degree.

Aesthetics
The divine ratio and golden rectangles appear throughout ancient architecture and art. It was believed to be the most aesthetically pleasing and harmonious means of design. Statistical analysis seems to indicate that "people involuntarily give preference to proportions that approximate to the Golden Section." The Oxford Companion to Art, Ed. Harold Osbome, First Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978, p.489.

Egyptian pyramids were designed with reference to the golden ratio. Slant height / distance from center to perimeter = Phi;
Greek Parthenon designed and constructed out of golden rectangles;
Modern credit cards are golden rectangles;
The painting, The Last Supper, is based on the golden ratio;
The Notre Dame cathedral in Paris is based on the golden ratio;

Humans
The human head forms a golden rectangle;.
The mouth and nose are each placed at golden sections of the distance between the eyes and the bottom of the chin.
Whole body height / head to fingertips = Phi;
Top of head to fingertips / head to navel and elbows = Phi;
Top of head to navel and elbows / head to pectorals and inside top of arms = Phi;
Top of head to navel and elbows / width of shoulders = Phi;
Top of head to navel and elbows / length of forearm = Phi;
Top of head to navel and elbows / length of shinbone = Phi;
Top of head to pectorals / top of head to base of skull = Phi;
Top of head to pectorals / width of abdomen = Phi;
Length of Forearm / length of hand = Phi;
DNA
Each cycle of the DNA molecule measures 34 angstoms long by 21 angstroms wide. 34 and 21 are fibonacci numbers, as noted above. 34/21 is 1.619, approximating phi.
Other life
The bodies of dolphins are defined by the golden ratio
The bodies of ants are defined by the golden ratio
Snail shells and many seashells are golden spirals, that is, a spiral formed by making successively smaller golden rectangles.
In plants, petals, leaves, sections, and seeds, pinecones, pineapples and sunflowers all exhibit fibonacci numbers;
Fruit seeds form in golden spirals.
Astronomy
Golden ratio in the planets: The orbital periods, mean distances, and orbital velocities of the planets in the solar system are all related by phi to a statistical significance of over 99%.[1]
The rings of Saturn form two golden sections, divided by the Cassini division.[2]
Implications

you can quote all the mathematics you like but its not proof is it...its pure conjecture with no evidence for an actual designer

if you want to prove design...prove there was a designer...its quite simple

where as evolution of species that are unable to reproduce on a genetic level and are phenotypically different from their anscestors has been shown in a huge number of species using genetics and fossil records

besides if everything was designed...then their would most likely not be similarities

take for instance the analogy of designing household items

you would design a tv with parts of a garden chair would you?...no

whereas every species on the planet shares genetic information and thus supports the common descent theory

you continue to deny that mutations create new traits despite huge numbers of studies refuting your claim

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

Originally posted by jaden101
you can quote all the mathematics you like but its not proof is it...its pure conjecture with no evidence for an actual designer


conjecture, I was proving common design do you even read?

Originally posted by jaden101

if you want to prove design...prove there was a designer...its quite simple

Like I said there are many perspectives on what the designer is, there exsit two fields one researching the designer the other researching the design.

Originally posted by jaden101

you continue to deny that mutations create new traits despite huge numbers of studies refuting your claim

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

Do you read your own links?, they talk about beneficial mutations not mutations creating traits.

Please prove mutations insert new genetic information.

Evolution = Intelligent Design

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
conjecture, I was proving common design do you even read?

Like I said there are many perspectives on what the designer is, there exsit two fields one researching the designer the other researching the design.

Do you read your own links?, they talk about beneficial mutations not mutations creating traits.

Please prove mutations insert new genetic information.

you dont need to create new genetic information to create new traits

the traits are merely the phenotypic result of the genetic code...

hence mutations create new traits in an animal/species that hadn't existed in its parental phenotype...

im not asking for "perspectives"....i'm asking for proof...and you need to prove the existance of a designer to prove that something has been designed

presumably given the "theory" is "intelligent" design that this would mean an intelligence of some sort had designed it...so prove that

and you werent proving common "design" because you never proved it was designed...and you cant...and you know you cant

Originally posted by jaden101
you dont need to create new genetic information to create new traits

the traits are merely the phenotypic result of the genetic code...

hence mutations create new traits in an animal/species that hadn't existed in its parental phenotype...


And again an organism can't gain something that is not in it's genomes

Originally posted by jaden101

im not asking for "perspectives"....i'm asking for proof...and you need to prove the existance of a designer to prove that something has been designed

So if I find a car I'm going to assume it was not designed because I don't know the designer?