Pillow awaits …
No. The proper answer for an unknown is “we don’t know”. Not “the Deity of my choosing did it”. 
I’ll ask again. How do you tell your pattern is “design” and not just an evolutionary pattern you didn’t know about before? You need positive evidence of your external design influence, not just “science can’t explain this yet so ID wins by default”. That’s been a criticism of ID since day one and I’ve never seen it addressed by anyone.
I’d still like to know how you determine how a design was manufactured, where it was manufactured, and when it was manufactured just by examining a pattern in a genome.
2 Likes
Why not?
This has been discussed at length here, and the consensus is that there’s no way to distinguish divine guidance in evolution from non-guidance. One could come up with many hypotheses of how God might want to act, but many of them are falsified by data already and others are in principle undetectable. What’s your hypothesis?
1 Like
are you aware that its also true for evolution?
In my view a group of sequences that build an eye are evidence of Devine guidance. The identification of this transition would be interesting. Is it traced to methodical small steps or is it sudden?
And there’s the problem. It’s just your view, unsupported by anything whatsoever.
1 Like
Is the eye not a debated point between evolution and design?
No, I wouldn’t say “debated”. Ignorant creationists do bring it up a lot, but without any knowledge of the science involved. As you do here. Why, I suspect you even use it as an argument against common descent without thinking that the vertebrate eye is evidence for common descent of a large group of species.
1 Like
Sorry to hear about the essential tremors. I have a friend who has them and I found these new devices have helped immensely. Assistive Devices, Therapies & Techniques - Essential Tremor
The technology is amazing.
This is just your opinion John and your ignorance.
Mike Behe has provided a presentation to Princeton in the past on the molecular evolution of a light sensitive spot. The repeated appearance of different types of eyes over the history of life is interesting.
In what way is it interesting? What was in that presentation “to Princeton”?
1 Like
He showed the protein path required for a light sensitive spot. This is the theoretical evolutionary precursor to the eye. This is a start to build a case that that the molecular evolution of the eye has a path that could build the necessary proteins through random genetic change and selection or is design the best explanation.
They also fail to read up on other research that digs deeper into these mechanisms. For example, why are the CpG islands at a specific transcription start site methylated in response to a specific environmental cue? Which proteins are involved? How does it work?
1 Like
@Agauger isn’t responsible for the DI, and I think she would have probably done things differently.
2 Likes
Can God have used the evolution to design us? Why must it be either-or?
Well, that’s a shame. Here are some punchlines for T. aquaticus:
– To get to the other side.
– They’re both purple, except for the elephant.
– There’s the beer that made Mel Famey walk us.
– How it got in my pajamas, I’ll never know.
– You had three, but who’s counting.
– I take her everywhere, but she finds her way home.
Seriously – if one conceives of the goal of ID not as “Score another one for the Designer!” but more modestly (and sensibly) as “achieving a deeper understanding of nature, with a possible explanatory role for design, should the evidence warrant” then the science news posts at ENV may seem less disjointed.
Readers here should also know that DI fellows and research associates have learned through bitter experience not to talk about ongoing work until it’s published (I am Exhibit Number One in that sad gallery). There’s a lot going on behind the scenes, which, if all goes well, will be discussed here in due time.
1 Like
How do you know about this presentation?
A lot of us here think Winston Ewert and his paper on dependency graphs is a step in the right direction. While we think his hypothesis has some serious issues, at least it is an attempt at constructing and testing an ID hypothesis that looks for positive evidence for ID instead of continually attacking competing hypotheses. Ewert also recognizes that there are big sets of global data that need to be addressed, such as the strongly supported statistical correlation between morphological and molecular phylogenies. How does ID explain the divergence between exons and introns? How does ID explain why non-CpG transitions occur at a higher rate than non-CpG transversions, and why the rate of CpG mutations is higher than non-CpG mutations?
Chasing convoluted arguments about information and the like won’t make much of an impact until these big pieces of evidence are tackled, at least in my opinion.
2 Likes
Some of us, however, don’t. It’s a purely ad hoc construction that tells us nothing.
Like I said before, there are some serious issues with the hypothesis. However, at least it is an attempt at testing ID, which is what we are asking for.