It’s not scientific because it doesn’t involve testing any design hypotheses.
Done.
1 Like
Who is “we,” exactly, Bill? You’ve shown time and time again that you ignore the evidence.
With all due respect, I disagree with this view if what you mean by evolution is blind, unguided evolution.
No one here will accept that characterization, but even if they did, what about God designing evolution as a process, supplying all of the ingredients and then allowing evolution to do what it was designed to do? Would this not fit? And if it does, what’s the difference between evolution as God’s means to an end and materialistic evolution?
2 Likes
So is the fact that most DNA is nonfunctional.
You don’t seem to have any theory that predicts the relative amounts. You have an assertion that God would not create a genome full of junk, but even on that assumption we still have to contend with the fact that our species has been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years. So at the same vague level you’ve argued, there is no inconsistency between your assumption that God created Homo sapiens with a fully functional genome, and the fact that it is today mostly nonfunctional.
If you disagree you’re going to have to start doing some actual modeling prediction to derive what you think the relative amounts are.
No, V(D)J recombination doesn’t produce high FI for high FI preexist in the stem cells that develop into B cell.
LOL! Only in your mind Bill. Not your magic disembodied POOFING one, just your regular one. 
We’ve conclusively established before that you actually don’t know the FI for any hitherto discovered biological entity, because the method you’ve argued be used to determine the FI, doesn’t actually work. It is not even capable of ballparking it.
2 Likes
That is utterly, completely false. The FI doesn’t exist until AFTER recombination.
@gpuccio clearly defined FI, now you are pretending the definition doesn’t apply when it doesn’t give the desired conclusion.
That appears to be offered in very bad faith. lease explain how you used the actual definition to arrive at your position. Keep in mind that different individuals, even identical twins, produce different antibodies against an identical antigen. The information is created de novo.
I simply cannot see how you could make such a claim in good faith.
@gpuccio: “The correct application of FI is the computation of the bits necessary to implement a function, a function that does not exist without all those bits, and which is not the simple co-existence of simpler functions.”
1 Like
No it is not. ID has no model, there are no equations or models or anything that either explains a set of data, or predicts anything.
The sentence “A mind can make X” is not a scientific theory Bill.
2 Likes
God is omniscient, and he knew exactly how everything would happen before creating the Universe. He foresaw how a man and woman produced a child, generation after generation until there were your parents, and then you. God also granted us Free Will, so that very long chain of occurrence was not guided by God, but chosen by countless humans. And yet it happened precisely as God knew it would.
In the very same way, evolutionary processes along with plate tectonics, asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions, mass extinctions, etc produced Humanity precisely as God knew it would.
Neither of these examples is an obstacle to God’s absolute sovereignty.
1 Like
Sure but that’s not the theory. A mind as a mechanistic explanation for functional information and other cellular artifacts is. The fact that there is no predictive model due to a minds non deterministic qualities is true but does not pose a problem as we can test the hypothesis without a model. A model is nice but it is not part of the scientific method. It is simply a tool available to execute the scientific method.
When you say “most”, what do you mean? Is this true only for humans or for all organisms? How can fugu survive lacking so much of the functional DNA that other vertebrates have? How can most of the huge genomes of lungfish and salamanders be functional? Until you have a solution to the c-value paradox, none of your claims about function can hold up.
2 Likes
This is general relativity. It is a tested model fo how energy and momentum (properties of matter) curve space time. It is, however, not a detailed description of how matter curves space time. Certainly the design arguments has the same testable elements. Instead of matter as the mechanism mind is the mechanism.
1 Like
This site teaches God-Guided-Evolution. Doesn’t that suit you?
1 Like
And @Giltil is trying to assert that the evolution of new antibodies in 2 weeks also was designed. It’s the same mechanism (although most evolution denialists ignore the existence of variation created by recombination).
Why can’t the designer who designed antibody evolution also have designed organismal evolution? Is that somehow beyond His competency?
This has been yet another installment of “ID is not only not science, it is very bad theology because it diminishes the very concept of an Abrahamic God.”
1 Like
This is possible but were is the mechanism inside the cell that generates the de novo information that created the adaptive immune system? What we are observing is cells tend to minimize variation when they are functioning properly. Evolution of antibodies is a far cry from producing a muscle protein complex or a flight feather.
More Bill Logic: since science doesn’t provide every detail of certain theories then ID doesn’t have to provide any detail.
Then why has no one from the ID-Creation camp ever done any such tests?
There goes Bill with his disembodied mind magically POOFING physical genomes into existence. But no one from the IDC camp ever said that, no siree.
3 Likes
Bill we already know you don’t understand basic biology and think it was all done by Magic Mind Power. You don’t need to keep repeating yourself 50 times a day.
You seem to be stuck on Step 1 Bill. Where are the testable hypotheses ID-Creation has formulated?
1 Like