I would actually take issue with that. The known evolutionary processes don’t have to be designed. They’re inevitable consequences of life, inheritance, and imperfect replication.
Evidence is also good, of course! Do you have a favorite piece of evidence for ID that you would like to share?
I totally agree with that.
Furthermore, the fact that evolutionary algorithms inevitably lead to consequential solutions does not rule out an intelligent agent. Inevitability does not confirm or deny an intelligent agent.
1 Like
^^^ understood ^^^
I once asked a person of strong faith who I know to be mathematically literate what he thought about the mathematics of Dembski’s CSI. He didn’t comment on Dembski’s math, but responded by saying that he preferred the argument from Behe’s Edge of Evolution; that some things are beyond the reach of evolution.
To his mind the evidence was not yet convincing.
While I disagree with his opinion, I can respect that he is not yet convinced. He didn’t offer any other any other argument in support of ID.
A key point here: he did not offer any of the typical flawed arguments for ID. From other discussions I know that he recognizes flawed arguments when he sees them.
To summarize in my own words; Intelligent Design require faith that it is so. Evolution requires a threshold of evidence. There is no suggestion of any contradiction here.
3 Likes
Foresight, maybe, not dissimilar to fine-tuning. No scientific evidence will prove it, of course.
A favorite:
So we live in the youngest, smallest, universe that we could live in.
Art’s claim is that the human mind is not capable of creating a long complex amino acid sequence. He is right that now what has been demonstrated is limited but this is not his claim. His claim is about capability. My car is capable of driving 200 mph yet this has not been demonstrated.
Richard Dawkins used english characters to simulate the capability of cumulative selection using a target sequence. So far this response has created around 1000 bits of functional information.
1 Like
A post was split to a new topic: What Are Your Favorite Arguments For Evolution?
His claim is correct; you have grossly misrepresented it by omitting his qualifications:
Therefore, your premise is false.
How would you know its capability if it has not been demonstrated? You’re not making any sense.
We’re not talking about Dawkins. We’re talking about proteins.
1 Like
By looking by its improvements over long periods of time. The human mind can now team up to create an iPhone 10. 100 years ago that would be unheard of. 40 Years ago peptide chains synthetically created were under 20 AA’s not they are over 40AA’s. The mind has shown capability to evolve 
Glycomics
Michiko N. Fukuda, Tohru Yoneyama, in Methods in Enzymology, 2010
2 Materials
Synthetic peptides are used as affinity ligands. Several companies are capable of synthesizing peptides of up to 100 amino acid residues as a custom peptide synthesis service. The peptide sequence identified by fd phage library should not have modification at N-terminus, while the C-terminus can be modified for conjugation with a variety of compounds, including multivalent antigenic peptides (MAPS) (Fig. 27.1).
I’d say that it means the process wasn’t designed. Life might be designed, but evolution would be a feature. It couldn’t have been done otherwise.
D’Oh! Stein er
The antecedent of “it” in this case is your car. How would you know it is capable of 200 mph if it has not been demonstrated?
We’re not talking about peptide length, Bill, we’re talking about designing protein function. Your Gish Gallop is particularly bad today, as that paper does nothing to support your claim about design.
1 Like
Sure it does, John. Part of a complex protein design is stitching together AAs with successful peptide hydrogen bonds. Proper functional arrangement is another step in the process.
Proper functional arrangement has been demonstrated don’t you think? Do you disagree that arrangements with 40AA’s have been commercially produced?
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2015; 3: 211.
Published online 2016 Jan 19. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00211
There goes one note Bill again.
A mind can produce complex things
Biological life is complex
Therefore a mind produced biological life.
Most people’s minds anyway.
1 Like
Where did I make this claim?
Right here among dozens of other places
1 Like
The discussion is getting lost in squabbling. Please summaries what you meant, state what you think the other guys meant, decide what parts you agree about, and discuss the differences.
1 Like
These are different claims.
I’ll let the readers decide.
1 Like