|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/18/2008 1:13:30 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Good points.
quote:
There are thousands and thousands of ways to spell cytochrome C, as one example.
Are you talking about the flexibility of several similar but not identical codons to code for the same amino acid?
bye from the forums for a while probably, incidentally
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 7/18/2008 1:45:18 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/18/2008 3:12:38 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Good points.
quote:
There are thousands and thousands of ways to spell cytochrome C, as one example.
Are you talking about the flexibility of several similar but not identical codons to code for the same amino acid?
bye from the forums for a while probably, incidentally
No, the actual sequence of amino acids also differs. If amino acids are the "letters" that spell out a protein, then there are many differences in the way cytochrome c can be spelled. In addition, as you point out, there are several ways for DNA to code for each amino acid.
And cytochrome c is one of the more "conserved" proteins. i.e. it is quite stable in its "spelling" compared to many others.
So proteins themselves are quite flexible in their construction and can retain function through many changes.
As Miller notes, in the book mentioned above, ID requires life to be fairly brittle, easily broken and rendered non-functional by minor deviations from a standard form. This does not seem to accord with biological reality.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/18/2008 3:21:01 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
Another aspect of the ID view of things that puzzles me and which I seldom see addressed is the actual production of biological design.
By this I mean that design begins as a mental concept. It ends as a physical object. And there has to be a process for getting from the mental concept to the physical object.
In a manufacturing process, one begins with a schematic or model of the design to be shared with those who will bring it into being. Perhaps, if the Intelligent Designer works alone, this is an unnecessary step.
But the remaining steps remain necessary.
Find the raw materials from which the object will be made.
Transport the raw materials to the place they will be processed and made ready for use.
Move the processed materials to the point they will be assembled with other components to produce the design as a finished product.
I have not yet come across an ID explanation of how this occurs biologically.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/18/2008 3:54:37 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
One aspect that I have always wondered about is how one would differentiate between a random amino acid sequence and a functional enzyme using just the amino acid sequence? Has Dembski tried to do this using his equations?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/19/2008 12:27:21 AM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 44
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Another aspect of the ID view of things that puzzles me and which I seldom see addressed is the actual production of biological design.
By this I mean that design begins as a mental concept. It ends as a physical object. And there has to be a process for getting from the mental concept to the physical object.
In a manufacturing process, one begins with a schematic or model of the design to be shared with those who will bring it into being. Perhaps, if the Intelligent Designer works alone, this is an unnecessary step.
This is an interesting question for ID. But then ID (as we are told by the IDiots) does not concern itself with such "pathetic level of detail." ID only wants to indentify something as designed nothing about the process of design or mechanisms and certainly not the identity of the designer. This is where ID differs from archaeology and forensic science. In those two fields we are always concerned with the processes, mechanisms, and most of all the identity of the designer.
One of the claims of IDism is that new living forms appear abruptly "... already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." But all we currently see is relatively small changes in living things from generation to generation. If we could currently observe such abrupt changes ex nihilo then that would certainly be evidence to support IDism. All ID claims to be able to do is to identify things that were designed. Which, in and of itself, is not very useful.
quote:
But the remaining steps remain necessary.
Sure they are. If IDism were true and we could investigate how the designer designed and how the designer built then we would know something very very useful. For some reaon the IDiots can't or won't go there.
quote:
Find the raw materials from which the object will be made.
Transport the raw materials to the place they will be processed and made ready for use.
Move the processed materials to the point they will be assembled with other components to produce the design as a finished product.
I have not yet come across an ID explanation of how this occurs biologically.
You won't... ever. This is because IDism is completely scientifically vacuous. It is even dumber than creation science.
Building off of your topic ;)
I design a lot of things; experiments, devices, mechanisms, circuits. I make drawings, I gather the raw materials (usually processed quite a bit), the parts, the tools, and then I build it. After that I put the thing into use... and note where it fails or can be improved. If there is time and resources and the desire I will repeat the process and improve the device or experiment even more. Many times the improvements are a process of simplification and streamlining. This is a result of limitations from the environment where these things get made and used.
What I find is... that the "process of design" is very much like the process of evolution. There is "natural selection" involved all along the way... the limitations of resources, what one knows already (the "memome"), what one has on hand (tools, parts and materials) and/or what can be gotten from other sources, what is or is not physically possible. Much of the "selection process" happens in ones mind filtering through what one knows. Then, of course, there is always the test against the environment when the thing is used. Not all of them do well.
There is even "random mutation", that is to say "random sources of variation". The variation can come from any source, a discussion with a colleague, walking along and "seeing" something that could help or improve the design, even making a "mistake" in the designing or building process that turns out to be an improvement.
Anyhow... not a perfect analogy. I may work on the idea some more. Just thought I would throw it out there :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/19/2008 7:17:15 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Good points.
quote:
There are thousands and thousands of ways to spell cytochrome C, as one example.
Are you talking about the flexibility of several similar but not identical codons to code for the same amino acid?
bye from the forums for a while probably, incidentally
No, the actual sequence of amino acids also differs. If amino acids are the "letters" that spell out a protein, then there are many differences in the way cytochrome c can be spelled. In addition, as you point out, there are several ways for DNA to code for each amino acid.
And cytochrome c is one of the more "conserved" proteins. i.e. it is quite stable in its "spelling" compared to many others.
So proteins themselves are quite flexible in their construction and can retain function through many changes.
As Miller notes, in the book mentioned above, ID requires life to be fairly brittle, easily broken and rendered non-functional by minor deviations from a standard form. This does not seem to accord with biological reality.
Great post. Never knew it was quite that flexible. Of course, people with NO academic background in biology like Dembski may not either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/19/2008 7:18:30 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
One aspect that I have always wondered about is how one would differentiate between a random amino acid sequence and a functional enzyme using just the amino acid sequence? Has Dembski tried to do this using his equations?
Yeah, good point, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/19/2008 8:37:12 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Glue and 3H,
Thanks for yer help.
Regarding the ability of ID to "sweep the field" I too am skeptical. In any particular instance, I can see the case for ID becoming the best explanation at this time, if the probabilities for natural explanations based on the known mechanisms seem small. ID can also emerge as the de facto best explanation if competing explanations continually fail or lack empirical support while there is probabilistic evidence to support the design inference. But I don't see how competing explanations can be ruled out in principle. Glu, yer right on that point, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/19/2008 9:14:38 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
3H,
Regarding Dembski's curriculum vitae, don't be so quick to dismiss him on that account. I've heard folks like Eugenie Scott and Daniel Dennett sneer at him cuz he hasn't published in traditional journals, as if the evolutionary establishment would ever consider publishing him. No, science is a very human endeavor fraught with all the human frailties. It is not the Olympian, completely rational and objective enterprise that Scott and Dennett like to think it is. And the triumphalism, dogmatism and closed-mindedness of the Darwinian establishment has been on full display in its dealing with ID proponents and even non-ID guys and gals who point out the deficiencies of naturalistic theories. Tis a dangerous thing to challenge orthodoxy. You end up with inquisitions, excorcism, degradations ceremonies, excommunications and the like. You might even lose your job, have your reputation slandered, etc. Just ask the guy who worked at the Smithsonian (can't remember his name).
In my view, it is decidedly not rational, reasonable or scientific to preclude design as a possible explanation in principle, and this is the predominant view among scientists today, whether they espouse the anti-teleological type of naturalism or the methodological version.
Regarding Dembski's lack of biological examples, I guess we have to turn to Behe for those. We all need to read his latest book, The Edge of Evolution. He is not backing off on his earlier claims and attempts to define the exact limits of evolutionary theory.
gotta run. Thanks guys for the conversation. Sorry I am not addressing all your very good points. I yam, after all, a Bear of Very Little Brain (BOVLB) and simply lack the time to fully address all your stuff.
Have a great weekend!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/19/2008 6:00:44 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
In my view, it is decidedly not rational, reasonable or scientific to preclude design as a possible explanation in principle, and this is the predominant view among scientists today, whether they espouse the anti-teleological type of naturalism or the methodological version.
This is true, design doesn't necessarily need to be precluded at all. But before it is seriously considered, it needs some evidence. Evidence which Behe nor Dembski seem to care to provide. That's the achilles heel of ID. There's alot of fluff, but no actual science. Dembski hasn't even bothered to apply his formula's to more than a couple of systems, all of which have reasonable evolutionary pathways (and evidence that these pathways are likely.. in other words, false positives).
When you couple this with the fact that the DI lobbies hard to get ID into the classrooms, the wedge document (look it up if you don't know what that is) and the DI's goal of re-centering science around Christian theology, you can understand the hostility towards this group, and why it is actually justified. It's all quackery of the highest order and it stinks to high heaven. They want to cry conspiracy theory the second anyone calls them on it, and pretend to be the victim, while they themselves are the perpetrators.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/20/2008 12:21:51 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Not one of you Darwinist has addressed my point on the phenomena of error detection and correction mechanisms in DNA - another thing that, in a coded system, intrinsically demands system pre-knowledge and therefore intelligence.
Could you be more specific?
I just looked over the Wikipedia article on DNA repair and was underwhelmed:
This repair has to do with molecular damage to the DNA, such as thymine dimers, which kink the DNA strand, but do not alter the sequence. Repairing this is more like straightening out a twisted bit of videotape, before your VCR can play it. This is not correcting an error in the sequence:
"In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired."
(It looks like other processes like gene conversion could conceivably repair a mutation, but as far as I can tell, it would be just as likely to double the error as to fix it.)
Once again, I'm not a biologist, but if you won't explain what you're talking about in better detail, I'm left to my own devices.
I see that it's been over a week since you posted this, but since I recently took a test on the processes that you just mentioned, I wanted offer an explanation to what you've just said. I don't think that mutation detection/correction as I understand it is any more of a grand slam for ID than any other mind-bogglingly complex cellular process. You were right to be overwhelmed, I was also when I was learning about it. I dreaded taking that test, convinced that an F was inevitable. Luckily, the test wasn't as hard as it could have been. I would urge you not to oversimplify the process of DNA repair. Its orchestration truly speaks to the vast creativity and wisdom of our Creator. Even the process of fixing Thymine dimers, which you mentioned requires a unique enzyme to undergo a very unique process (photolyase) when it occurs in prokaryotes.
A mismatch during regular DNA synthesis can often be repaired through any of three base removal and replacement techniques (good luck evolving any of those). But you can read about them if you want. I know that there's at least enough information out there to help you get a B on a test. The processes are called: Base-excision repair, Nucleotide Excision Repair, Methyl-directed mismatch repair. I'm going to try to brush up on them by reviewing my notes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/20/2008 11:05:38 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Not one of you Darwinist has addressed my point on the phenomena of error detection and correction mechanisms in DNA - another thing that, in a coded system, intrinsically demands system pre-knowledge and therefore intelligence.
Could you be more specific?
I just looked over the Wikipedia article on DNA repair and was underwhelmed:
This repair has to do with molecular damage to the DNA, such as thymine dimers, which kink the DNA strand, but do not alter the sequence. Repairing this is more like straightening out a twisted bit of videotape, before your VCR can play it. This is not correcting an error in the sequence:
"In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired."
(It looks like other processes like gene conversion could conceivably repair a mutation, but as far as I can tell, it would be just as likely to double the error as to fix it.)
Once again, I'm not a biologist, but if you won't explain what you're talking about in better detail, I'm left to my own devices.
I see that it's been over a week since you posted this, but since I recently took a test on the processes that you just mentioned, I wanted offer an explanation to what you've just said. I don't think that mutation detection/correction as I understand it is any more of a grand slam for ID than any other mind-bogglingly complex cellular process. You were right to be overwhelmed, I was also when I was learning about it. I dreaded taking that test, convinced that an F was inevitable. Luckily, the test wasn't as hard as it could have been. I would urge you not to oversimplify the process of DNA repair. Its orchestration truly speaks to the vast creativity and wisdom of our Creator. Even the process of fixing Thymine dimers, which you mentioned requires a unique enzyme to undergo a very unique process (photolyase) when it occurs in prokaryotes.
A mismatch during regular DNA synthesis can often be repaired through any of three base removal and replacement techniques (good luck evolving any of those). But you can read about them if you want. I know that there's at least enough information out there to help you get a B on a test. The processes are called: Base-excision repair, Nucleotide Excision Repair, Methyl-directed mismatch repair. I'm going to try to brush up on them by reviewing my notes.
Those processes are indeed complex, but I don't think they change my overall opinion. They seek out chemical alterations and fix them, but they do not involve the magical preknowledge that GHitch attributed to them. MDMR seems to be even more interesting, but still "The repair has to be in the newly synthesized strand of the DNA molecule, otherwise the error will be fixed permanently." This reaffirms my earlier quote: "In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired." These methods do not intelligently or magically undo an actual mutation in which the DNA sequence gets completely changed.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/21/2008 8:58:59 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
He drj11,
quote:
This is true, design doesn't necessarily need to be precluded at all. But before it is seriously considered, it needs some evidence. Evidence which Behe nor Dembski seem to care to provide. That's the achilles heel of ID. There's alot of fluff, but no actual science. Dembski hasn't even bothered to apply his formula's to more than a couple of systems, all of which have reasonable evolutionary pathways (and evidence that these pathways are likely.. in other words, false positives).
When you couple this with the fact that the DI lobbies hard to get ID into the classrooms, the wedge document (look it up if you don't know what that is) and the DI's goal of re-centering science around Christian theology, you can understand the hostility towards this group, and why it is actually justified. It's all quackery of the highest order and it stinks to high heaven. They want to cry conspiracy theory the second anyone calls them on it, and pretend to be the victim, while they themselves are the perpetrators.
The Darwinian establishment is not only hostile to creationism and ID (not the same), but also anyone from their own camp who points out the deficiencies of the theory and questions its fundamental claims.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/21/2008 9:16:42 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
The Darwinian establishment is not only hostile to creationism and ID (not the same), but also anyone from their own camp who points out the deficiencies of the theory and questions its fundamental claims.
Thats what they claim anyhow.. Yes, there are people who think evolution is: an atheist conspiracy, a lie from satan, the cause of war, totalitarian evil governments, and a host of all sorts of other ominous things... but there's also people who think the twin towers were destroyed from bombs planted by our own government and that the moon landing was a hoax. That doesnt mean we have to believe people who claim such silly things.
The "Darwinian Establishment" doesn't treat creationism/ID any different than any other hoaxes/debunked 'theories'. And the 'Darwinian Establishment' is not unique in its dismissal of creationism. Why is evolution singled out, when actually, every single scientific theory that deals with natural history nullifies young earth creationism?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/21/2008 11:45:52 AM
|
|
|
tbull97580
Posts: 16
Joined: 7/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
The Darwinian establishment is not only hostile to creationism and ID (not the same), but also anyone from their own camp who points out the deficiencies of the theory and questions its fundamental claims.
Thats what they claim anyhow.. Yes, there are people who think evolution is: an atheist conspiracy, a lie from satan, the cause of war, totalitarian evil governments, and a host of all sorts of other ominous things... but there's also people who think the twin towers were destroyed from bombs planted by our own government and that the moon landing was a hoax. That doesnt mean we have to believe people who claim such silly things.
The "Darwinian Establishment" doesn't treat creationism/ID any different than any other hoaxes/debunked 'theories'. And the 'Darwinian Establishment' is not unique in its dismissal of creationism. Why is evolution singled out, when actually, every single scientific theory that deals with natural history nullifies young earth creationism?
That's probably the best point. No matter how the issue is approached, all observed data from every scientific field show an old universe and an old earth. But when YEC look at the subject they already have the "facts" set in stone and they go searching for "data" to back their claims up. Science didn't say "let's decide the universe is 13 billion years old" and then go looking for evidence to back up the claim. They observed data and then extrapolated the age from that data. YEC "science" reminds me of debate class. 'Here's your premise now go make a case for it...'
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/21/2008 11:50:38 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
No matter how the issue is approached, all observed data from every scientific field show an old universe and an old earth. One last time, tbull, 'cause I'm tired of wasting my breath - all interpretations of the observed data from uniformitarian naturalists "show" an old universe and earth. Other interpretations based on equally reasonable, but different, assumptions show a young universe and earth. So how the issue is approached certainly does matter!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/21/2008 1:51:01 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
No matter how the issue is approached, all observed data from every scientific field show an old universe and an old earth. One last time, tbull, 'cause I'm tired of wasting my breath - all interpretations of the observed data from uniformitarian naturalists "show" an old universe and earth. Other interpretations based on equally reasonable, but different, assumptions show a young universe and earth. So how the issue is approached certainly does matter!
But are these "equally reasonable, but different, assumptions" scientific? Will they permit you to derive a young earth from the physical data?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/21/2008 2:29:56 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
But are these "equally reasonable, but different, assumptions" scientific? Will they permit you to derive a young earth from the physical data? You're really not getting this, are you, gluadys. What "scientific" observations underlie anyone's assumptions about the origins of the world? No one but God was there to observe it! I choose to believe His historical narrative account. You choose to believe uniformitarian naturalism. Only one of us is right.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/21/2008 2:38:16 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
But are these "equally reasonable, but different, assumptions" scientific? Will they permit you to derive a young earth from the physical data? You're really not getting this, are you, gluadys. What "scientific" observations underlie anyone's assumptions about the origins of the world? No one but God was there to observe it! I choose to believe His historical narrative account. You choose to believe uniformitarian naturalism. Only one of us is right.
You seem to be agreeing that no interpretation or assumption can derive a young earth from the physical data.
One has to go with a non-scientific assumption such as "the creation accounts of Genesis are historically accurate narratives."
Do you have any reasonable basis for the assumption that these narratives are historical?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/21/2008 2:41:41 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
Excuse me for addressing the OP here, but I just want to point out that after nearly 200 posts, no one has actually demonstrated that the notion that 'intelligence can be reliably detected' is an unscientific one, and so there is little reason to conclude that ID itself is unscientific.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/21/2008 5:19:19 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Not one of you Darwinist has addressed my point on the phenomena of error detection and correction mechanisms in DNA - another thing that, in a coded system, intrinsically demands system pre-knowledge and therefore intelligence.
Could you be more specific?
I just looked over the Wikipedia article on DNA repair and was underwhelmed:
This repair has to do with molecular damage to the DNA, such as thymine dimers, which kink the DNA strand, but do not alter the sequence. Repairing this is more like straightening out a twisted bit of videotape, before your VCR can play it. This is not correcting an error in the sequence:
"In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired."
(It looks like other processes like gene conversion could conceivably repair a mutation, but as far as I can tell, it would be just as likely to double the error as to fix it.)
Once again, I'm not a biologist, but if you won't explain what you're talking about in better detail, I'm left to my own devices.
I see that it's been over a week since you posted this, but since I recently took a test on the processes that you just mentioned, I wanted offer an explanation to what you've just said. I don't think that mutation detection/correction as I understand it is any more of a grand slam for ID than any other mind-bogglingly complex cellular process. You were right to be overwhelmed, I was also when I was learning about it. I dreaded taking that test, convinced that an F was inevitable. Luckily, the test wasn't as hard as it could have been. I would urge you not to oversimplify the process of DNA repair. Its orchestration truly speaks to the vast creativity and wisdom of our Creator. Even the process of fixing Thymine dimers, which you mentioned requires a unique enzyme to undergo a very unique process (photolyase) when it occurs in prokaryotes.
A mismatch during regular DNA synthesis can often be repaired through any of three base removal and replacement techniques (good luck evolving any of those). But you can read about them if you want. I know that there's at least enough information out there to help you get a B on a test. The processes are called: Base-excision repair, Nucleotide Excision Repair, Methyl-directed mismatch repair. I'm going to try to brush up on them by reviewing my notes.
Those processes are indeed complex, but I don't think they change my overall opinion. They seek out chemical alterations and fix them, but they do not involve the magical preknowledge that GHitch attributed to them. MDMR seems to be even more interesting, but still "The repair has to be in the newly synthesized strand of the DNA molecule, otherwise the error will be fixed permanently." This reaffirms my earlier quote: "In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired." These methods do not intelligently or magically undo an actual mutation in which the DNA sequence gets completely changed.
Right, I suppose you're correct. There is no need to know what the sequence was before hand. In Methyl-Directed repair, there is only a recognition of which strand was the original. Other chemical repairs only fix the strand that has the base look-alike. And you are also correct that a mutation cannot be repaired once both strands contain a normal but incorrect base pair. There is no back-up code that can drive an enzyme to fix a mutation after a couple replications has removed the original.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/22/2008 2:50:01 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Excuse me for addressing the OP here, but I just want to point out that after nearly 200 posts, no one has actually demonstrated that the notion that 'intelligence can be reliably detected' is an unscientific one, and so there is little reason to conclude that ID itself is unscientific.
It is not an unscientific notion. What is unscientific is the methods by which IDers are are trying to support this notion. One does not support a theory by claiming that all other theories are incapable of producing the phenomena. All theories must stand on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/22/2008 2:51:35 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
No matter how the issue is approached, all observed data from every scientific field show an old universe and an old earth. One last time, tbull, 'cause I'm tired of wasting my breath - all interpretations of the observed data from uniformitarian naturalists "show" an old universe and earth. Other interpretations based on equally reasonable, but different, assumptions show a young universe and earth. So how the issue is approached certainly does matter!
IOW, for a young earth/universe to be true one needs to insert supernatural miracles and ignore the empirical evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/22/2008 2:55:50 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is not an unscientific notion. What is unscientific is the methods by which IDers are are trying to support this notion. One does not support a theory by claiming that all other theories are incapable of producing the phenomena. All theories must stand on their own.
Actually, there is only one other theory, and if that theory can do what it claims to, then ID is irrelevant. Of course, I don't think that is all ID does, but for one theory to act as a criticism of another is not unusual at all.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/22/2008 4:54:57 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, there is only one other theory, and if that theory can do what it claims to, then ID is irrelevant.
This is what I am talking about. Evolution is wrong, therefore ID. That is not how science works.
quote:
Of course, I don't think that is all ID does, but for one theory to act as a criticism of another is not unusual at all.
Those criticisms must include testable mechanisms. Relativity was a valid criticism not because classic physics could not explain the precession of Mercury but because the bending of space could be independently tested. The Big Bang was a valid criticism of the Steady State theory because it could explain the cosmic microwave background through known mechanisms without ever referring to the Steady State theory. Relativity and the Big Bang were not accepted simply due to the fact that Newtonian physics and the Steady State theory were wrong. They were accepted because they were right on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
