It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Shenroon
It was basically the story of intetigent design in the us. First they said that a mechanism of a mirobe oculdnt have evoleved becasue there was no way multiple organs could have come otgether in order to form this arm/tenticle thing. But then it was prioved it would work without 80% of its design so that went out of the window.
Then they said that the chance of evoultion creating what we have on Earth now was tiny without any 'help.' Well I know it sounds all good but watch this for absolute magic-
Now the chance of this sequence being what it is at random is 1 in 5.606184657 to the power of 70 but wait it is still there right in front of you.
So caculating evolution backwords is just well really stupid.
Some systems are so highly specified that they seem to tolerate no change at all. The bacterial flagellum, a motor that bacteria use to propel themselves, is made up of about 20 different proteins. Another 20 proteins are needed to build it. If you knock out any of these 40 proteins, the flagellum doesn't work. The flagellum thus seems to display not only specified complexity, but irreducible complexity.
More fascinating is a study reported in the journal Science. A team of researchers wanted to discover how many genes were necessary for the simplest organism to survive and reproduce. If you think of an organism's genes as its parts list, the scientists wanted to know how small they could make the parts list and still have a living, reproducing organism.
They did this, in part, by tinkering with a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium, which is the simplest known organism. The organism's genetic code is about 580,000 letters long and spells out 480 protein-producing genes plus 37 "species" of RNA. After "knocking out" various protein-coding genes, the scientists have estimated that 265 to 350 of this bacterium's genes are "essential" for the organism to live and reproduce under laboratory conditions--an extremely favorable environment.
Is this a designed system? It's beginning to look that way. But the main point is that specified complexity gives us a standard to guide our research.
Biophysicist Hubert Yockey has calculated the probability of forming a single gene product (one that is functionally equivalent to the ubiquitous protein cyctochrome C) as one chance in 1075. 56 Given this probability, Yockey calculated that if the hypothetical primordial soup contained about 1044 amino acids, a hundred billion trillion years would yield a 95% chance for random formation of a functional protein only 110 amino acids in length (a single gene product).57 The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life.
Further complicating the supra-astronomical probabilities that must be overcome for even the simplest life to arise by natural processes is the changing view of bacteria. No longer regarded as cells with a random, nondescript internal structure, bacteria are now recognized as having remarkable internal organization, both spatially and temporally, at the protein level.58, 59 This internal organization of bacterial cells is universal and is needed for their survival. This means that origin-of-life researchers must account for not only the simultaneous appearance of 250-350 gene products but also their organization inside the cell.
So now im just asking what actually is the proof of intelligent design??
Many critics of intelligent design have argued that design is merely a negative argument against evolution. This could not be further from the truth. Leading design theorist William Dembski has observed that “[t]he principle characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice.”1
By observing the sorts of choices that intelligent agents commonly make when designing systems, a positive case for intelligent design is easily constructed by elucidating predictable, reliable indicators of design.
Design can be inferred using the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. Design theorists begin with observations of how intelligent agents act when designing, to help them
recognize and detect design in the natural world:
These observations can then be converted into predictions about what we should find if an object was designed. This makes intelligent design a scientific theory capable of generating testable predictions:
Table 2. Predictions of Design7 (Hypothesis):
(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a
specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and
without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in
different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.
Originally posted by Enkidu
There isn't any proof of intelligent design. It's just another way for people who are shaky in their faith to try and convince themselves that there's a big grandpa in the sky who will take care of them while they live and when they die, rather than face the fact that life is an ongoing horror ruled by chance and chaos, and that their personal wonderfulness will be gone forever when they kick the bucket.
[edit on 23-2-2006 by Enkidu]
What kind of designer is at work here? The designer makes a human eye with these kind of flaws, yet gets these flaws right in a squid? Why didn't the designer get it right both times?
Originally posted by arius
So, I think we should let the scientists tell us how things came about and trust in our hearts that God is the one who wrote the "rules" about determining how evolution takes place. I also remember something about how matter is neither created or destroyed in a closed system so I guess someone outside the system had to create the system.