Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

Phantom423
reply to post by EnPassant

 

That's ridiculous. A bone, a foot, whatever has a fundamental structure that is defined by it's inherent genetic code. A foot looks like a foot because every part of the foot has a genetic component that organized that foot

That is exactly what is disputed and unproved. Genes make proteins/amino acids. That is all they do.

And that's the problem with your argument - you make no connection between micro and the macro - as though it didn't exist.

You don't understand what the argument is about. It is about form; the organisation of macroscopic, physical structures. It has not been shown that genes do this.

reply to post by EnPassant


Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about: FORM. You must think that the FORM or SHAPE of something has nothing to do with the genetic machinery that coded for that form.

I understand the argument perfectly. You want to jump over that part because it cancels your argument. The genetic code contained in DNA defines what is synthesized, what the final product will look like, how it will function. If that was not the case, then the form or shape of anything in the organism would have no code or rules to self assemble.

I think you're the one who needs to explain in detail why FORM and FUNCTION are mutually exclusive. Your argument makes DNA totally irrelevant and unnecessary. If form were defined by your macro model, DNA would be totally unnecessary.

Explanation please. Thank you.

reply to post by EnPassant



Phantom423
reply to post by EnPassant




That's ridiculous. A bone, a foot, whatever has a fundamental structure that is defined by it's inherent genetic code. A foot looks like a foot because every part of the foot has a genetic component that organized that foot

"That is exactly what is disputed and unproved. Genes make proteins/amino acids. That is all they do."

If that's the case, what regulates the volume of amino acids that DNA synthesizes? If there is no regulation and no purpose, then why have DNA at all?

And you are wrong about the evidence. This has been demonstrated in the lab many times. I will provide the links.

Even if you looked at the DNA flowchart that I posted above, you would see that form and function flow from DNA i.e. the genetic code.

Phantom423 That's ridiculous. A bone, a foot, whatever has a fundamental structure that is defined by it's inherent genetic code. A foot looks like a foot because every part of the foot has a genetic component that organized that foot.

You cannot establish the truth of a theory by simply stating it.

reply to post by EnPassant


Isn't that what you're doing?? You have not produced a single iota of evidence to support your case. My responses, on the other hand, have shown a multitude of evidence that your argument is absolutely false.

Where are your laboratory experiments? Where is the data that supports your case? What scientific journal has ever published anything so outrageous that DNA has no role in the form, structure and function of an organism???

Here is HARD evidence, evidence that has been tested in the lab, that has been peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community. Your argument, on the other hand, hasn't produced a single experiment to support your case.

Gene Expression Regulates Cell Differentiation
By: Amy Ralston, Ph.D. (Write Science Right) & Kenna Shaw, Ph.D. (Nature Education) © 2008 Nature Education
Citation: Ralston, A. & Shaw, K. (2008) Gene expression regulates cell differentiation. Nature Education 1(1):127

How is it that your body with all of its specialized organs developed from a single cell? Scientists are exploring how gene expression patterns and their timing regulate cell differentiation.
All of the cells within a complex multicellular organism such as a human being contain the same DNA; however, the body of such an organism is clearly composed of many different types of cells. What, then, makes a liver cell different from a skin or muscle cell? The answer lies in the way each cell deploys its genome. In other words, the particular combination of genes that are turned on (expressed) or turned off (repressed) dictates cellular morphology (shape) and function. This process of gene expression is regulated by cues from both within and outside cells, and the interplay between these cues and the genome affects essentially all processes that occur during embryonic development and adult life.



This figure depicts key developmental events together with global epigenetic modifications and gene expression patterns. Very early in development, DNA methylation is erased. In addition, pluripotency-associated genes begin to be expressed, and developmental genes are repressed by the PcG protein system and H3K27 methylation. During the differentiation of pluripotent cells such as embryonic stem (ES) cells, pluripotency-associated genes are repressed, potentially permanently, as a result of DNA methylation. At the same time, developmental genes begin to be expressed, and there is an increase in H3K4 methylation. During the early development of primordial germ cells (PGCs), DNA methylation and repressive histone modifications (such as H3K9 methylation) are also erased. Pluripotency-associated genes are re-expressed during a time window that allows embryonic germ cells to be derived in culture. Imprinted genes are demethylated during this period, and developmental genes are expressed afterwards. Flexible histone marks such as H3K27 methylation enable developmental genes to be silenced for a short time in pluripotent cells. By contrast, DNA methylation enables the stable silencing of imprinted genes, transposons, and some pluripotency-associated genes.
© 2007 Nature Publishing Group Reik, W. Stability and flexibility of epigenetic gene regulation in mammalian development. Nature 447, 426 (2007). All rights reserved.

It's your turn to produce the evidence. You may as well admit that you can't do it because there is no evidence in the scientific literature to support your case.

Phantom423
It's your turn to produce the evidence. You may as well admit that you can't do it because there is no evidence in the scientific literature to support your case.

You are asking me to prove a negative. It is up to those who say genes determine form to prove it. I am simply saying that it has not been shown to be the case.

This is about cell differentiation, not the process of growth and form which takes place after differentiation.

This quote from your post

Phantom423 This process of gene expression is regulated by cues from both within and outside cells, and the interplay between these cues and the genome affects essentially all processes that occur during embryonic development and adult life.

shows that cell differentiation is achieved by cues from 'outside' the cell. So cell differentiation is not solely determined by genes.

reply to post by EnPassant


The evidence is right there - you just choose to deny it. The title of the article says it all: GENE EXPRESSION REGULATES CELL DIFFERENTIATION

Definition of DIFFERENTIATION
1
: the act or process of differentiating
2
: development from the one to the many, the simple to the complex, or the homogeneous to the heterogeneous




a : modification of body parts for performance of particular functions

b : the sum of the processes whereby apparently indifferent or unspecialized cells, tissues, and structures attain their adult form and function

reply to post by Phantom423


Differentiation is not form.

reply to post by EnPassant


Really? You selectively choose one sentence in the article to support your case?? What case? You have none.

And it's not a negative to request evidence for your argument. It is negative to YOU because you have no evidence.

Once again, show the POSITIVE data and experiments that support your argument.

reply to post by EnPassant


Read the definition above.

If you don't understand it, okay. But denying it is intellectually dishonest.

reply to post by EnPassant

reply to post by Phantom423




Differentiation is not form.


From Miriam Webster

b : the sum of the processes whereby apparently indifferent or unspecialized cells, tissues, and structures attain their adult form and function

reply to post by Phantom423


When I say it is not shown that genes determine growth and form I am effectively employing the Null Hypothesis so it is up to you to present me with the data.

So now that you told us what "isn't", why don't you tell us what it "is". Where are your experiments? Where is your data? Where are the journal articles to support your case? Where are the credible quotes? Where is the organism on this planet, Earth, whose DNA has no relationship to structure, form and appearance???

Let's have it, buddy. So far you've presented nothing.

reply to post by EnPassant

reply to post by Phantom423




When I say it is not shown that genes determine growth and form I am effectively employing the Null Hypothesis so it is up to you to present me with the data.



That comment shows that you don't understand data. I posted links to several articles, most importantly the last one, which has all the data contained in it - all the experiments, all the results, all the peer reviewed comments. You chose to ignore it.
That's your problem. But you lost the argument.

BTW, a "null hypothesis" is only considered true when there is no compelling evidence to refute it. Ignoring or denying the evidence, or not challenging the evidence on an equal footing i.e. with new lab experiments, new data, does not fulfill that requirement.
And in the case of scientific experiments, a null hypothesis is only deemed true when a statistical analysis of the data shows that it's true or false. You don't have that data. In fact, you have nothing.

reply to post by Phantom423

Phantom423
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Evolution organized it as a foot because the organism needed mobility.

Can you see how this statement might appear contradictory to your argument?
By saying there was a need [for mobility] and evolution directly addressed it [by "organizing" a foot] implies a level of intent, does it not?
You are simply substituting the concept of design with the concept of organize. At least from my arm chair it appears that way...
Perhaps you can clarify the confusion.

reply to post by Phantom423

Phantom423
"Evolution doesn’t "design" anything, says anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Boston University, a discussant on the panel. It works slowly on the genes and traits it has at hand, to jerry-rig animals’ and humans body plans to changing habitats and demands.“Evolution doesn’t act to yield perfection," he says. "It acts to yield function.”

Evolution produces/shapes/devises/yields organisms that abide by form, function, and purpose to fit within their dynamic environments.
Yet it's not by "designing"? It's by "jerry-rigging". That's curious..
Evolution is not a random process, but it's a blind problem solver? Hmm.

What came first?
The solution [the foot, the lungs, the thumb]?
Or the need [movement on land, breathing, gripping]?

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Your issue lies in the fact that you are only looking at the successful adaptations. For every successful foot that gives an animal mobility, there is some useless appendage that evolution spawned that didn't work out so well. A good way to think of it is that Evolution works like a shotgun blast. Shoot a large amount of projectile in the general direction of the problem and at least one of them should hit. Same concept, many mutations occur. Most fail and only a few succeed (feet, wings, etc). We only look at the successful mutations so the process appears linear or designed, but if you broaden your thinking to include the failures you can see this isn't the case.