Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 05 2012,00:53)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)|
|Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?|
Tell you what, let's do a simple little test. I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because a human designed it. The other is a sequence created from random numbers. Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.
Any interest in that?
Tried that, got the following crytpic message back.
"The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though."
...our lab is currently trying to find design in the statement above, but at the moment we are pretty sure there isn't any.
I'll bet you said roughly the same thing about the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design. Only thing needed to make a big mistake like that, is to rely on mainstream science media for all your news of what's going on in science.
The paragraph you are having trouble with is simply a pragmatic way saying that I'm not sure how CSI and such fits into this theory. But there's a good hint where that could very well be, staring right back at us here:
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)|
|....here are two strings. One was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):|
Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?
I purposely made it very simple to spot which one has almost no chance at all of being the product of randomness. I'm sure (hint, hint) Guenter Albrecht-Buehler would easily figure it out.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.