Digging around for proof of God's existence

@sonship said
In the lab organisms of the same kind with new traits have been produced.

Read the link. The discovery that bacteria evolved the ability to eat plastic was *not* made in a lab. This was discovered by chance outside a bottle-making factory.

That is lack of experimental proof of a history of macro evolution.

You're now changing goalposts. After being proved wrong that new traits do in fact evolve, you're now switching the fact that "macro" evolution, something that happens over hundreds of millions of years, hasn't been observed by humans who have only been around for about 200 thousand years.

Debating "macro" evolution is something I'll do with you on another thread. For now, it has been established that you and your source is wrong about evolution not producing new traits, as evidenced by that bacteria.

@vivify

The video did not say new traits cannot be produced. It says it is not likely random but by intelligent design. This is a better explanation then randomness.

Are you saying that the concepts of natural selection on random mutations does not apply on the level of micro biology ?

Are you saying that it is given that the cell has not been subject to evolution process as proposed for larger biological systems?

I thought it was a bottom up process. Are you arguing that evolutionists are excluding the whole inter cell production of new proteins by which we would expect modifications within a creature WITH cells to be modified?

I thought common descent starts with a "simple" first cell from which the entire tree of life somehow evolved out to the entire realm of the biosphere seen.

@vivify

After being proved wrong that new traits do in fact evolve,

It was not argued that new traits can be produced by production of of proteins as directed by information in the DNA molecule. It was argued that for this to be random is not as good an explanation as for it to be intelligently designed to do it.

@sonship said
@vivify

The video did not say new traits cannot be produced. It says it is not likely random but by intelligent design. This is a better explanation then randomness.

Are you saying that the concepts of natural selection on random mutations does not apply on the level of micro biology ?

Are you saying that it is given that the cell has not been subject to evol ...[text shortened]... ll from which the entire tree of life somehow evolved out to the entire realm of the biosphere seen.

By what metric is 'intelligent design' a better explanation than random mutation?

@sonship said
@vivify

The video did not say new traits cannot be produced. It says it is not likely random but by intelligent design. This is a better explanation then randomness.

And yet, that bacteria randomly evolved the ability to eat plastic. A "designer" did not create bacteria that can eat plastic, this trait evolved.

Now: if you're saying the ability to evolve is by design, then fine: as I've said multiple times, ID doesn't contradict evolution. If ID is true, evolution can simply be the mechanism used by the designer.

I thought common descent starts with a "simple" first cell from which the entire tree of life somehow evolved out to the entire realm of the biosphere seen.

It's not known what the first life form was, or when a "cell" as we know it started to appear on earth. The very first life form was most likely not a "cell" with mitochondria, a nucleus, etc. It was most likely some simple proteins that reacted to the environment and developed new traits over successive generations in response to its surroundings. But again, to be clear, no one knows for sure.

@philokalia said
The mind is tempted to give in to the simplest, most minimalistic understanding of the universe: every single thing must be proven to the eyes; things can only be accounted for empirically...

Yet, in their personal lives, such a standard is never embraced, for it is impractical and laughable. We all accept the logic of things around us - we only dismiss the rationality ...[text shortened]... us.

Empiricism is trying to grasp a hold on the whole of reality... but really grasping nothing.

On the contrary, I think many scientists are aware of how specialized most fields have become. No single person has time to be an expert at all of them; it stands to reason that they must trust others to some extent for knowledge outside their own fields.

You also dismissed Empiricism very readily. I do not know the formal definition of that philosophy, but your text doesn't pass a 'smell test'.

@sonship said
@vivify

After being proved wrong that new traits do in fact evolve,

It was not argued that new traits can be produced by production of of proteins as directed by information in the DNA molecule. It was argued that for this to be random is not as good an explanation as for it to be intelligently designed to do it.

Stop using the term intelligent design when you mean the will of a magical creature. Intelligence is one outcome of evolution but you are arguing that evolution is less likely a causal factor of intelligence than a magical creature that proofed itself and us out of nothing. What intelligent designer would worry about people eating shell fish or allocate a whole day just for worshiping itself. Does this sound like an intelligent designer to you.
Evolution happened and it’s still happening, it is morally blind, the process creates the useful plastic eating bacteria as mentioned by vilify and new variants of the covid virus which can become dominant strains within months.
But do not fret you still have that gap in our understanding concerning the origins of the evolutionary process and there’s plenty of room for a magical creature in there.

@kevcvs57

Stop using the term intelligent design when you mean the will of a magical creature.

There is no reason to do that. If it kills our pride to know an intelligence, could be, that is so far greater to us than we like, we just learn to accept that that could be the case.

This may make modern sense of know-it-all arrogance squirm and lash out in contempt.

Intelligence is one outcome of evolution but you are arguing that evolution is less likely a causal factor of intelligence than a magical creature that proofed itself and us out of nothing.

The existence of the universe I believe came about by a power and intelligence outside of it. I believe that no matter how you splice, slice, sub-divide that material universe to its most quantum level, the source of it came totally from outside of it rather than inside. But this is another issue I think.

If it kills you learn that an intelligence could be so capable to design something like the DNA molecule information conveying apparatus for the production of proteins and we cannot, YET at least, we'll just have to live with knowing we're limited compared to it.

Sneering about magic in a contemptuous way has dubious feel good relief for some I guess. The possible intelligent design of the machinery in a cell, transcription, translation, division, repair, etc. is one matter. Why anything exists at all and from what ultimate source is somewhat another matter.

What intelligent designer would worry about people eating shell fish or allocate a whole day just for worshiping itself.

Now you are getting down not to intelligence but "Well! I don't like the way God does things in the Bible." I assume you are talking about some dietary laws in the Old Testament. I'd like to speak anything to that in another thread. Ie. The significance in typology of dietary laws in the law of Moses

Does this sound like an intelligent designer to you.

I am going to here, stick with the evidence for ID in things like the nano factory like operations in a biological cell, the astoundingly efficient information storage and retrieval system of the DNA molecule.

Maybe if I have time latter I'll comment on your problem with Old Testament ordinances you find bad or not intelligent. All I can do is explain why what is a problem for you may not be a problem to me, as a believer in God in the bible.

What intelligent designer would worry about people eating shell fish or allocate a whole day just for worshiping itself.

And now you propose a morally blind process which apparently produced a morally sensitive being like yourself who is morally outraged about some dietary laws in the Old Testament.

You say now evolution furnished you with an ability that it had no wherewithal to bestow upon you?

But do not fret you still have that gap in our understanding concerning the origins of the evolutionary process and there’s plenty of room for a magical creature in there.

Visa versa. Don't fret because there could be an intelligence that we have a long, long way to figure out how something was done.

It doesn't stop us from having many happy days cracking the method in which something is designed. ID does not insist curious minds stop trying to discover how something in the biological world actually works.

Its like learning to improve your chess game. I get trounced in chess a lot more than I win. That doesn't stop me from gaining more knowhow about the unknowns which limit me.

If Darwinists die off and ID gains more ground, there will always be ID theorists who love the challenge of exploring deeper into how the probably designed things work.

@kevcvs57

Stop using the term intelligent design when you mean the will of a magical creature.

Like - if a frog is kissed and turns into a human prince - that's a magical fairy tale.

But if a frog turns into a human prince and it took 60 million years of random mutations, that's science.


Typo correction above. I meant to write -

It was not argued that new traits [can't] be produced by production of proteins as directed by information in the DNA molecule. It was argued that for this to be random is not as good an explanation as for it to be intelligently designed to do it.

@sonship said

Like - if a frog is kissed and turns into a human prince - that's a magical fairy tale.

But if a frog turns into a human prince and it took 60 million years of random mutations, that's science.

Except that wouldn't be science. Humans are not descended from frogs.

You continually prove you don't understand evolution, yet continue to criticize it.

@vivify said
Except that wouldn't be science. Humans are not descended from frogs.

You continually prove you don't understand evolution, yet continue to criticize it.

Check this Darwinian tree of life diagram and see that there is some shared relationship of descent from amphibians to humans.

https://www.amazon.com/Laminated-Evolution-featuring-Charles-Darwin/dp/B06XPQ64G4/ref=asc_df_B06XPQ64G4/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=242233775507&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2745774650014909654&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9005945&hvtargid=pla-431596852255&psc=1

And if I am incorrect that frogs and humans share no common evolutionary path at all, just substitute "frog" for that ape looking beast in the series of seven sculls and accompanying primates leading up to a modern human.

I'd stand by my comment.

And common design concept is a valid interpretation.
Relationships of descent is not the ONLY possible interpretation.

So while you say "You don't understand evolution" I say to you "You don't understand that commonality in design plan could also be a valid interpretation."

Frogs and humans share certain design characteristics like a kite, a glider, a propeller plane, a jet plane, a rocket, a space shuttle.