Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MrIntelligentDesign on 15/09/2015 21:48:56
-
Hello!
I'm new here so I think I have to introduce to you myself.
The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations
How will you answer this scientific question in science or religion? “How can you differentiate a created X to an un-created X”? Will you answer, “The created X is complex or irreducibly complex and the un-created X is simple or reducibly complex?”. Or in Biology, a difference or dividing line between an intentionally made biological cell to non-intentional? Will you answer, “intentional is information-coded while the non-intentional is no-information code,”? Or in Cosmology, an intelligently designed Universe to non-intelligently designed Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, interrelation is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.
-
New intelligence? Old intelligence? That's weird.
If you can elaborate that would be good.
-
I get it now, intelligent design relates to a presumption that all things are a part of an intelligent design, I have said similar in the thought that the entire Universe is a Nuclear reactor, and we are nothing more than nuclear waste based on the mimic of trying to create Plasma, and magnetic bottling , which I feel is why the sun stays in confinement and does not just disperse into a gas.
However, I can answer your questions.
(1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?
We know because we can sit and observe algae on a pond form.
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Your name is on the log book
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?
Because we called it a square, you could of called a rectangle a square if you wanted to , but then what are you going to call the square a rectangle?
This seems a bit silly to be honest.
-
Hi Folks, this is MrID again.
I am sharing you the science, powerful science from the new Intelligent Design <id>...
The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations
How will you answer this scientific question in science or religion? “How can you differentiate a created X to an un-created X”? Will you answer, “The created X is complex or irreducibly complex and the un-created X is simple or reducibly complex?”. Or in Biology, a difference or dividing line between an intentionally made biological cell to non-intentional? Will you answer, “intentional is information-coded while the non-intentional is no-information code,”? Or in Cosmology, an intelligently designed Universe to non-intelligently designed Universe?
-
Hi, This is Edgar Postrado, the discoverer of intelligence and non-intelligence.
Guys, I think that you really like science. I come here to talk real science since I am a discoverer in science. Please, do not delete my post. I am just sharing to you real science...
The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations
How will you answer this scientific question in science or religion? “How can you differentiate a created X to an un-created X”? Will you answer, “The created X is complex or irreducibly complex and the un-created X is simple or reducibly complex?”. Or in Biology, a difference or dividing line between an intentionally made biological cell to non-intentional? Will you answer, “intentional is information-coded while the non-intentional is no-information code,”? Or in Cosmology, an intelligently designed Universe to non-intelligently designed Universe?
-
I come here to talk real science since I am a discoverer in science. Please, do not delete my post. I am just sharing to you real science...
OK, start talking real science and share.
-
“How can you differentiate a created X to an un-created X”
I have to say that I have considered this question before, but am unsure how one would do so in a scientific manner.
Will you answer, “The created X is complex or irreducibly complex and the un-created X is simple or reducibly complex?”
No, I would consider that a poor test to differentiate the two. I'd have to go back and look into again (it's been a while), but the nylonase mutations lead to an irreducibly-complex system where removing one component of the system eliminates the ability of the mutated bacteria to digest certain kinds of nylon precursors.
Will you answer, “intentional is information-coded while the non-intentional is no-information code,”
That's also a bad test. We know that mutations plus natural selection can produce new information in the genome.
-
First, I thank the MODERATOR for moving this post. I thought that new science explanations are not welcome here.
Well, actually, the questions I had posted in my INTRO are unanswerable by anyone, even to the best of Evolution Theory, no answer. Thus, our science is not really that powerful. Well, it is too long to copy and paste, but I think the answers to them are here in my link: my science article. For starter, read it and let us discuss here.
-
Hi, This is Edgar Postrado, the discoverer of intelligence and non-intelligence.
Hi Edgar, welcome to the forum.
I’m afraid you can’t claim to be the discoverer of intelligence and non-intelligence as these concepts have been around for a long time. You may need to think about how you title you concept.
Your links will be nofollow until you have posted a few more times and you can introduce yourself in “just chat” section.
-
Hi Colin, thank you for the REPLY.
Actually, there are almost 70 definitions of intelligence and of course, 70 non-intelligence. You can FREELY add more, if you want. Maybe, 80 definitions! The best that our science could give. It was researched by two researchers. I can give you the link, or you can Google it.
BUT...BUT...BUT... those definitions cannot even answer this simple question: "Is the universe intelligently designed or not?"
Whazzap?? Why they could never answer that very simple scientific question? Is the question stupid or the definitions are stupid?
I solved it and I discovered it. That is why I am here. I'm trying to share you the link in ZENODO, but, sorry..it still does not work.
-
An intelligent design, in a general sense, would be a type of design that is predictable in terms of its function and performance. It will not be all over the place, helta skelta. Its activity will follow from earlier principles, rules and actions, in terms of its propagation to the future.
In chess, an intelligent design to win, might involve a series of anticipated moves that will lead to a check mate. This series of moves may not be obvious to your opponent, who may see only the limited scope of your first move out of context with your bigger plan. He might also see his options as being more open. He may not see the pitfall of certain moves. It takes intelligence to see intelligent design, since lack of intelligence will narrow the scope and not see the correct future.
Inherent within science is such a problem. Science is currently based mostly on specialists. This is useful for any particular area of science but it can run into problems when one speciality needs to cross the boundary with other specialities. The interfaces to the next move is not as well known. One ay be good at step A but Step C may be so removed from expertise, it will not be fully anticipated. This is why science if often disjointed between specialties. How do quarks impact cells? The two area of specialty do not interface at all so any theory that does will not be known by either.
For example, water; H2O, is the second most abundant molecule in the universe behind only hydrogen gas, which is H2. Life as we know it works within the matrix of liquid H2O, and the energy bandwidth of life lies within the energy bandwidth between H2 and H2O. Only a rare bacteria or two are able to use the entire energy bandwidth all the way from H2 to H2O. Is this random coincidence or part of an intelligent design that anticipated a needed goal before it occurred in time? Was this a chess move anticipated many steps ahead in the future from physics, to chemistry to biology? This is too many specialities to get an answer from any specialist.
Say we start with the BB, and based on the known history of the universe. The BB leads to Hydrogen and Helium that then form stars, with these stars leading to the universal abundance of water. Were these chess moves also anticipated at the start of the BB? Just because you cannot see them does not mean they were not there. Specialty may not be able to span the bandwidth. The assumption of an intelligent design; chess master, gives one two points to draw a line; BB and Life. Once needs to figure how to connect the two bookends, building from both ends inward. If they connect we have an intelligently designed bridge. This is like replaying the chess match, after you lose, to see how you were set up for failure very early on, when you were not aware. A chess master may not show all his moves, since this is competitive sport, but rest assure this was planned.
-
Intelligent design is a blurry concept. Is an ant mound intelligently designed? Ants do have brains, after all. What about a bird nest? What about footprints? Surely one wouldn't normally think of footprints as such, but what if they were left intentionally as a way for others to follow them? That would represent an intentional modification of the environment for a purpose.
-
@puppypower,
Before you could use the word intelligence, you must first scientifically define it, with experiment, if not, you are adding to the 70 definitions that are existing, further messing this topic.
-
How will you answer this scientific question in science or religion? “How can you differentiate a created X to an un-created X”?
I would answer it by saying your question doesn't make much sense.
What do you mean by "created" and "un-created"?
An ox-bow lake is created by a river.
-
Before you could use the word intelligence, you must first scientifically define it,
PuppyPower is not the only one who needs to be careful with definitions.
-
@Kryptid,
I've been sharing here the link of my science article in ZENODO (CERN supported open journal) and see for yourself and I had already answered on that the nest making, or you can add, gorilla using sticks... or the crow dropping nuts in the road...
If you are really serious, you can just go to ZENODO, search "intelligence", best match, see Edgar Postrado, the title, "The Power of Intelligent Design...." and read the FREE article.
-
How will you answer this scientific question in science or religion? “How can you differentiate a created X to an un-created X”?
I would answer it by saying your question doesn't make much sense.
What do you mean by "created" and "un-created"?
An ox-bow lake is created by a river.
If you have no differences between intentional to non-intentional, or I use "intelligence", you cannot answer that question, basically, which means, the power of ToE has gone.
-
Before you could use the word intelligence, you must first scientifically define it,
PuppyPower is not the only one who needs to be careful with definitions.
If we cannot scientifically define terms in science, we cannot simply explain.
-
If you have no differences between intentional to non-intentional, or I use "intelligence", you cannot answer that question, basically, which means, the power of ToE has gone.
That is very much incorrect. The theory of evolution doesn't require us to have a definition of intelligence. All it needs is for the theory to make testable predictions. It does and it has been very successful in those predictions.
-
If you have no differences between intentional to non-intentional, or I use "intelligence", you cannot answer that question, basically, which means, the power of ToE has gone.
That is very much incorrect. The theory of evolution doesn't require us to have a definition of intelligence. All it needs is for the theory to make testable predictions. It does and it has been very successful in those predictions.
Oh please, think for a moment.. Does the "change" in frequency allelle..." intentional or not? How do you know? Can you test it?
-
Oh please, think for a moment.. Does the "change" in frequency allelle..." intentional or not?
Not.
How do you know?
How could it possibly be intentional? That makes no sense.
-
Oh please, think for a moment.. Does the "change" in frequency allelle..." intentional or not?
Not.
How do you know?
How could it possibly be intentional? That makes no sense.
It only means that you do not know and yet you and ToE quickly concluded. That is not science, that is a religion!
First, in science, you must know the two: intention or not, then, apply and conclude. That is how powerful the new Intelligent Design. It knows both and concluded.
-
If we cannot scientifically define terms in science, we cannot simply explain.
I asked you to explain something.
You did not; and you did not scientifically define it either so, for the second time.
.
What do you mean by "created" and "un-created"?
-
Evolution by natural selection would work whether the mutations were intentional or not. Selection pressures favor mutations that improve fitness. That will be true whether a mutation was put there intentionally or not.
-
Evolution by natural selection would work whether the mutations were intentional or not. Selection pressures favor mutations that improve fitness. That will be true whether a mutation was put there intentionally or not.
In science, we do not give an un-concrete and untestable statement. Either the change that works in Nat Selec in Evolution is intentional or not, it must be tested. Science is for opposites, for both explanation and falsification, either A or B, if not, you are destroying falsification. Science is not a generilization, science is for specific and empirical. Choose which and let us test with experiment.
-
Vinegar mixed with baking soda will generate carbon dioxide gas, regardless of whether they were mixed on purpose or by accident. Intelligence therefore has no impact on that fact.
Science is as general or as specific as it needs to be.
If you think there is a reliable experiment that can distinguish design that is intelligent from that which is not, please tell us what it is.
-
The new Intelligent Design is powerful in categorizing two extreme opposites but I need more data from COVID-19. Will you help me finish this scientific quest?
THE ORIGIN OF COVID-19: A SCIENTIFIC GUIDE Through The New Intelligent Design
As of this writing, COVID-19 had been infecting almost 400 million people and counting, had been killing over 5.5 million humans and still counting, had been destroying trillions of US dollars of economy and still going on, had been interrelating (intelligently relating or intentionally relating) from Alpha to Omicron variants and COVID-19 is causing many suicides due to lockdowns. One of the worst hit of the COVID-19 is the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, in where athletes compete each other without onlooking supporters, audiences, and customers, while the Japanese government had spent billions of US dollars in anticipation of success of the games. In addition, the Tokyo 2020 Olympics was postponed for one year due to COVID-19. So far, no one had ever shown if the COVID-19 had originated naturally (naturen) or not (intellen). To answer and solve this mystery or dilemma, science needs a universally correct scientific categorization method or technique to pinpointedly nail down the origin of the COVID-19 correctly and prevent future occurrences of destructive virus pandemic. The discoveries from the new Intelligent Design are being proposed to be used as guide in dealing and categorizing the topic of origins, especially, the origin of COVID-19.
-
I have merged your topics. Please do not post your personal theories outside of the "New Theories" forum.
From your article...
Take note very carefully, I would like to clarify and reiterate once again that when the new Intelligence Design <id> uses the word intelligence, as discovered through science experiment, intelligence is always being used for absolute good for existence and good for humans. Intelligence is for good only, no exception! That is why in my original published science e-book in Amazon, I did not even use the word intention/intentional to replace or use it as co-explanatory word for intelligence, since intelligence is always for good.
If that is your definition of intelligence, then your definition doesn't fit well at all with the existing definitions. Besides, you would now need to define "good".
-
So far, no one had ever shown if the COVID-19 had originated naturally (naturen) or not (intellen). To answer and solve this mystery or dilemma, science needs a universally correct scientific categorization method or technique to pinpointedly nail down the origin of the COVID-19 correctly and prevent future occurrences of destructive virus pandemic.
If covid was designed by an intelligent entity- whether that's a God or a "mad scientist"- then that same intelligence would also be able to circumvent any plan put in place to " prevent future occurrences of destructive virus pandemic."
So, even if you were right, you would still be wrong.
-
Evolution by natural selection would work whether the mutations were intentional or not. Selection pressures favor mutations that improve fitness. That will be true whether a mutation was put there intentionally or not.
Selective pressure, from nature, is an intelligent design, since this schema can lead even randomly based changes on the DNA, down specific anticipated rational paths, that have been selected in advance by the environment. For example, the Arctic Circle and the Equator both exert selective pressures on all the life that lives there. Each system of pressure anticipates specific characteristics that will be optimized out of all the possible changes a random model can generate. Darwin sensed the rational pressures that lead, while modern biology is fixated on the random changes most of which are not selected. This bias of tradition makes it hard to see the simplicity of this intelligent design.
Thick, high r-value fur/skin will always be the goal in the ArcticRegion since this is the induced potential seen by all multicellular biology systems. This goal is mediated by the water since water is the integrating feature of life. The carbon aspects of life are very diverse, but water, which accounts for the vast majority of all the molecules within life, is simple, stable and persistent. It is a fixed bookend that anchors the diversity of the carbon so it fans out a certain way as it evolves. This was an intelligent design.
This choice of water for life was an intelligent design since all the organics molecules, like alcohols, that are theorized as alternate solvents for life, can be used as fuel, metabolized and altered, thereby losing the single stable bookend that only water can provide. This stable bookend has its own potentials that create selection at the nanoscale that can interface environmental potentials at the macro-scale; fully integrated.
Here is an interesting observation and example of the integrating potential of water; selective potential that leads evolution at both the nanoscale and macro scale. Human females typically have more body fat, while human males typically have more protein and muscle implicit of less body fat. In terms of the water, since the female body has more "oil", in terms of her water-oil or water-organic body system, one would expect more surface tension in females. This is observed and gives the entire female body a more curved and rounded appearance. Males are less curved, in comparison due to less bulk surface tension between all its organics and water. The extra reduction potential of the female is connected to the needs of growing babies. The bulk water and oil (organic) equilibrium of the female body; higher surface tension, creates sensory cues between male and female, so that can each find each other and procreate. This is an intelligent design due to the simplicity and integration of the nanoscale and macro-level.
There is an aspect of animal consciousness that I call sensory expectation.This is an intelligent design. Sensory expectation is a type of potential, stemming from the operating system of the brain; instinct. The brain sets a potential and then tells one; instinct, what is needed to impinge upon your sensory systems to lower the potential. For example, when we are hungry images of food will enter your mind based on the time of day. I had the urge to have a bagel this morning. My sensory expectation was satisfied only after I found the bagels in the bread drawer, placed it the toaster, buttered it and then brought to my computer desk, to eat; yum! The potential is satisfied for now. I think I need another coffee.
The brain's operating system has it own type of selective environment that can lead consciousness to anticipated ends that integrate it with the body's biology in the light of the selective properties of nature. All the random choices of food in my house can get narrowed down based on a sensory expectation; urge, leading me to the path needed to release the inner potential. This is an intelligent design since it can build upon itself. I may need other nutrients tomorrow, so I expect, based on trends for my sensory expectation, this will lead to cereal and milk. When the natural animal begins his search for food, they have a visualized and olfactory goal in mind or a list of possible alternative, in the case of omnivores.
Humans also have choice and free will, so we make alternate choices apart from instinctive sensory expectation. However, these choices are less satisfying and leave lingering potential. This is also a type of intelligent designed since it maintains activation energy. The drug addict is never able to release their natural sensory expectation potential and becomes more obsessed as this potential builds; downward spiral. This lower the set point of the brain's operating system leading one to an early time in human evolution; become more primitive; shaggy clothes and hunting and gathering from nature; dumpsters.
-
Selective pressure, from nature, is an intelligent design
You have an unusual definition of "intelligent".
-
Selective pressure, from nature, is an intelligent design, since this schema can lead even randomly based changes on the DNA, down specific anticipated rational paths,
Who does the "anticipating"?
-
I have merged your topics. Please do not post your personal theories outside of the "New Theories" forum.
From your article...
Take note very carefully, I would like to clarify and reiterate once again that when the new Intelligence Design <id> uses the word intelligence, as discovered through science experiment, intelligence is always being used for absolute good for existence and good for humans. Intelligence is for good only, no exception! That is why in my original published science e-book in Amazon, I did not even use the word intention/intentional to replace or use it as co-explanatory word for intelligence, since intelligence is always for good.
If that is your definition of intelligence, then your definition doesn't fit well at all with the existing definitions. Besides, you would now need to define "good".
You did not finish the article that you are reading! At the end of that science article, you will see the definitions of the two. And, are you lazy to read? Maybe, you just have no time...
-
Evolution by natural selection would work whether the mutations were intentional or not. Selection pressures favor mutations that improve fitness. That will be true whether a mutation was put there intentionally or not.
Selective pressure, from nature, is an intelligent design, since this schema can lead even randomly based changes on the DNA, down specific anticipated rational paths, that have been selected in advance by the environment.
This is one of the reasons why EVOLUTION is not a real science theory. Evolution has killed falsification, by giving general explanations of reality. In science either A or B, if A then, B is falsified. Oh my goodness...
-
So far, no one had ever shown if the COVID-19 had originated naturally (naturen) or not (intellen). To answer and solve this mystery or dilemma, science needs a universally correct scientific categorization method or technique to pinpointedly nail down the origin of the COVID-19 correctly and prevent future occurrences of destructive virus pandemic.
If covid was designed by an intelligent entity- whether that's a God or a "mad scientist"- then that same intelligence would also be able to circumvent any plan put in place to " prevent future occurrences of destructive virus pandemic."
So, even if you were right, you would still be wrong.
My goal is to pinpoint the Agent who brought the COVID-19 to Wuhan market... the new ID will guide us to there.
-
My goal is to pinpoint the Agent who brought the COVID-19 to Wuhan market... the new ID will guide us to there.
Probably someone like this guy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/first-covid-patient-in-wuhan-was-at-animal-market-study-finds
in any event, it is likely that a study like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19
will answer the question and tosh about "intelligent design" can't help.
-
At the end of that science article, you will see the definitions of the two.
I looked and I don't see where the word "good" is defined. Could you quote the part that does so?
This is one of the reasons why EVOLUTION is not a real science theory.
It's very much a real science theory supported by a wide range of evidence. It is also quite falsifiable (the fossil record, biogeography and patterns of genetics between species would all have been plenty enough to prove it wrong if they were, in fact, incompatible with it).
-
My goal is to pinpoint the Agent who brought the COVID-19 to Wuhan market... the new ID will guide us to there.
Probably someone like this guy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/first-covid-patient-in-wuhan-was-at-animal-market-study-finds
in any event, it is likely that a study like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19
will answer the question and tosh about "intelligent design" can't help.
Well, what I am doing is using real science and real criteria in categorizing an X, X = COVID-19, since the new ID could generally categorize all things...
-
At the end of that science article, you will see the definitions of the two.
I looked and I don't see where the word "good" is defined. Could you quote the part that does so?
This is one of the reasons why EVOLUTION is not a real science theory.
It's very much a real science theory supported by a wide range of evidence. It is also quite falsifiable (the fossil record, biogeography and patterns of genetics between species would all have been plenty enough to prove it wrong if they were, in fact, incompatible with it).
Intelligence = one problem, two or more solutions... non-intelligence = one problem, one solution... know that differences and apply that to Biology, you will end up cursing Evolution...
-
Intelligence = one problem, two or more solutions... non-intelligence = one problem, one solution...
Actually, I was asking how you defined "good", not "intelligence".
Also, what experiment can you perform that would support your assertion that, "Intelligence = one problem, two or more solutions... non-intelligence = one problem, one solution..."?
you will end up cursing Evolution...
I very much doubt it.
-
Well, what I am doing is using real science
No.
That would mean that you answered questions like this properly.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/01/2022 19:38:29
What do you mean by "created" and "un-created"?
What you are doing is, at best, pseudo-science.
-
Intelligence = one problem, two or more solutions... non-intelligence = one problem, one solution...
Actually, I was asking how you defined "good", not "intelligence".
Also, what experiment can you perform that would support your assertion that, "Intelligence = one problem, two or more solutions... non-intelligence = one problem, one solution..."?
you will end up cursing Evolution...
I very much doubt it.
Oh my goodness, why supporters of Evolution do not read links FREE and search for themselves? I did all of them when I tackled the topic of intelligence... are they lazy?
-
Well, what I am doing is using real science
No.
That would mean that you answered questions like this properly.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/01/2022 19:38:29
What do you mean by "created" and "un-created"?
What you are doing is, at best, pseudo-science.
Huh??? If you cannot answer questions in science, do not touch them or do not call them pseudo-.....
-
Oh my goodness, why supporters of Evolution do not read links FREE and search for themselves?
The new intelligent design sounds like the old intelligent design and it still is not a compelling argument.
-
If you cannot answer questions in science,
I'm not the one who can't answer questions.
I keep asking you the same question, and you keep failing to answer it.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/01/2022 22:38:42
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/01/2022 19:38:29
What do you mean by "created" and "un-created"?
-
Intelligence = one problem, two or more solutions... non-intelligence = one problem, one solution...
Actually, I was asking how you defined "good", not "intelligence".
Also, what experiment can you perform that would support your assertion that, "Intelligence = one problem, two or more solutions... non-intelligence = one problem, one solution..."?
you will end up cursing Evolution...
I very much doubt it.
Oh my goodness, why supporters of Evolution do not read links FREE and search for themselves? I did all of them when I tackled the topic of intelligence... are they lazy?
I used the search function and looked for all instances of the word "good" in your article. At no point did I see where you defined what makes something morally good. If you did, and I somehow missed it, please tell me where and what the definition is.
-
An intelligent design would be one that can anticipate the future and smoothly build upon itself so the future can smoothly interface the past. It is like playing chess, where you have to plan many moves ahead and not just one move at a time. Each move has consequences and the more moves you can anticipate, the smoother the path to the future; check mate.
For example, if the goal of the universe was to create intelligent life; highest form of matter we know, then its beginning would need to anticipate all the chess moves that will be needed for life 12 billions years later. This type of intelligent design would need to play chess dozens of moves in advance. This is why many think you need God to do this. The God of Abraham was not a God of cards and dice, but showed rational planning skills like a chess master.
One of the problems that science has, with the idea of intelligent design with this much planning ahead, is modern science is broken down into endless specialties, such that planning many steps ahead is not always possible by any one person. Specialization creates deep insight in one spot, but it also creates interface problems between specialties, that can make its specialty flavored chess moves backfire.
Science, to overcome these gaps in knowledge, tends to employ a random based oracle, to act as an interface for the gaps between specialties. This is not part of any intelligent design since no chess master flips coins or rolls dice to figure out his 8th level move. That would be more for an amateur. In intelligent design, there can be no lapses in reason, or else your design will have holes, which can deflect the straight line to success. The opposite of intelligent design is not intelligently designed.
Science has structural limitations; specialties, when it comes to integrating theory that can span specialties. These problems can remedied by starting a generalists path of science education, that can address all the interfaces, without the hocus-pocus of dice. Dice is not part of any chess master's tool box. It is not reliable and house always wins.
The only form of life that has ever been seen by science is based on water. The Bible is clear about separating the waters. An intelligent design needs to anticipate this need for water, all the way back to the BB. A basic chess strategy would be to make the original physics add up to what is needed down the road. Luckily the atoms were predesigned so hydrogen appears first and fusion finds immense stability within the atom of oxygen, This makes hydrogen and oxygen very abundant. That was a good chess move. But to do that we needed to define the nature of all atomic dynamics from only quarks, so this is what we always get.
What is cool about water, is water is a very stable molecule, being one of the terminal products of combustion. If we burn oxygen and hydrogen in a 5000C flame we get water. Water can stand the heat in the kitchen, allowing it to cook. Even though water is very stable as a single molecule, hydrogen bonding between water molecules gives water a wide range of unusual properties; wild cards. Water is the swiss army knife of nature.
Hydrogen bonding has both polar and covalent properties with these two interchangeable types of bonds separated by a small energy hill. This allow the hydrogen bonds of water to act binary switches, that can form an extensive 3-D network. This is needed for the 3-D communication that integrates the organics of life at all levels.
An intelligent design would have anticipated this binary switch need. Organics alone will not do anything. If we take away the water, there is no life and nothing works. We add water back, then life will appear, using the data transfer medium of water. Other solvents do not have this extra property of water will they form and remain stable at 5000C.
-
An intelligent design would be one that can anticipate the future and smoothly build upon itself so the future can smoothly interface the past.
Correct, which is why it is not science but instead a supernatural explanation without any evidence to back it up. The only form of life that has ever been seen by science is based on water. The Bible is clear about separating the waters. An intelligent design needs to anticipate this need for water, all the way back to the BB.
Oops!! Intelligent design was invented to sneak creationism into schools by making it seem like science! Mentioning the bible during a discussion about ID screws up the whole the whole illusion of it being science.
-
The Bible is clear about separating the waters.
(1) No, it's not.
(2) This is a science site. Old books are not relevant.
-
The Bible is clear about separating the waters.
(1) No, it's not.
(2) This is a science site. Old books are not relevant.
OK. I will be submitting my new science article this month or early next month in NATURE Journal titled "Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Its Replacement". It will be a good article, but if NATURE will reject me, the article will end up in Zenodo. I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.
-
OK. I will be submitting my new science article this month or early next month in NATURE Journal titled "Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Its Replacement". It will be a good article, but if NATURE will reject me, the article will end up in Zenodo. I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.
Based on what you have written here the people at Nature will toss it in the circular file after reading the first paragraph.
I think Zendo only accepts peer reviewed articles, so that's a nonstarter. I think you would need to send your paper to a creationist / young earth website to get it published. They would love your paper.
-
OK. I will be submitting my new science article this month or early next month in NATURE Journal titled "Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Its Replacement". It will be a good article, but if NATURE will reject me, the article will end up in Zenodo. I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.
Based on what you have written here the people at Nature will toss it in the circular file after reading the first paragraph.
I think Zendo only accepts peer reviewed articles, so that's a nonstarter. I think you would need to send your paper to a creationist / young earth website to get it published. They would love your paper.
Or they will be very afraid that they will be losing their jobs and honor
-
You have not falsified evolution at all. You also need to learn how radio metric dating works. There is currently no good scientific evidence that humans and non-avian dinosaurs lived together.
-
I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.
I'm sure they will.
-
You have not falsified evolution at all. You also need to learn how radio metric dating works. There is currently no good scientific evidence that humans and non-avian dinosaurs lived together.
Do you mean that ToE is unfalsifiable? If that is the case, then, ToE is not a VALID scientific explanation. Now, I will give you time here: what is your best falsification criteria for ToE to be falsified? And why you use that?
-
I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.
I'm sure they will.
They do not normally give a fair fight.
-
I read an article in "Salon" on 2/5/2022, about some research data from an Israeli science study that appears to disprove the random genetic mutation theory aspect of evolutionary theory. I have been saying this for years, now there is science proof.
Their study looked at human DNA with respect to the genes used to make people more resistant to malaria. Malaria is a big problem in Africa. They compared a group of Africans where malaria was a big problem with a group of Europeans where this is mosquitos but no malaria problem. If mutations were generated randomly we should see these genes in both group. This was not the case. Both places have mosquitos. Natural selection chooses things that offer advantages with this an advantage. But in the end, selection only chose those genes in an area where it was needed.
The clincher was in the African samples those who had genes for malaria resistance, also had genes nearby that cause sickle cell. It appears these two things are connected. In this case, natural selection chose both good and bad things, due to the malaria advantages outweighing the negatives of sickle cell where malaria was present.
The bottom line is random mutations cannot explain these observations. It appears to be much more like determinism. The environment set need, which then impact the needed changes on DNA. Natural selection starts earlier with environmental potential setting need, which then create the needed genes. This is all based on equilibrium in water.
We may need a new intelligent design to replace the gambling casino science aspect of evolution. Mixing gambling math with science is not intelligent. If you take gambling too seriously, it can lead to compulsion and false hope in science. Reason and science is always better. This is how you make an intelligent design.
-
I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.
I'm sure they will.
They do not normally give a fair fight.
For as start, they do but... Have it your way.
Why do you want your ideas published in this unfair journal?
-
I read an article in "Salon" on 2/5/2022, about some research data from an Israeli science study that appears to disprove the random genetic mutation theory aspect of evolutionary theory. I have been saying this for years, now there is science proof.
Their study looked at human DNA with respect to the genes used to make people more resistant to malaria. Malaria is a big problem in Africa. They compared a group of Africans where malaria was a big problem with a group of Europeans where this is mosquitos but no malaria problem. If mutations were generated randomly we should see these genes in both group. This was not the case. Both places have mosquitos. Natural selection chooses things that offer advantages with this an advantage. But in the end, selection only chose those genes in an area where it was needed.
The clincher was in the African samples those who had genes for malaria resistance, also had genes nearby that cause sickle cell. It appears these two things are connected. In this case, natural selection chose both good and bad things, due to the malaria advantages outweighing the negatives of sickle cell where malaria was present.
The bottom line is random mutations cannot explain these observations. It appears to be much more like determinism. The environment set need, which then impact the needed changes on DNA. Natural selection starts earlier with environmental potential setting need, which then create the needed genes. This is all based on equilibrium in water.
We may need a new intelligent design to replace the gambling casino science aspect of evolution. Mixing gambling math with science is not intelligent. If you take gambling too seriously, it can lead to compulsion and false hope in science. Reason and science is always better. This is how you make an intelligent design.
You plainly have no idea what you are talking about.
I suggest you open another thread and cite the journal article you are referring to in that thread.
This one is bad enough without your "contribution".
-
I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.
I'm sure they will.
They do not normally give a fair fight.
For as start, they do but... Have it your way.
Why do you want your ideas published in this unfair journal?
I am just trying to give them the article free and laugh to their insanity! lol!
-
Do you mean that ToE is unfalsifiable?
No, I'm saying that you haven't falsified it.
Now, I will give you time here: what is your best falsification criteria for ToE to be falsified? And why you use that?
The discovery of a large number of out-of-order fossils (such as a pre-Cambrian rabbit) would definitely be a big problem for evolution to explain. The fact that there is a distinct chronological pattern to the fossil record is one of the big pieces of evidence for evolution. You start off with the simplest life forms (prokaryotes) which progress to single-celled eukaryotes then to colonial organisms like sponges, then simple invertebrates like worms, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals then humans. If there was no pattern to the fossil record, that would be evidence against evolution.
Biogeography is also evidence for evolution. The distribution of animals across the Earth's surface isn't random, but is related to what ancestors of those animals could have reached those places in a reasonable manner. From an evolutionary perspective, you'd never expect to find an African elephant on Easter Island, for example, because they would have no way to get there.
Genetic patterns are also strong evidence for evolution. The pattern of endogenous retroviral (ERV) elements (which were inserted by viral infections in the distant past) in chimpanzees and humans are extremely similar, which indicates that both chimpanzees and humans inherited these infection remnants from the same common ancestors. So another potential falsification would come from the discovery that two distantly-related animals (such as a gila monster and a great white shark) have significantly more ERVs in common than two closely-related animals do (a gila monster and beaded lizard).
They do not normally give a fair fight.
What makes you say that?
-
and laugh to their insanity!
What does "laugh to their insanity" mean? You have not falsified ToE or given any compelling evidence for ID.
-
For those interested, this appears to be the article that puppypower is talking about: https://www.salon.com/2022/02/05/biologists-surprised-to-discover-that-some-random-mutations-may-not-be-so-random/
We do know that mutations aren't completely random. Some areas of the genome are more resistant to mutation because mutation in those sections are more likely to be significantly damaging to the organism: https://www.livescience.com/non-random-dna-mutations
I'm pretty sure I have read an article at some point suggesting that epigenetic changes caused by DNA methylation could cause a form of "directed" evolution by making those same sections of methylated DNA more likely to mutate. An article hinting at heightened mutation rates caused by methylation can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/g3journal/article/10/9/3337/6060130
I think the idea was that external stresses to the organism can cause epigenetic changes via methylation of particular DNA sequences that affect gene expression. I know I made a thread about this same idea some years back, but I'm pretty sure I also saw an actual article about it more recently. At any rate, I'd say it is indeed possible that the stresses caused by malaria infections could cause methylation in certain genes that cause the sickle-cell mutation to occur more often in malaria-exposed populations. It would be an interesting study to look into that.
-
I think the idea was that external stresses to the organism can cause epigenetic changes ........
You might be interested in this https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/06/genetic-switches-play-big-role-human-evolution
I have read that environmental pressures and even exposure to certain chemicals can cause genes to switch on or off affecting the genes which are then passed on.
This is in no way the same as the claims made by the op or puppy
-
The problem with a random approach to mutations for evolution is that more things can do wrong than can go right. For example, ask a student to randomly guess at the answers to an exam, without ever reading the questions. Random is blind so it cannot read or anticipate. This is not an intelligent design if the goal is an A. My guess is you would fail the majority of exams but have a winning hand every now and then, like winning a lottery.
Instead, an intelligent design to exam taking, does to play the lottery for an A, but learns the cause and affect between the subjects studied and then apply reason to the stresses created by the questions in the exam. This approach will succeed most of the time since it does not depend on winning a lottery, which does happen but not very often to you.
I'm pretty sure I have read an article at some point suggesting that epigenetic changes caused by DNA methylation could cause a form of "directed" evolution by making those same sections of methylated DNA more likely to mutate. An article hinting at heightened mutation rates caused by methylation can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/g3journal/article/10/9/3337/6060130
Methylation of genes adds a reduced moiety; -CH3, to some of the bases on the gene. This added reduction of the gene, increases the surface tension in the local water. Since water and organics need to be in local and global equilibrium, if we first increase in the surface tension in the local water, near a gene, due to an environmental stress, then methylation would be more likely there. These methylated genes create a permanent and lingering surface tension in the local water, to mark an occasion of stress, which needs to be addressed due to non equilibrium.
If you look at the starter zones of all coding genes, these are all rich in Adenine. If you compare the heat of formation of Adenine to the other three nucleic acids, Adenine has the most endothermic heat of formation. It absorbed energy. This means it has the highest reduction potential in water. The water near all starter zones has the highest surface tension of anywhere along the DNA. Enzymes are preferentially attracted to these starters zones due to their peak local water surface tension, and the types of equilibria that are optimize.
Methylation, by adding surface tension, makes a location on the original clean gene appear like something that it is not, in terms of its local water equilibrium. One can get a similar non-equilibrium affect in the local water by adding a typo to the duplicated DNA, to mimic the equilibrium impact of methylation on the original DNA. Carboxylation has the opposite affect since it adds a moiety that is conducive to aqueous hydrogen bonding. This is stabilizing with such genes not likely to form equilibrium typos. These will be more likely to stay perfect since anything less will not form the correct equilibrium.
Random is not a good explanation when there are changes in local potential on the DNA such as methylation. Changes like methylation loads the dice, so even random has limits placed on it, making its guesses on the exam, more rational, since lowering a potential via equilibrium, always has a sweet spot.
When evolution occurs within multicellular organisms there is always more loading of the dice compared to single cells. Individual differentiated cells, which all have the same DNA, are part of a cellular differentiation control system. This adds outside potential, beyond each cell, so the team can be more than the sum of its parts. Dice are not appropriate. Random is a better approximation for single cells.
We live in a quantum universe where reality is based on quantum states with gaps between. A quantum universe is not based on continuous functions like statistical assumptions, where there are odds even things even in the gaps. This quantum reality is seen in evolution, especially among multicellular, where missing links are do not typically appear in the quantum gaps. Evolution builds up non-equilibrium potential; epigenetic, which it addresses piecemeal, until it is time to jump to a higher integrated quantum state; humans.
-
The problem with a random approach to mutations for evolution is that more things can do wrong than can go right. For example, ask a student to randomly guess at the answers to an exam, without ever reading the questions. Random is blind so it cannot read or anticipate.
d
Thank you for showing us you don’t understand evolution.
What if the student writes down a series of random answers, but the only ones that are selected are the ones that work ie are correct.
-
Methylation of genes adds a reduced moiety; -CH3, to some of the bases on the gene. This added reduction of the gene, increases the surface tension in the local water.
You keep making the same mistake.
Adding alkyl groups reduces the surface tension.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/je00019a016
So, you are not just wrong, but wrong for the wrong reasons.
-
The problem with a random approach to mutations for evolution is that more things can do wrong than can go right. For example, ask a student to randomly guess at the answers to an exam, without ever reading the questions. Random is blind so it cannot read or anticipate. This is not an intelligent design if the goal is an A. My guess is you would fail the majority of exams but have a winning hand every now and then, like winning a lottery.
Instead, an intelligent design to exam taking, does to play the lottery for an A, but learns the cause and affect between the subjects studied and then apply reason to the stresses created by the questions in the exam. This approach will succeed most of the time since it does not depend on winning a lottery, which does happen but not very often to you.
This is a bad analogy because, in effect, you have billions of students taking the exam and as long as one of them randomly gets an A that's good enough.
-
If you have no differences between intentional to non-intentional, or I use "intelligence", you cannot answer that question, basically, which means, the power of ToE has gone.
Something is intentional if it's the result of prepared action by one or more conscious agents. It means the result has been thought of previously. In other words, its form has been represented in a memory space of conscious agents before they realise it in objective reality.
If you mix some chemical substances without knowing what it will become, the result is not intelligently designed, no matter how complex it is.
What is the definition that you used in your theory? You can just quote it here. It shouldn't be that difficult.
-
We may need a new intelligent design to replace the gambling casino science aspect of evolution. Mixing gambling math with science is not intelligent. If you take gambling too seriously, it can lead to compulsion and false hope in science. Reason and science is always better. This is how you make an intelligent design.
It seems that you need to learn about statistics and probability theory.