To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Theory Of Intelligent Design Version 3.5
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution

Gary Gaulin
It just keeps getting better all the time! And the blog now has a Q&A to answer common questions.

QUOTE
Theory of Intelligent Design (Version 3.5)

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause _ present at the levels of cellular and molecular, which is emergent from the behavior of atoms, which is emergent from the behavior of subatomic particles, which is emergent from the behavior of energy that became the universe wherein forces (bonding, polar) self-assemble cell membranes and crystalline designs where molecular behavior produces simple snowflakes to the highly complex genome catalyzed ATP synthase, flagellum motors, with far simpler starter mechanisms to begin design of living things including sunlight powered clay/dust/mineral metabolic pathways to power forward/reverse Krebs Cycle metabolism that produces the starting molecules all else (including genome) self-assembles from which from as little as a single codon replicates more advanced memory based intelligence producing mechanisms (genetic memory, somatic hypermutation) that increase in complexity in much the same way a cellular level brain learns and with motor action powered by molecular forces that through reproduction one step at a time build upon a previous design as is evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from.

New designs at the multicellular level are in part guided by what the organism itself intelligently finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate.  Examples include the peacocks where females selecting the largest most attractive tail, led to males with brilliant displays, even though this makes it more difficult to fly from predators. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.

Occasionally, chromosome complexity increases when two entire chromosomes fuse at opposite ends to become one.  This has made humans unique among its kind where such a fusion makes a total of 46 chromosomes, instead of the 48 of all great apes.  Here, a parent passed to offspring a fused copy in one of the two parental gametes, to birth a being with 47 chromosomes.  That fusion then passed into the population where the fusion would then on occasion have the fusion in both gametes to make the first 46 chromosome beings.  From a man and woman both with 46 (fusion in both gametes) could only come 46 chromosome offspring, us.

http://scientific-design-theory.blogspot.com/

photojack
QUOTE
Stand back, everyone...if photojack sees this, there's no telling what will happen!
RealityCheck quote!

RealityCheck and everyone, photojack has seen it... so here goes: tongue.gif

Gary Gaulin, How many different versions of this nonsense are you going to promulgate on us? Every time we post some real science, you jump in with a revised version of your cr@p! As someone who has helped edit and index a true peer-reviewed scientific journal and has dealt with the process in an intimate manner, your "Theory of Intelligent Design (Version X.X)" would go straight into the rejection bin so fast it would be a blur! Your first paragraph is one of the longest and most egregious examples of a run-on sentence I have ever witnessed. unsure.gif And it includes the totally ridiculous, unsupported phrase, "best explained by an intelligent cause." Every serious scientist on this planet, from every diverse discipline within the sciences would oppose that with every ossified structural member in their body.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Stand back, everyone...if photojack sees this, there's no telling what will happen!
RealityCheck quote!

RealityCheck and everyone, photojack has seen it... so here goes: tongue.gif

Gary Gaulin, How many different versions of this nonsense are you going to promulgate on us? Every time we post some real science, you jump in with a revised version of your cr@p! As someone who has helped edit and index a true peer-reviewed scientific journal and has dealt with the process in an intimate manner, your "Theory of Intelligent Design (Version X.X)" would go straight into the rejection bin so fast it would be a blur! Your first paragraph is one of the longest and most egregious examples of a run-on sentence I have ever witnessed. unsure.gif And it includes the totally ridiculous, unsupported phrase, "best explained by an intelligent cause." Every serious scientist on this planet, from every diverse discipline within the sciences would oppose that with every ossified structural member in their body.

... as is evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from.  blink.gif 
Gary Gaulin quote.

Are you serious? Care to re-read that and tell us what you mean? What about the classic example of human arm and hand bones being morphologically similar to seal flippers, the "wings" of bats and porpoise flippers?

QUOTE
New designs at the multicellular level are in part guided by what the organism itself intelligently finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate.
Gary Gaulin quote. ((laugh.gif))

Gary, there are plenty of multicellular life forms that exist without sex at all, let alone any "intelligence" to find "desirable" mates! I knew more biology than that in the third grade! How can you possibly make a statement that shows that level of ignorance as an adult? It's incomprehensible to me that anyone could get through our educational system with such an abysmal level of understanding. ...And YOU of all people, are trying to propose a hypothesis that you hope to replace the best and only model that is the core of all biological understanding with, namely evolution? Don't make us laugh too hard! ohmy.gif I can safely predict that you will be doomed to perpetual failure no matter how many revisions you attempt. Evolution is as firmly entrenched as any concept man has formulated. Since 1859 no one has budged it one iota. Indeed, all the new fossil discoveries and new species discovered in the intervening time have only bolstered it further. You'll be beating your head against a brick wall for as long as you live, or until you finally give it up, whichever comes first!

Edit: I had to answer this in both places Gary posted it!
Harzburgite
QUOTE (photojack+Sep 6 2008, 08:13 AM)
And it includes the totally ridiculous, unsupported phrase, "best explained by an intelligent cause." Every serious scientist on this planet, from every diverse discipline within the sciences would oppose that with every ossified structural member in their body.

I think you need to be a little careful here. I don't wish to get hung up at this stage on esoteric semantics, but 'intelligent' is a powerful and complex word with more connotations and referents than a Berlin whore has phone numbers.

The apparent tendency of the Universe to generate complexity to the point that the Universe can contemplate itself might be considered an expression of 'intelligence'. I grant you there is the little difficulty of causality there, but there are plenty of time-space geometries that permit closed time like curves, so perhaps that problem can be resolved.

At any rate I suggest there are several serious scientists who could contemplate the possibility that things might be explained by an intelligent cause, though not best explained.

I think the support for the statement is there, by the way, in the rest of the sentence. It is just so badly written it isn't readily visible.
Grumpy
Harzburgite


QUOTE
The apparent tendency of the Universe to generate complexity to the point that the Universe can contemplate itself might be considered an expression of 'intelligence'.


But intelligence is the RESULT, not the CAUSE of evolution.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The apparent tendency of the Universe to generate complexity to the point that the Universe can contemplate itself might be considered an expression of 'intelligence'.


But intelligence is the RESULT, not the CAUSE of evolution.


I grant you there is the little difficulty of causality there, but there are plenty of time-space geometries that permit closed time like curves, so perhaps that problem can be resolved.


But not the time/space geometry we are in, and that is the one we have to deal with. In fact, it is the only one that we have definitive evidence of actual existence, the rest are speculative, at best.

Grumpy cool.gif
Harzburgite
QUOTE
But intelligence is the RESULT, not the CAUSE of evolution.
Grumpy, this is why I specifically anticipated and addressed the causality issue.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
But intelligence is the RESULT, not the CAUSE of evolution.
Grumpy, this is why I specifically anticipated and addressed the causality issue.

But not the time/space geometry we are in, and that is the one we have to deal with. In fact, it is the only one that we have definitive evidence of actual existence
Correct. That is the one I am dealing with too. These theoretical/mathematical descriptions of our space-time that appear to allow for a time travel. Matt Visser describes them as standard, but temporally ill-behaved space-times.

Godel’s cosmology.
Van Stockum spacestimes/tippler cylinders/
Kerr and Kerr-Newman geometries
Gott’s time machines
Wheeler wormholes (spacetime foam)
Morris-Thorne traversable wormholes
Alcubierr ‘warp drive’ space times


I am not saying this is reality, I am saying our current understanding of cosmology and the mathematics of space time neither precludes time travel, nor - by extension - the scenario I have summarised earlier.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.