Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2015, 06:56 AM
Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design

Imagine trying to stuff about 10,000 miles of spaghetti inside a basketball. Then, if that was not difficult enough, attempt to find a unique one inch segment of pasta from the middle of this mess, or try to duplicate, untangle and separate individual strings to opposite ends. This simple analogy illustrates some of the daunting tasks associated with the transcription, repair and replication of the nearly 2 meters of DNA that is packaged into the confines of a tiny eukaryotic nucleus. The solution to each of these problems lies in the assembly of the eukaryotic genome into chromatin, a structural polymer that not only solves the basic packaging problem, but also provides a dynamic platform that controls all DNA-mediated processes within the nucleus.

Every second, the cells constituting our bodies are replaced through cell division.An adult human consists of about 50,000 billion cells, 1% of which die and are replaced by cell division every day. In order to ensure cell survival and controlled growth of these new cells, the genetic information, stored in DNA molecules, must first be correctly copied and then accurately distributed during cell division. Moreover, to fully ascertain that the new cells will contain the same genetic information as the parental cells, any damage to the DNA, which is organised into several chromosomes, must be repaired.

Quite a bit is known about two of these complexes. One of them, cohesin, keeps the DNA copies together such that they do not separate too early; while the other, condensin, makes the chromosomes more compact, making the separation easier.

Packing ratio - the length of DNA divided by the length into which it is packaged

The shortest human chromosome contains 4.6 x 107 bp of DNA (about 10 times the genome size of E. coli). This is equivalent to 14,000 µm of extended DNA, or about 2 meters. In its most condensed state during mitosis, the chromosome is about 2 µm long. This gives a packing ratio of 7000 (14,000/2).

To achieve the overall packing ratio, DNA is not packaged directly into final structure of chromatin. Instead, it contains several hierarchies of organization.

The first level of packing is achieved by the winding of DNA around a protein core to produce a "bead-like" structure called a nucleosome. This gives a packing ratio of about 6. This structure is invariant in both the euchromatin and heterochromatin of all chromosomes.

The second level of packing is the coiling of beads in a helical structure called the 30 nm fiber that is found in both interphase chromatin and mitotic chromosomes. This structure increases the packing ratio to about 40.

The final packaging occurs when the fiber is organized in loops, scaffolds and domains that give a final packing ratio of about 1000 in interphase chromosomes and about 7,000 in mitotic chromosomes.

Thats a amazing change , from a ratio of 6, to 7.000 !!

To fit 2 meters of DNA into a tiny nucleus is a monumental engineering feat. DNA is highly compacted yet has to be instantly available to rapidly make proteins in neurons with a momentary change of thought. This regulation is different in each type of cell. . It has been known for some time that the shape of proteins determines their function and the folding is very complex involving four levels of folding .

Condensins: universal organizers of chromosomes with diverse functions

Condensins are multisubunit protein complexes that play a fundamental role in the structural and functional organization of chromosomes in the three domains of life. It is a molecular machine that helps to condense and package chromosomes for cell replication. It is a five subunit complex, and is “the key molecular machine of chromosome condensation.

Condensin produces “supercoils” of DNA, one of many steps in packing the delicate DNA strands into a hierarchy of coils that results in a densely-packed chromosome. “It is not entirely clear how the DNA is held in this supercoiled state,” , “but several studies suggest that the V-shaped arms of the condensin complex may loop and clamp the DNA in place.” This clamping is “rapid and reversible.” Scientists watching the process in both bacteria and humans are “showing that both vertebrate and bacterial condensins drive DNA compaction in an ATP-dependent fashion with a surprising level of co-operativity that was not fully appreciated.” The condensin molecules work as a team; if not enough condensin is around, nothing happens. condensin is just one of many enzymes involved in chromosome formation.

The chromosomal condensin complex is a major molecular effector of chromosome condensation and segregation in diverse organisms ranging from bacteria to humans. Condensin is a large, evolutionarily conserved, multisubunit protein assembly composed of dimers of the structural maintenance of chromosomes (SMC) family of ATPases, clasped into topologically closed rings by accessory subunits.

At the end of S phase, the immensely long DNA molecules of the sister chromatids are tangled in a mass of partially catenated DNA and proteins. Any attempt to pull the sisters apart in this state would undoubtedly lead to breaks in the chromosomes. To avoid this disaster, the cell devotes a great deal of energy in early mitosis to gradually reorganizing the sister chromatids into relatively short, distinct structures that can be pulled apart more easily in anaphase. These chromosomal changes involve two processes: chromosome condensation, in which the chromatids are dramatically compacted; and sister-chromatid resolution, whereby the two sisters are resolved into distinct, separable units

How could these nano machines arise by natural means, in a gradual stepwise manner ? These molecular machines had to be in place when life began, since they are essential. Mutation and natural selection is not a conceivable mechanism at this stage. Unless someone can demonstrate a series of small steps to climb mount unprobable (as Richard Dawkins calls the challenge of evolving complex, information-rich, functional biological structures), this is wishful thinking. The mountain is not a series of small steps, but a cliff with slippery vertical walls. And why would a mindless molecule even want to go climb uphill against its natural inclinations? The discoveries in biochemistry are making evolution increasingly untenable. Here we see highly complex molecules, made up of building blocks (amino acids) arranged in precise sequences to build functioning machines. The complexity is mind-boggling, and it exists all the way down in the very simplest single-celled life forms, with no precursors. Without these machines, the cell could not divide. Proposing intelligent design is not a argument of ignorance. We know that intelligent minds are capable of projecting complex machines where ideas of problem solutions are required. Intelligent minds are able to store large quantities of information into small spaces, computer chips are a good example. As conclusion, Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the existence of these highly complex, essential nano machines in the cell.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2086-ch...esign#3646
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 07:09 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 06:56 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design

Imagine trying to stuff about 10,000 miles of spaghetti inside a basketball. Then, if that was not difficult enough, attempt to find a unique one inch segment of pasta from the middle of this mess, or try to duplicate, untangle and separate individual strings to opposite ends. This simple analogy illustrates some of the daunting tasks associated with the transcription, repair and replication of the nearly 2 meters of DNA that is packaged into the confines of a tiny eukaryotic nucleus. The solution to each of these problems lies in the assembly of the eukaryotic genome into chromatin, a structural polymer that not only solves the basic packaging problem, but also provides a dynamic platform that controls all DNA-mediated processes within the nucleus.

Every second, the cells constituting our bodies are replaced through cell division.An adult human consists of about 50,000 billion cells, 1% of which die and are replaced by cell division every day. In order to ensure cell survival and controlled growth of these new cells, the genetic information, stored in DNA molecules, must first be correctly copied and then accurately distributed during cell division. Moreover, to fully ascertain that the new cells will contain the same genetic information as the parental cells, any damage to the DNA, which is organised into several chromosomes, must be repaired.

Quite a bit is known about two of these complexes. One of them, cohesin, keeps the DNA copies together such that they do not separate too early; while the other, condensin, makes the chromosomes more compact, making the separation easier.

Packing ratio - the length of DNA divided by the length into which it is packaged

The shortest human chromosome contains 4.6 x 107 bp of DNA (about 10 times the genome size of E. coli). This is equivalent to 14,000 µm of extended DNA, or about 2 meters. In its most condensed state during mitosis, the chromosome is about 2 µm long. This gives a packing ratio of 7000 (14,000/2).

To achieve the overall packing ratio, DNA is not packaged directly into final structure of chromatin. Instead, it contains several hierarchies of organization.

The first level of packing is achieved by the winding of DNA around a protein core to produce a "bead-like" structure called a nucleosome. This gives a packing ratio of about 6. This structure is invariant in both the euchromatin and heterochromatin of all chromosomes.

The second level of packing is the coiling of beads in a helical structure called the 30 nm fiber that is found in both interphase chromatin and mitotic chromosomes. This structure increases the packing ratio to about 40.

The final packaging occurs when the fiber is organized in loops, scaffolds and domains that give a final packing ratio of about 1000 in interphase chromosomes and about 7,000 in mitotic chromosomes.

Thats a amazing change , from a ratio of 6, to 7.000 !!

To fit 2 meters of DNA into a tiny nucleus is a monumental engineering feat. DNA is highly compacted yet has to be instantly available to rapidly make proteins in neurons with a momentary change of thought. This regulation is different in each type of cell. . It has been known for some time that the shape of proteins determines their function and the folding is very complex involving four levels of folding .

Condensins: universal organizers of chromosomes with diverse functions

Condensins are multisubunit protein complexes that play a fundamental role in the structural and functional organization of chromosomes in the three domains of life. It is a molecular machine that helps to condense and package chromosomes for cell replication. It is a five subunit complex, and is “the key molecular machine of chromosome condensation.

Condensin produces “supercoils” of DNA, one of many steps in packing the delicate DNA strands into a hierarchy of coils that results in a densely-packed chromosome. “It is not entirely clear how the DNA is held in this supercoiled state,” , “but several studies suggest that the V-shaped arms of the condensin complex may loop and clamp the DNA in place.” This clamping is “rapid and reversible.” Scientists watching the process in both bacteria and humans are “showing that both vertebrate and bacterial condensins drive DNA compaction in an ATP-dependent fashion with a surprising level of co-operativity that was not fully appreciated.” The condensin molecules work as a team; if not enough condensin is around, nothing happens. condensin is just one of many enzymes involved in chromosome formation.

The chromosomal condensin complex is a major molecular effector of chromosome condensation and segregation in diverse organisms ranging from bacteria to humans. Condensin is a large, evolutionarily conserved, multisubunit protein assembly composed of dimers of the structural maintenance of chromosomes (SMC) family of ATPases, clasped into topologically closed rings by accessory subunits.

At the end of S phase, the immensely long DNA molecules of the sister chromatids are tangled in a mass of partially catenated DNA and proteins. Any attempt to pull the sisters apart in this state would undoubtedly lead to breaks in the chromosomes. To avoid this disaster, the cell devotes a great deal of energy in early mitosis to gradually reorganizing the sister chromatids into relatively short, distinct structures that can be pulled apart more easily in anaphase. These chromosomal changes involve two processes: chromosome condensation, in which the chromatids are dramatically compacted; and sister-chromatid resolution, whereby the two sisters are resolved into distinct, separable units

How could these nano machines arise by natural means, in a gradual stepwise manner ? These molecular machines had to be in place when life began, since they are essential. Mutation and natural selection is not a conceivable mechanism at this stage. Unless someone can demonstrate a series of small steps to climb mount unprobable (as Richard Dawkins calls the challenge of evolving complex, information-rich, functional biological structures), this is wishful thinking. The mountain is not a series of small steps, but a cliff with slippery vertical walls. And why would a mindless molecule even want to go climb uphill against its natural inclinations? The discoveries in biochemistry are making evolution increasingly untenable. Here we see highly complex molecules, made up of building blocks (amino acids) arranged in precise sequences to build functioning machines. The complexity is mind-boggling, and it exists all the way down in the very simplest single-celled life forms, with no precursors. Without these machines, the cell could not divide. Proposing intelligent design is not a argument of ignorance. We know that intelligent minds are capable of projecting complex machines where ideas of problem solutions are required. Intelligent minds are able to store large quantities of information into small spaces, computer chips are a good example. As conclusion, Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the existence of these highly complex, essential nano machines in the cell.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2086-ch...esign#3646

Oh goody here we go again:

[Image: 400x400_1390946946980-well-here-w.jpg]

We can rule out the biblical god as this mythical creator as Genesis says the world and cosmos was created in a day, which is 100% fairytale.

So if the biblical god isn't this mythical creator, which one is?

And if you have a specific god in mind other than Yhwh, how do you know it still exists and wasn't annihilated in the big bang?

Bonus question, if this god doesn't demonstrate physical effects in the universe, what evidence is there that it still exists?

How would you determine the difference between not currently existing and never existing?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like TheInquisition's post
16-07-2015, 07:10 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Your post lacked carrots.

Fixed!
[Image: Carrot%20carton-1-1.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 14 users Like Banjo's post
16-07-2015, 07:12 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Looking at the end result of a process and claiming that there is no possible pathway to it constitutes an argument from ignorance.

That you cannot imagine or conceive of chemical processes that lead to more complex chemical processes constitutes an argument from ignorance.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 24 users Like Chas's post
16-07-2015, 07:14 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 07:10 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Your post lacked carrots.

I was hoping for potatoes. And dragons. It definitely needs more dragons.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
16-07-2015, 07:18 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
My socks fit on either foot. It must have been Brahma.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
16-07-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 07:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Looking at the end result of a process and claiming that there is no possible pathway to it constitutes an argument from ignorance.

That you cannot imagine or conceive of chemical processes that lead to more complex chemical processes constitutes an argument from ignorance.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

Is intelligent design generally, and irreducible complexity particularly, a mere argument of ignorance ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1983-is...=ignorance

According to Wiki: Argument from ignorance , also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false . According to Rationalwiki The concept of irreducible complexity is based entirely around this idea of personal incredulity. One person (Michael Behe) cannot see how something evolved naturally, therefore it can't possibly evolve naturally. Another example is : You can’t prove that there aren’t Martians living in caves under the surface of Mars, so it is reasonable for me to believe there are.

ID Theory inferes that a intelligence must be involved for the creation of irreducible and interdependent complex biological systems, organelles and body parts, as well as coded, specified, complex information stored in DNA. It does not however point out who that agent might be, if natural , or supernatural.

ID predicts irreducible complexity and interdependence in molecular machines and whole biological systems. The prediction can be falsified , showing that a stepwise, gradual change and increase of complexity can be achieved through natural biochemical interactions, darwinian evolution, and eventually other natural mechanisms, where no intelligence is involved, and furthermore that given biochemical structure can still keep the same function, when reduced of any component and part, andany gene that encodes given part.

Irreducible complexity is not based on a negative, namely that there is no evidence for a naturalistic pathway. Rather than that, it makes a positive claim, which can be falsified, upon : (a) gene knockout, (b) reverse engineering, © examining homologous systems, and (d) sequencing the genome of the biochemical structure. ( Dennis Jones ) Gene knockout has been done several times, providing evidence that the organism was unable to replace given gene or protein by natural means. 1 The absence of evidence that evolution is not capable to replace given part is empirical evidence, that falsifies the claim of the ToE. Its therefore not justified to claim the inference is a argument of ignorance. Quit the contrary is the case. As for example, if i ask you : can you change a us$100 bill ? and you answer: sorry, i have no smaller bills. You open your wallet, and and its confirmed, no change in your wallet, then you have proven that you have indeed no smaller bills. You have proven a negative, which is not a argument of ignorance, since you checked and got a empirical proof.

Ifs a fact that i have presented inumerous examples of irreducible and interdependent system during several years, beside the ones well known and widely propagated by Behe, the Discovery Institute et al, as of the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll, Heme, the signal transduction pathway in the eye, DNA, the Cell, human body parts, as the circulatory system, nitrogenase, the ribosome, chaperones etc., and they have shown to be IC until now. These systems do have no precursor. Many enzymes involved in the process have no know different function, and could not have been co-opted at other places. Thats a well founded scientific conclusion. And the hypothesis and theory can be falsified. And some examples are so patently obvious, that there is no need to make scientific experiments to understand that ic is granted. Take photosynthesis for example. Take off chlorophyll, and no light is captures anymore, and the whole process ceases to exist. Take away the blood, and the circulatory system ceases. Take away any one of the 17 enzymes required in the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll, and the end product is not synthesized anymore. Neither could the proteins, organelles and enzymes have any function by their own. So why in the first place would the arise at all ?

Stephen Meyer puts it that way :

Let's take a closer look. In an explanatory context, arguments from ignorance have the
form:

Premise One: Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E. Conclusion: Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E.

Critics of intelligent design claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. As one of my frequent debating partners, Michael Shermer, likes to argue, "Intelligent design argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by an
intelligent designer." In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows:


Premise One: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.
Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced specified biological information.


If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument takes the following form:


Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.


Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form:


Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E. Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E.
Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X.


In addition to a premise about how material causes lack demonstrated causal adequacy, the argument for intelligent design as the best explanation also affirms the demonstrated causal adequacy of an alternative cause, namely, intelligence. This argument does not omit a premise providing positive evidence or reasons for preferring an alternative cause or proposition. Instead, it specifically includes such a premise. Therefore, it does not commit the informal fallacy of arguing from ignorance. It's really as simple as that.

1) http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1995-bi...w-proteins
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 02:44 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Nature and natural processes are amazing.
If you are really curious, take some classes to help you better understand biology.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rahn127's post
16-07-2015, 02:50 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design



"If there's a single thing that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so." - Lev Grossman
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Nurse's post
16-07-2015, 02:59 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 02:32 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(16-07-2015 07:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Looking at the end result of a process and claiming that there is no possible pathway to it constitutes an argument from ignorance.

That you cannot imagine or conceive of chemical processes that lead to more complex chemical processes constitutes an argument from ignorance.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

Is intelligent design generally, and irreducible complexity particularly, a mere argument of ignorance ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1983-is...=ignorance

According to Wiki: Argument from ignorance , also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false . According to Rationalwiki The concept of irreducible complexity is based entirely around this idea of personal incredulity. One person (Michael Behe) cannot see how something evolved naturally, therefore it can't possibly evolve naturally. Another example is : You can’t prove that there aren’t Martians living in caves under the surface of Mars, so it is reasonable for me to believe there are.

ID Theory inferes that a intelligence must be involved for the creation of irreducible and interdependent complex biological systems, organelles and body parts, as well as coded, specified, complex information stored in DNA. It does not however point out who that agent might be, if natural , or supernatural.

ID predicts irreducible complexity and interdependence in molecular machines and whole biological systems. The prediction can be falsified , showing that a stepwise, gradual change and increase of complexity can be achieved through natural biochemical interactions, darwinian evolution, and eventually other natural mechanisms, where no intelligence is involved, and furthermore that given biochemical structure can still keep the same function, when reduced of any component and part, andany gene that encodes given part.

Irreducible complexity is not based on a negative, namely that there is no evidence for a naturalistic pathway. Rather than that, it makes a positive claim, which can be falsified, upon : (a) gene knockout, (b) reverse engineering, © examining homologous systems, and (d) sequencing the genome of the biochemical structure. ( Dennis Jones ) Gene knockout has been done several times, providing evidence that the organism was unable to replace given gene or protein by natural means. 1 The absence of evidence that evolution is not capable to replace given part is empirical evidence, that falsifies the claim of the ToE. Its therefore not justified to claim the inference is a argument of ignorance. Quit the contrary is the case. As for example, if i ask you : can you change a us$100 bill ? and you answer: sorry, i have no smaller bills. You open your wallet, and and its confirmed, no change in your wallet, then you have proven that you have indeed no smaller bills. You have proven a negative, which is not a argument of ignorance, since you checked and got a empirical proof.

Ifs a fact that i have presented inumerous examples of irreducible and interdependent system during several years, beside the ones well known and widely propagated by Behe, the Discovery Institute et al, as of the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll, Heme, the signal transduction pathway in the eye, DNA, the Cell, human body parts, as the circulatory system, nitrogenase, the ribosome, chaperones etc., and they have shown to be IC until now. These systems do have no precursor. Many enzymes involved in the process have no know different function, and could not have been co-opted at other places. Thats a well founded scientific conclusion. And the hypothesis and theory can be falsified. And some examples are so patently obvious, that there is no need to make scientific experiments to understand that ic is granted. Take photosynthesis for example. Take off chlorophyll, and no light is captures anymore, and the whole process ceases to exist. Take away the blood, and the circulatory system ceases. Take away any one of the 17 enzymes required in the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll, and the end product is not synthesized anymore. Neither could the proteins, organelles and enzymes have any function by their own. So why in the first place would the arise at all ?

Stephen Meyer puts it that way :

Let's take a closer look. In an explanatory context, arguments from ignorance have the
form:

Premise One: Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E. Conclusion: Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E.

Critics of intelligent design claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. As one of my frequent debating partners, Michael Shermer, likes to argue, "Intelligent design argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by an
intelligent designer." In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows:


Premise One: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.
Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced specified biological information.


If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument takes the following form:


Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.


Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form:


Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E. Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E.
Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X.


In addition to a premise about how material causes lack demonstrated causal adequacy, the argument for intelligent design as the best explanation also affirms the demonstrated causal adequacy of an alternative cause, namely, intelligence. This argument does not omit a premise providing positive evidence or reasons for preferring an alternative cause or proposition. Instead, it specifically includes such a premise. Therefore, it does not commit the informal fallacy of arguing from ignorance. It's really as simple as that.

There are no examples of irreducible complexity, so until there is ID remains an unevidenced claim.

Not knowing how something evolved and calling it irreducibly complex is precisely an argument from ignorance.

Quote:1) http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1995-bi...w-proteins

Peer reviewed? Sure - by other creationists. Don't be ridiculous.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: