ID passes Richard Dawkins test.

C

Cisco Qid

Well-known member
"The test that Dawkins has formulated goes this way: He says that if Darwinian evolution is correct, every gene in a group of organisms will give “approximately the same tree of life.” If ID is correct, on the other hand, the designer could have “picked and chosen” the “best proteins for the job” in each organism. In that case, he says, genes would not all give the same tree of genetic resemblances."

Now that the we have been able to been able to decipher the genome from various species, the evidence point in the direction of Intelligent Design. Just one more piece of evidence on the ID side of the scale. For those who say we have no evidence. The question remains as to whether Dawkins will submit to the evidence or begin to posture which has always been the case with atheists when their pet theory fails. As was seen in the ENCODE project.

Link
 
Cisco Qid said:
"The test that Dawkins has formulated goes this way: He says that if Darwinian evolution is correct, every gene in a group of organisms will give “approximately the same tree of life.” If ID is correct, on the other hand, the designer could have “picked and chosen” the “best proteins for the job” in each organism. In that case, he says, genes would not all give the same tree of genetic resemblances."

Now that the we have been able to been able to decipher the genome from various species, the evidence point in the direction of Intelligent Design. Just one more piece of evidence on the ID side of the scale. For those who say we have no evidence. The question remains as to whether Dawkins will submit to the evidence or begin to posture which has always been the case with atheists when their pet theory fails. As was seen in the ENCODE project.

Link
Click to expand...
It is a shame - and perhaps telling - that you cannot substantiate the claim that in each species has the best protein for the job, regardless of where the species is in the nested hierarchy.
 
The Pixie said:
It is a shame - and perhaps telling - that you cannot substantiate the claim that in each species has the best protein for the job, regardless of where the species is in the nested hierarchy.
Click to expand...
Would you care to elaborate on your statement. Are you claiming that it is not possible to substantiate the best protein for the job. Remember this is Dawkins' prediction not ours. Darwinian evolution has already failed the test in that every species genome does not approximate the tree of life. And while I don't see any reference to the best protein, which might be at its base subjective, it is evident that ID has not failed the test.
 
Cisco Qid said:
Would you care to elaborate on your statement. Are you claiming that it is not possible to substantiate the best protein for the job. Remember this is Dawkins' prediction not ours. Darwinian evolution has already failed the test in that every species genome does not approximate the tree of life. And while I don't see any reference to the best protein, which might be at its base subjective, it is evident that ID has not failed the test.
Click to expand...
Here is the amino acid sequence for the Cytochrome-C protein in humans, as coded in the human genome:

mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

Here is the Cytochrome-C amino acid sequence for the same protein as coded in chimpanzee DNA, an animal that lives in a different habitat with a very different lifestyle:

mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

Please indicate to us the design changes that indicate these proteins are specifically designed for the different organisms that make them.
 
Cisco Qid said:
Would you care to elaborate on your statement. Are you claiming that it is not possible to substantiate the best protein for the job. Remember this is Dawkins' prediction not ours.
Click to expand...
You are claiming ID has done what Dawkins required of it to show it is correct. I am asking you for evidence that it has done that.

You are, presumably, claiming it is possible to substantiate the best protein for the job. It is Dawkin's prediction, but you are claiming you have confirmed it. The onus is on you to show us how that was done, and how the best is distributed across species.

Cisco Qid said:
Darwinian evolution has already failed the test in that every species genome does not approximate the tree of life.
Click to expand...
Can you substantiate that claim? Or just more Discovery Institute propaganda you have fallen for?

Cisco Qid said:
And while I don't see any reference to the best protein, which might be at its base subjective, it is evident that ID has not failed the test.
Click to expand...
Then I look forward to you providing that evidence.

It is at a different scale, but I see this as analogous to the distribution of eyes. There are several different basic structures for eyes, but each seems to be restricted to a group in the nested hierarchy, rather than distributed according to need.

The vertebrate eye is restricted to vertebrates, regardless of environmental niche the creature lives in.

The cephalopod is restricted to cephalopods, regardless of environmental niche the creature lives in.

The compound eye is restricted to arthropods, regardless of environmental niche the creature lives in.

That confirms evolution, and refutes ID. But apparently you have evidence that the best proteins are not distributed across species in the same manner - analogous to all species living in the deep ocean having the same eye structure regardless of clade - so please present it.
 
Here's a little story that helps explain things...

Just the other day Lenny Lego came home from school and his Grandfather found Lenny sitting in a chair with a puzzled look on his face.

Grand Pa Lego wondering what was wrong with his Grandson came over and sat beside Lenny and asked "Why the perplexed look Lenny?"

In which Lenny replied back with uncertainty, well in school today our science teacher told us that we evolved from a common block ancestor.

Lenny continued with, and that the pictures he showed of extinct LEGO animals proved it. My teacher told us that the similarities of the LEGO animals all but proved we’re all related. He said that because we have the same type of interconnecting blocks which when snapped together form similar feet, bodies and arms prove we are all descendants of an original Lego organism.

Lenny then sat back and after a few seconds looked at his Grand Pa and continued with, and it all seems to make sense to me. Besides the pictures my teacher had models of them all lined up in a row. Each LEGO animal had the same type of feet. Each LEGO animal had the same square blocky head, each LEGO block has the same plug and socket for joining the blocks together... just like us Grand Pa.

Grand Pa Lego then took a deep breath to explain to Lenny the truth behind the evolution of LEGO people when Lenny blurted out with "Grand Pa, where did we come from? Why do we have similar parts? Does this prove we evolved from a common LEGO block?"

In which Grand Pa Lego replied back with, Lenny, we know the history of the first LEGO man. He was created fully formed and complete although Lenny, some will present the argument or a similar argument to us like your science teacher did. The reason why we have such similar body parts is because our Creator used the same style of building blocks. What works for us works for the LEGO cow and the LEGO fish. No matter what is build from the LEGO blocks, they will always be similar. The so-called evolution story is just an attempt to strip our creator of the glory of his work and the magnificent ability to put together his building blocks to serve a useful purpose. Remember LEGO legs should be similar Lenny, whether the building blocks are used for a man, ape, cow, dinosaur, bird, or alligator. The only difference would be the need for a slightly different arrangement of the building blocks to better suite the LEGO animal for their particular environment or lifestyle

Lenny then smiled as the realization of the truth settled into his block shaped brain. A common creator would use common building blocks when He created life.
 
CrowCross said:
The only difference would be the need for a slightly different arrangement of the building blocks to better suite the LEGO animal for their particular environment or lifestyle
Click to expand...
CC, I've got a couple of questions I hope you can answer:

1. How does this explanation account for extinct species?

2. How does this explanation account for the environment changing, and therefore the suitability of the animal within their environment?

Actually, I guess they're kinda the same question.
 
Gus Bovona said:
CC, I've got a couple of questions I hope you can answer:

1. How does this explanation account for extinct species?

2. How does this explanation account for the environment changing, and therefore the suitability of the animal within their environment?

Actually, I guess they're kinda the same question.
Click to expand...
Well, we do know there was a world wide flood during Noahs day which easily explains extinction as well as environmental changes.
 
CrowCross said:
Well, we do know there was a world wide flood during Noahs day which easily explains extinction as well as environmental changes.
Click to expand...
That answers my first question, thank you. But it doesn't answer my second question. I wasn't asking what caused the environment to change, let me re-phrase. How does a creationist view of life on earth account for the *un-* suitability of organisms once the environment has changed?
 
Gus Bovona said:
That answers my first question, thank you. But it doesn't answer my second question. I wasn't asking what caused the environment to change, let me re-phrase. How does a creationist view of life on earth account for the *un-* suitability of organisms once the environment has changed?
Click to expand...
Present an example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top