View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:37 pm




Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
 I seriously think I found the "Design Theory" 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Massachusetts
Post I seriously think I found the "Design Theory"
I was answering Greg, then this came to me. Not sure what to make next of it. Explains what evolution has a hard time doing, as "design", then after that there is no need to cover evolution because it already was. I did things like this before, but never had what looks like the entire mechanism in as few words as possible to describe the whole thing.

Quote:
(maybe) Design Theory

Darwinian processes were never intended to explain everything, because some things happen as fast as the self-assembly of 6 sided snowflakes from a blizzarding storm cloud to the self-assembly of ATP synthase and flagellum. They are designs that exist in the behavior of atoms that when brought together form these designs. Can visualize them as always being there. Are expressed when conditions are there for it to be. In living things, that is determined by coded DNA templates that catalyze the production of proteins that from there self-assemble into possible designs.

The genetic code is the long-term memory of a self-perpetuating metabolic cycle that goes one cycle per reproduction. This mechanism allows one small step at a time building upon a previous design, as in evidence in the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from. Design does not have to become more complex or be more advantageous to survival because the organism itself is in part intelligently and consciously directing their change in design by what it finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. Examples include the peacocks tail. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.


Getting this through peer-review into teaching could have a whole lot of Creationists all excited to learn something different. Means that the Creator works through intelligence and consciousness to achieve design. Much better than an explanation that suggests there is nothing but random accidents.

I'm willing to go for getting a real "Design Theory" through peer review somewhere. But if the science can't stand on its own scientific merit here then it isn't worth going any further with the idea. So as usual, all problems anyone sees with the idea are welcome. :D


Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:28 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:59 pm
Posts: 229
Location: Kansas
Post 
Quote:
Design does not have to become more complex or be more advantageous to survival because the organism itself is in part intelligently and consciously directing their change in design by what it finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate.


Gary, this is sexual selection, one of the mechanisms of evolution. You mentioned peacocks as an example. Healthier peacocks tend to have more luxuriant tail-feathers. Females instinctively are attracted to big, macho tail-feathers. A pea-hen's brain is about as big as a peanut. The peahen chooses, but not through any rational decision-making process.


Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:08 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Massachusetts
Post 
Yes Liz, you're correct about it being one of the mechanisms of evolution. Has been relatively well studied with females selecting the males with the most eye spots and/or length.

Here's a link to where the "Design Theory" was tested at PhysOrg then also right away led to the peacock so there is more info on it there in the short discussion. After over a day here I could tell it needed throwing in the hornets nest to see what happens. The topic not having gone on for pages and being mostly or already talked out, is the best thing that could have happened.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... t&p=331734

Evolutionary theory is all there in it, and more, to make this exactly:

Discovery Institute wrote:
Questions about Intelligent Design

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

The fact that female peacocks make a predictable choice, is all that matters. It was either entirely intelligent (but not conscious) or was an intelligent+conscious choice.

Notice below with the solid lines how what is needed to produce consciousness in our brain is also about the size of a peanut.

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_cor ... sciousness

It's very possible that they are making a very rational conscious decision like we would, even with such a small brain.

As hard as it is for even me to believe, this Design Theory is still standing on its own scientific merit. I'm in shock, because this is the real thing!!! :shock:
-


Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:07 am
Posts: 292
Location: King of Prussia, Pa, USA
Post 
Gary says
Quote:
As hard as it is for even me to believe, this Design Theory is still standing on its own scientific merit. I'm in shock, because this is the real thing!

Of course it is the real thing. Darwin understood this (as did the earlier Muslim rrecently cited here). As much as nothing would evolve but for random variation (due to errors in DNA), likewise nothing would evolve but for the intelligent+conscious choices (or, if you wish, Liz, the unintelligent but still self-interested choices) of those fortuitously improved entities.

That has been from the beginning the meaning of what Darwin called "inheritance with variation," and Huxley called "survival of the fittest." Welcome to the club.

Creationists (BTW) take alarm too soon when they learn of the random element in the process. They ignore the intelligent phase of the process. Some of them do say that God guides those choices. If so, that is the "God predicate" expressed in Darwinian form. Others consider that the process neither requires helpful intervention, nor proves its presence.

_________________
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. ~ Thomas Jefferson (letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820)

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. ~ Abraham Lincoln


Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Massachusetts
Post 
What I'm most surprised by is the "Design Theory" being possible. I was all along prepared to assimilate all of ID but this is the mega-mother-load all at once.

A second opinion from a college educator who always gives an honest opinion of these ideas confirmed that the science in it is non-controversial in the scientific community. That part is more or less another way of describing what evolution is. But as you can see it's much better connected to the intelligence sciences. The way it connects to everything else and includes abiogenesis (which the TOE does not) makes it "the theory of Intelligent Design".

Being the Discovery Institute's "Design Theory" creates an interesting situation. The science in it only needed to survive peer-review to make it real and it already passed several informal reviews. But scientific theories like this are a very big deal scientifically, yet the "theory" already existed politically, with teachers under pressure to teach it needing the real thing or they are stuck teaching the Discovery Institute's unscientific anti-evolution pseudotheory.

I'm not sure how to get this one to the public school teachers due to it being not the usual case. The Discovery Institute's profitable deception prevents them from telling the truth so they will have to ignore having been dusted again. And I have little time to do science in coming weeks. Need a fast way to get it into the main pipeline.


Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:38 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Massachusetts
Post 
I just finished publishing it on a blog, with a nice sky blue background. :D

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


Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:37 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Massachusetts
Post 
I just made a MAJOR rewrite that made it many times better!

The intro more pro-ID to match the added science being more a score for ID'ers.

It's still short, 3 paragraphs, but contains a lot more important science words. Previous concepts fit right in to strengthen it.

Never packed so much science in such a small space before. Now has hyperlinks like crazy to NCBI and all over to expand out to enough science to learn to be a scientist knowing. Have to link to blog for those, too many to relink here. But here's the unlinked text at this point which might be easier to read after clicking on links makes it all multicolored.

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

Quote:
The science in the following "Design Theory" also called "the theory of Intelligent Design" has passed sufficient peer-review for it to be reasonably certain that this is appropriate for public-school teachers being pressured to teach the "alternative theory".

Although it is not Anti-ID it was NOT written by the Discovery Institute, affiliated organization, or supporter such as Ben Stein or entities representing him. It was written by me, Gary S. Gaulin, a published science writer who is ending this "debate" by delivering on what ID'ers were searching for, in science, not politics.

It's no suprise those who dedicated their lives to studying science pertaing to this topic would be the first to solve the scientific problem that makes the faith-friendly science happen. And this now includes a "Creator Hypothesis" writing project for Creationists who want the ultimate challenge. This is not dressing up evolution to look like Creationism, it's Creationism that works with the scientific evidence that exists yet the theory itself never once mentions "evolution" because non-life to life is a whole other science, abiogenesis. And with science our our side I can bold Genesis in the word and get away with it. That's what scientists call it too. Should be in all state standards, to make sure we get schools up to date in this.

This "Design Theory" is very real competition for the already existing "Biological Evolution" explanation that now exists because it covers abiogenesis science, the whole other half of the origin of life story. Takes us further than ever before to where science runs out and religion is all there is left to explain. This theory will help define where that is, so all that is teachable becomes public school curriculum.

We can't compare intelligence at our human level with head, arms, legs and some sort of brain, to a "designer" that exists in matter itself.

Which brings us to the question of: "What does the Creator look like?"

A scientific answer would be "The intelligence that made us."

So we must follow the progression of intelligence we came from, into matter, to follow science towards whatever Creator there may be.

Those who saw something good in "Intelligent Design" will find that this is far better than anything the Discovery Institute could ever give them. In fact, the self-assembly based concepts are already in a classroom near you with this just some more.

Being able to go from development of an idea to the classroom with no problem at all, is seriously, the power of a thousand Discovery Institutes. We will still end up with the doable part of what they were describing for science, in the public schools, regardless of what what happens to those trying to change science with politics.

Here's the very real science of Intelligent Design. And for some, their place in history.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Design Theory

In the Origin Of Life story, our creation through abiogenesis, some things happened as quickly as the self-assembly of cell membranes, to the self-assembly of more complex yet still easily self-assembled crystal-like ATP synthase and flagellum motors. They are designs that exist in the behavior of self-powered atoms, an expression of matter itself.

In life as we know it, DNA templates catalyze the production of protein that from there self-assemble into possible phenotype designs. At the lowest level of genotype designs are short lengths of code for protein subunits called conserved domains of 25 or more amino acids in length, that are reused in various combinations in genes to achive the next level of complexity that recombines them. This genetic code forms the long-term memory of a self-perpetuating metabolic cycle that goes one cycle per reproduction. This guess/memory type intelligence mechanism allows one small step at a time building 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.

Design does not always have to become more complex or be more advantageous to survival because the organism itself is in part intelligently and consciously directing their change in design by what it 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 the giant tails make it difficult for them to fly. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All critiques welcome. Especially now that this is probably the best thing I have right now. ID'ers might like this even more than the Creator Hypotheses even. But that depends on what the webmaster at the Evolution Is Dead forum, giving it excellent peer-review, thinks of it now. I answered them in the rewrite. How much we can agree on is now kinda astonishing. :D


Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:02 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:35 am
Posts: 654
Location: Topeka
Post 
Quote:
Gary, this is sexual selection, one of the mechanisms of evolution. You mentioned peacocks as an example. Healthier peacocks tend to have more luxuriant tail-feathers. Females instinctively are attracted to big, macho tail-feathers. A pea-hen's brain is about as big as a peanut. The peahen chooses, but not through any rational decision-making process.


Just a footnote regarding this particular paragraph. It seems that the peacock feather gig has gotten itself falsified up in a recent science journal.
Wrong Poster-Boy (more accurately, Wrong Poster-Bird), as it were. Details:

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/lite ... the_case_o

Quote:
Darwinists need to think very hard about the way they do science. This is a clear example of how a Darwinian hypothesis has become accepted as scientific fact, yet now has been disproved by some rigorous empirical research. This is a falsified prediction. This means that numerous textbooks and web-sites need to be revised.

More importantly, Darwinists should cease giving the impression that they have the keys to understand the natural world. So much of this 'understanding' is like peacock feathers - lots of show and no substance.


---David Tyler, ARN


FL


Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:43 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:34 pm
Posts: 1210
Post 
As usual, FL, it is not so simple:

Quote:
Since male peacocks appear to shiver in response to female run-arounds, the scientists think that male mating calls, which consist of multiple notes and sound very different than the noises females make, could affect mating success. The trains, on the other hand, may just be obsolete signals at this point, they suggest.

Louise Barrett, a member of the Faculty of Science and Technology at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston, U.K., thinks the reason for their obsolescence could be that, unlike many other elaborate traits in birds and animals, peacock trains are dictated by the female hormone estrogen, rather than testosterone.

Barrett said that "it is the absence of estrogen in the male that produces the train, rather than the presence of testosterone."

"Traits under the control of estrogen are usually very poor indicators of phenotypic (visible physical attributes) and genotypic (DNA) condition," she explained. "Accordingly, females are known to disregard estrogen-dependent male plumage cues when choosing mates."

Barrett, however, mentioned that this theory, along with the rest of the new findings, is bound to be controversial, since other researchers have presented data suggesting that a peacock's train does influence whether or not a female will choose to mate with him.

"Tests between the two alternate hypotheses now on offer leave students of sexual selection with plenty of work to do," Barrett concluded.
Of course, no matter how this falls out (and the tail still seems important in mating, even in the new study), this is still not evidence for a young earth - nor does it disprove evolution - it simply indicates that we have more to learn. Far from a monolithic dogma (like creationism), science follows the evidence, even if it upsets previously held beliefs. Not something you can say about creationism, which ignores all evidence.

Also note that there have been studies that support the peacock feather selection idea - this is new work that raises a question - it doesn't settle it.

And how, by the way, was this discovered? Not by looking in the Bible, but by scientists watching peacocks mate, over the course of several years. And who published this data? Yes, the scientists - doesn't seem like any censorship or pressure on the part of the scientific establishment here. "Look, this is odd, it contradicts the received explanation -let's publish it so other people can follow up."

So per usual, creationists, doing little work on their own, jump on any study that might be construed to support their position, and ignore the tremendous body of evidence that directly contradicts their mistaken views. If this study is considered valid, shouldn't this mean that the tens of thousands of studies that demonstrate evolution and an old earth are also valid?

_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799


Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:02 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Massachusetts
Post 
Thanks Greg for your perspective!

And thank you FL for finding something from one of my old haunts, ARN. Only need to reflect back on the ARN article on the formation cell membrane being impossible to explain. Kids are now making them in the kitchen.

ARN was also easily challenged by peacocks. Now the Design Theory shows how that one works. To keep it easy to understand to the average person I linked the "peacock" to a National Geographic explanation of the experiment that shows their intelligent (likely also conscious) choice making process directing that tail design, regardless of other factors.

The chemical basis for it has to exist for the tail design to be possible. Finding one is expected but alone does not explain what direction it's going.


Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:00 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 am
Posts: 2538
Post 
Quote:
If this study is considered valid, shouldn't this mean that the tens of thousands of studies that demonstrate evolution and an old earth are also valid?


I ask myself this everytime an IDist/creationist posts a mined quote on this forum.


Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:13 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 11 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.