Intelligent Design or Natural Evolution

[Guyver]

Not even close. (horning in on Cop and Guyvers thread) We (humans) are continuing to evolve all the time. I have posted here at UM previously the genetic mutation that allows for milk digestion that occured in central Europe. However most of the evolution of humans are very minor changes. Recently cataloged as being "fertile" at a slightly earlier age and slightly "shorter" if I remember correctly. This was also posted on UM. You can google it. We are already our ancestors "Lucy". And then to equate human life with life in general is ludicrous.

It's all of our thread, not just mine or Cope's. But, I'm glad you honed in. I wish more would.

I don't understand the bold. How can you not equate life with life? And what would be so ludicrous about it? I honestly don't understand your point. I believe humans to be different ie. special, but most evolutionists just consider us another variety of ape. So, what's your real point?

[+Sherapy]

It's all of our thread, not just mine or Cope's. But, I'm glad you honed in. I wish more would.

I don't understand the bold. How can you not equate life with life? And what would be so ludicrous about it? I honestly don't understand your point. I believe humans to be different ie. special, but most evolutionists just consider us another variety of ape. So, what's your real point?

Guyv, do you think it makes a difference if one thinks they are special or not..and how?

could life be amazing just as it is?

just curious...

Edited March 8, 2010 by S♥ ♥ ♥

[Guyver]

Guyv, do you think it makes a difference if one thinks they are special or not..and how?

could life be amazing just as it is?

just curious...

Life is amazing as it is! And painful too. But we are special because we are the only ones who can conceive of someone or something greater than ourselves. :]

[Dementis Inferi]

A complete and utter 'happy accident' that near enough everybody on this planet takes for granted everyday.

[eight bits]

Ninjadude

LMAO. As long as we're all clear that I wasn't advocating the Intelligent Design hypothesis, but only discussing some of its implications, apparently to the overall satsifaction of the OP, who does advocate the hypothesis.

Guyver

Well, our queue of items "to be discussed" just gets longer and longer.

I believe humans to be different ie. special, but most evolutionists just consider us another variety of ape.

I have yet to read those "most evolutionists" who throw in that just. So far as I can see, those who believe that we are apes are fine with it. The only people it seems to bother are those who don't believe that we are apes.

What, exactly, is wrong with apes? OK, cats could come up with 99 reasons, but why would it bother an ape to be an ape?

But we are special because we are the only ones who can conceive of someone or something greater than ourselves. :]

First, of course, I would wonder how you know the "only" part. You don't strike me as the sort who's talked this over with red squirrels or horses.

That's not entirely a laugh line. Lots of people have and do maintain a "thou" rather than "it" relationship with their surroundings. The difference shows up in many aspects of life, including their religious or spiritual ideas.

But, if you're going to hang a lot of weight on this conceptual ability, then you might want to ponder why it is, so often, that the conceived greater-being resembles ourselves so much. Like us, except for being more powerful in a fantasy wish fulfillment sort of way, and for being much less emotionally stable than we would tolerate for long in any actual grown-up human associate.

In other words, it would be more impressive that we could imagine this someone else, if what we imagined wasn't so much like our two year-old selves, with tactical nukes.

[Copasetic]

I didn't concede that natural selection was capable of building complexity; I claimed that natural selection is able to fine tune or adjust something that is already complex.

Do you agree that new variation is introduced by the process of mutation? Yes or No

Do you agree that some genotypes (because of their variation) will be more successful at reproducing and surviving? Yes or No

Do you agree that there is a limited amount of resources in any environment an organism might occupy on Earth? Yes or No

Edited March 8, 2010 by Copasetic

[Guyver]

Do you agree that new variation is introduced by the process of mutation? Yes or No

Do you agree that some genotypes (because of their variation) will be more successful at reproducing and surviving? Yes or No

Do you agree that there is a limited amount of resources in any environment an organism might occupy on Earth? Yes or No

Yes to all of the above - of course. Mutation rates vary among species but they are measurable and very low right? If you would like to present an argument (and I think you will) that natural selection can build complexity - be my guest. One thing though; when people present arguments that the eye evolved naturally, through variation, they often cite the fossil record of different species. But, you and I have already established that different species don't share genes. So, this argument is self-defeating, isn't it?

The idea should be presented as "this could be" or it is possible that....right? But, since increasing the potential genotype variation in any population would be an increase in complexity (by definition of meaningful information) I would have to allow that natural selection does in fact build complexity to some degree. So, in a sense I'm admitting that I mis-spoke when I said that natural selection doesn't build complexity. I felt it as I said it. It does build complexity to a degree.

In our earlier thread about chromosome mutation becoming fixed in a population; you used the example of the (i dont remember) tribe; that had the strange feet. Remember? That would be an example of a mutation becoming fixed in a population with the accompanying observable phenotype; but did it build complexity in the population? It certainly changed the gene count; but it didn't inherently change the complexity of the organism.

[+Sherapy]

Life is amazing as it is! And painful too. But we are special because we are the only ones who can conceive of someone or something greater than ourselves. :]

why is that special? just curious...

[Superglobe]

Well, I didn't post that, but by the strict definition of "special" (able to do something that all others in a group cannot) it is.

[Copasetic]

Yes to all of the above - of course.

So then you agree that NS can build complexity, those process after all, are what build complexity

Mutation rates vary among species but they are measurable and very low right?

Mutation rates vary more than just amongst species, they vary amongst genes and amongst segments of noncoding DNA.

If you would like to present an argument (and I think you will) that natural selection can build complexity - be my guest.

I've done so many times before, there is a link on profile to the evolution of new metabolic pathways. I'll tough more on that jazz in a minute.

One thing though; when people present arguments that the eye evolved naturally, through variation, they often cite the fossil record of different species. But, you and I have already established that different species don't share genes. So, this argument is self-defeating, isn't it?

Again, don't take the word 'species' at face value. Remember that a modern species is simply a population of organisms, linked to all other modern populations through separate, but connecting lineages.

While most animals don't swap genes with abandon, they do share ancestors. In in these ancestors is where they share genes.

The idea should be presented as "this could be" or it is possible that....right? But, since increasing the potential genotype variation in any population would be an increase in complexity (by definition of meaningful information) I would have to allow that natural selection does in fact build complexity to some degree. So, in a sense I'm admitting that I mis-spoke when I said that natural selection doesn't build complexity. I felt it as I said it. It does build complexity to a degree.

It builds complexity to all 'degrees'. Complexity, in the context of how were using it (very loose) is almost meaningless. Really it would be better say that NS, builds new biological novelty for new environments, we call them adaptations. Which it does through the processes we have listed out many times. Whether we want to call such and such novel feature more 'complex' is rather subjective. The complexity found in organisms, was produced via the process of selection acting on mutations which provided new, novel features.

For example, the evolution of new metabolic pathways--Is that more complex? Maybe, maybe not. We could argue that new novel metabolic pathways produces new 'information' in the genome, thus making it more complex. At the same time, we could argue that by switching to a new metabolite, the organism has made a horizontal move, which isn't making it more complex-Just 'different'. However we define 'complexity' though, all features of an organism start off at the level of the gene and particularly as new novel features which may or may not better suit it to its environment.

I add "may not" here, because its important to understand selection, for the most part, occurs at the level of the organism. This means, when we see traits and say "what good is this in an evolutionary sense", we maybe asking the question of the wrong trait. The gene for that trait maybe associated with a gene which is providing strong positive selective pressure and is simply along for a 'free ride'. Though, its hard to prove that a trait has no positive selective pressure and is along for the ride, Mendel's laws still allow for that possibility and we should be aware of it when asking the question.

In our earlier thread about chromosome mutation becoming fixed in a population; you used the example of the (i dont remember) tribe; that had the strange feet. Remember? That would be an example of a mutation becoming fixed in a population with the accompanying observable phenotype; but did it build complexity in the population? It certainly changed the gene count; but it didn't inherently change the complexity of the organism.

Right, so you are starting to understand how scientifically useless the word 'complexity' is in this regard.

[Copasetic]

Well, I didn't post that, but by the strict definition of "special" (able to do something that all others in a group cannot) it is.

By that definition, all life is special, because all life is evolved to fill its own niche. While populations compete for certain niches they do so through their own unique biological features.

[ninjadude]

I don't understand the bold. How can you not equate life with life? And what would be so ludicrous about it? I honestly don't understand your point. I believe humans to be different ie. special, but most evolutionists just consider us another variety of ape. So, what's your real point?

The poster seemed, to me at least, to be saying that without human life there would be no life at all. If I missed his intent, then I am mistaken. There was life in the universe long long before humans evolved and there will life long long afterward.

[ninjadude]

Life is amazing as it is! And painful too. But we are special because we are the only ones who can conceive of someone or something greater than ourselves. :]

as far as we can understand from existing animals... And as far as we know in the universe.... And "specialness" could just as well be delusion...

[Copasetic]

The poster seemed, to me at least, to be saying that without human life there would be no life at all. If I missed his intent, then I am mistaken. There was life in the universe long long before humans evolved and there will life long long afterward.

No, he was pointing out a conclusion of the intelligent design argument--Maybe premise is a better word than conclusion, though I think you could make the argument for either, as it seems to be both a working assumption and a final product of ID. Circular to say the least.

EB said;

I did have an epiphany, though, while reading about Tigg's extended armed misadventure with the handicapped but fleet-of-foot alien, which probably means that I am just now catching up with what everybody else figured out a long time ago.

All this talk of targets is not simply an inaccurate description of natural history, nor an irrelevant assumption to calculate an even more irrelevant probability. It is not a "misconception," but rather an essential feature of intelligent design dogma.

It is not, ultimately, humanity's "compexity" that ID seeks to explain, but rather humanity's postulated resemblance to God. Less happily, it must also be the case that there can be no successor species to us. We cannot be some future ape's Lucy. The end of our species must coincide with the end of Life itself.

In other words, the evolutionary process, now that it is conceded that there is a process, must have had us in mind all along. We are the target, because making a self-portrait was the articulated goal of one of the designers. That goal has been achieved.

The premise? We are designed so complex because we resemble god.

The conclusion? Our complexity indicates we were designed by god.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Copasetic

[Mattshark]

Life is amazing as it is! And painful too. But we are special because we are the only ones who can conceive of someone or something greater than ourselves. :]

Can't really say that, have you asked any other animals about this?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Mattshark

[Guyver]

Can't really say that, have you asked any other animals about this?

I think that's the same point Eightbits was getting at. The answer is no. I have zero "animal whispering" capabilities. So, who know's....maybe their better at doing what they were designed for than we are? I have no clue.

PS. I thought I had intuitively came up with a sublime statement there. Seems it didn't go over that way. I guess that point is simply a personal opinion. Maybe that's why it got hammered?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Guyver

[Guyver]

why is that special? just curious...

A wise king named Solomon did a much better job answering the question than I could. You'd have to read the book of Ecclesiastes to understand it though. He spared no expense in researching the question and providing a final summation. It's only 12 short chapters; you may enjoy the read. You'll find this book in about the exact middle of your Bible.

[Guyver]

I'll try to present my summary arguments later today. Then I'll be done. I'm tired of being a one-man show.

[Agent. Mulder]

Life is amazing as it is! And painful too. But we are special because we are the only ones who can conceive of someone or something greater than ourselves. :]

that could actually be something detrimental to our evolution.

but, as MS said, we dont know because we havent really asked any other animals.

[Guyver]

Pre-final Presentation.

First, a few interesting quotes from Francis Crick.

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.

— Francis Crick

What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.

Almost all aspects of life are engineered at the molecular level, and without understanding molecules we can only have a very sketchy understanding of life itself.

I also suspect that many workers in this field [molecular biology] and related fields have been strongly motivated by the desire, rarely actually expressed, to refute vitalism.

— Francis Crick

So, why would I post that? So, that you may first see the inherent bias. This is not supposed to be the method of science; but in fact it often is. That's just an aside.

Now, for Evolution by an Evolutionist. I think this is an excellent (though not brief) examination and position statement by an evolutionist. In it he explains the evolutionary ideas of why design is an illusion. I'll post the last paragraph for FYI. When I return, later today hopefully; I will present my final arguments for intelligent design.

http://www.answers.com/topic/evolution-neo-darwinian-theory source

The effect of Darwin's theory was to give a mechanistic explanation of apparent intelligent design: the appearance was illusory, for the creative power was in natural selection. The effect of the large neutral or 'non-Darwinian' component discovered in molecular evolution is further to downgrade the role of design: the apparent creative power of natural selection was illusory, if it is outweighed by chance effects. In other words, the role of chance increases. It is this that seems to be the nub of the matter. The reductionist line of neo-Darwinism, aiming to reduce the diversity of life to the laws of chemistry and physics, leads to randomness. Instead of the relentless mill of natural selection, 'daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations ... silently and insensibly working ... at the improvement of each organic being' (Darwin's words), buttressed by the equations of population genetics, modern neo-Darwinians seem to be turning on the one hand to pure randomness (neutral theory and the molecular clock), and on the other to explanations which approach the miraculous (to use a provocative word), unique events perpetuated by inbreeding. The latter has echoes in the biblical account of the genesis of mankind. Natural selection has been called a mechanism for generating the improbable and, if the role of natural selection is diluted, the improbability of the results increases. The ultimate in reduction is a recently fashionable idea, that the whole of life is an accidental excrescence, a by-product of selfish DNA, whose structure is such that it survives, multiplies, and diversifies. That view seems to lead nowhere, but there are two lines of research that might lead out of the impasse. One is into the structure of the genome (the genetic equipment of the individual), where surprising things like 'jumping genes' and spontaneous amplification of bits of DNA are being discovered. Perhaps the permanence we attribute to DNA is also illusory. The other line is in epigenetics, the link between the genes and the organism. It is here that the mystery of transformation can be approached most directly.

[Copasetic]

Pre-final Presentation.

First, a few interesting quotes from Francis Crick.

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.

— Francis Crick

What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.

Almost all aspects of life are engineered at the molecular level, and without understanding molecules we can only have a very sketchy understanding of life itself.

I also suspect that many workers in this field [molecular biology] and related fields have been strongly motivated by the desire, rarely actually expressed, to refute vitalism.

— Francis Crick

So, why would I post that? So, that you may first see the inherent bias. This is not supposed to be the method of science; but in fact it often is. That's just an aside.

Not sure I see much wrong with those statements. We know life shows up sometime on earth before 3.5 billion years ago. We know that since then it has evolved into its present form. Is that bias then? Maybe to a history denier....

Also, I note that you have lifted these quotes from Dembski's work. Did you check the original context for yourself?

Now, for Evolution by an Evolutionist. I think this is an excellent (though not brief) examination and position statement by an evolutionist. In it he explains the evolutionary ideas of why design is an illusion. I'll post the last paragraph for FYI. When I return, later today hopefully; I will present my final arguments for intelligent design.

http://www.answers.com/topic/evolution-neo-darwinian-theory source

The effect of Darwin's theory was to give a mechanistic explanation of apparent intelligent design: the appearance was illusory, for the creative power was in natural selection. The effect of the large neutral or 'non-Darwinian' component discovered in molecular evolution is further to downgrade the role of design: the apparent creative power of natural selection was illusory, if it is outweighed by chance effects. In other words, the role of chance increases. It is this that seems to be the nub of the matter. The reductionist line of neo-Darwinism, aiming to reduce the diversity of life to the laws of chemistry and physics, leads to randomness. Instead of the relentless mill of natural selection, 'daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations ... silently and insensibly working ... at the improvement of each organic being' (Darwin's words), buttressed by the equations of population genetics, modern neo-Darwinians seem to be turning on the one hand to pure randomness (neutral theory and the molecular clock), and on the other to explanations which approach the miraculous (to use a provocative word), unique events perpetuated by inbreeding. The latter has echoes in the biblical account of the genesis of mankind. Natural selection has been called a mechanism for generating the improbable and, if the role of natural selection is diluted, the improbability of the results increases. The ultimate in reduction is a recently fashionable idea, that the whole of life is an accidental excrescence, a by-product of selfish DNA, whose structure is such that it survives, multiplies, and diversifies. That view seems to lead nowhere, but there are two lines of research that might lead out of the impasse. One is into the structure of the genome (the genetic equipment of the individual), where surprising things like 'jumping genes' and spontaneous amplification of bits of DNA are being discovered. Perhaps the permanence we attribute to DNA is also illusory. The other line is in epigenetics, the link between the genes and the organism. It is here that the mystery of transformation can be approached most directly.

Hmm, using something published in 1987 for the "Current status of neo-Darwinism", is disingenuous at best.

[Guyver]

Also, I note that you have lifted these quotes from Dembski's work. Did you check the original context for yourself?

Hmm, using something published in 1987 for the "Current status of neo-Darwinism", is disingenuous at best.

Well no, that was Collin Patterson. The source was posted. I didn't intentionally "lift" it. But, if you think it deficient in any way please feel free to update. I chose it because I thought it did a great job of hitting all the points in a clear but relatively succinct fashion. If you have a superior source, feel free to use it. I was using this to highlight your sides position. If it fails to do that in someway; my apologies.

OIC - you mean the quotes; I don't think I lifted those from Demski either; but he may have used the same.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Guyver

[Karlis]

I'll try to present my summary arguments later today. Then I'll be done. I'm tired of being a one-man show.

Don't sound so discouraged Guyver. Imo you have presented your points of argument well, and in an interesting manner.

Psalm 145

All your works shall praise You, O Lord, and Your saints shall bless you. They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom, and talk of Your power, to make known to the sons of men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom. Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Your dominion endures throughout all generations.

The world we live in..chance or design? From the vastness of the universe (almost inconceivable really) to the inherent complexity of the smallest cell – amazing! The world is filled with wonder and pain. Let’s focus on the wonder for this thread.

I like science. I respect the scientific method. ...

One reason why other like-minded UM readers possibly did not join you in posting on this thread, was simply because you were doing great on your own.

Cheers,

Karlis

[Guyver]

Acts 17:29 "Therefore since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising."

I was going to make my final presentation a very detailed and lengthy thing. Instead, I think I'll shorten it and allow the experts to speak for themselves.

Why does Intelligent Design represent the truth of our existence? Answer: because intelligent life could not have arisen any other way. It's really as simple as that. Occam's razor - the simplest solution....that's it. God's existence (or some supreme intelligence) is the simplest and best explanation because any other explanation is unsatisfactory. I'm talking about the type of proof that the scientifically minded need. The proof of our existence; observable/verifiable/testable information. Complex living organisms simply cannot arise without intelligent direction...ie. information.

In page one of the thread you'll find the quote by Dr. Kenyon; the man whom I said earlier wrote the book on chemical evolution.

“Amino acids do not have the ability to organize themselves in a meaningful way. We have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells, so the concept of the intelligent design of life was immensely attractive to me, and it made a great deal of sense as it very closely matched the multiple discoveries of molecular biology.”

Dr. Kenyan rejected the notion of biochemical evolution as a basis for the formation of the first population of cells.

This idea is supported by another famous scientist who also happend to be a chemist. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, holder of three phd's; and avid Creationist. The following is a quote from one of his books.

Accounting for the Origin of Information - Coupled with Dimension Theory

"Without the interaction of actual, holistic information (= surprise effects not derivable for natural law, which latter is known and therefore not of surprise value) with matter, there is, then, no accounting for the genesis of any teleonomic aggregates (machine structures) of matter. This fact of life applies to all types of machines, be they purely mechanical, electronic or biological metabolic machines. The basic principle remains the same for all types of machines in that they are all teleonomic. The hybridization of extrinsic, actual, holistic information with non-teleonomic raw matter is basic to all the types of machines mentioned.

Before abiogenesis took place obviously non-teleonomic raw matter could not generate spontaneously surprise effects of the teleonomic type required for any machine structure. This principle accounts for the fact that neither mechanical, electronic nor biological metabolic machines have ever been observed to arise spontaneously in actual practice i.e. without the addition of extrinsic information and its hybridization with matter."

In essence; raw materials are insufficient as a means of building any type of machine. As it relates to the formation of the first cells, you must begin with amino acids. Through a very complicated process; the Miller-Urey Experiment showed that amino acids could be formed naturally (hypothetically). The formation of the amino acids is by no means an indication that life, complex life, or intelligent life could have formed that way. It was simply an experiment showing that the basic building blocks or components forming life could possibly have arisen through natural means.

Taking those molecules to another level; to the formation of the complex forms necessary requires an order of magnitude increase of information. As I've already demonstrated earlier, an order of magnitude increase in result requires input of information (specific, intelligent, and directed information). Any additional complex internal system to these early (theoretical populations) would similarly represent another order of magnitude increase and require the additional and necessary information. Natural selection fails to account for this not only because there were no genes present, or initial populations at some point in time; but because small subtle changes cannot account for an order of magnitude increase.

[Guyver]

Don't sound so discouraged Guyver. Imo you have presented your points of argument well, and in an interesting manner.

One reason why other like-minded UM readers possibly did not join you in posting on this thread, was simply because you were doing great on your own.

Cheers,

Karlis

Thanks Karlis. I appreciate that.