Intelligent design

[TRoutMac]

I try to understand what you are saying, but what does constitute complex specified information? If we are going to complexity I think that we got a point. However, specified information?

 

Well, I did try this example before… I'll try it again. Example A contains complex and specified information. Example B also contains complex and specified information. I suspect that even a bad cryptographer could decode the information in Example B, as it actually does contain a message… the same message as Example A. But it follows a different "code". Example C is complex information, it is not specified. Why? Because it follows no "independent pattern". It is, quite literally, gibberish. Completely meaningless. Letters were typed at random. Example D is complex and specified information… the same message, but in Morse Code.

 

a) Meet me at the Seven-Eleven on the corner of Franklin and Third Street at one o'clock tomorrow afternoon and I'll give you one million dollars.

 

:) Oggv og cv vjg Ugxgp-Gngxgp qp vjg eqtpgt qh Htcpmnkp cpf Vjktf Uvtggv cv qpg q'enqem vqoqttqy chvgtpqqp cpf I'nn ikxg aqw qpg oknnkqp fqnnctu.

 

c) Rojw df ew lkj qwder-cxdask oi hjk youkjp tr Glkdhfjw xcv Dlkpy Qouegl cs jng k'wefmn uneokcdq dkjfoleoc asd E'vn dbno dew kov qlakdoi wjivrod.

 

d)-- . . - -- . .- - - .... . ... . ...- . -. -....- . .-.. . ...- . -. --- -. - .... . -.-. --- .-. -. . .-. --- ..-. ..-. .-. .- -. -.- .-.. .. -. .- -. -.. - .... .. .-. -.. ... - .-. . . - .- - --- -. . --- .----. -.-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- - --- -- --- .-. .-. --- .-- .- ..-. - . .-. -. --- --- -. .- -. -.. .. .----. .-.. .-.. --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- --- -. . -- .. .-.. .-.. .. --- -. -.. --- .-.. .-.. .- .-. ... .-.-.-

 

So, specified complex information is information which follows an independently given pattern or structure. For DNA, you could say that the independently given pattern is the "Universal Genetic Code" which is to DNA what the various rules and conventions which comprise the English language are to Example A above. The UGC is a set of rules which the DNA code adheres to regardless of what organism it is found in.

 

From your posts you seem to think that you want information that predicts something, like DNA does. Am I right?

 

I think that's a pretty good way to put it. The information in tree rings is not "predictive", in other words, it doesn't tell you how to build the next tree. It tells you about the history of the tree, what's happened to it, how long it's been around, etc. It's complex information, but it's not specified.

 

Ya, I knew the experiment wasn't hard evidence. I was just mentioning it to emphatize that there may be an explanation for this. However, thanks for giving more precise details about this.

 

You're welcome.

 

Also, remember that just because it has not been done does not mean that it can't be done. Yeah, I know this seems like "me grasping for straws", but it's the truth. At least in the scientific world.

 

Allow me to be a bit absurd here…Does that mean that I can claim that I can jump from the Earth to the moon and you can't say that I'm nuts? After all, just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done, right? Well, I'm saying that the laws of nature make macro-evolution impossible in the same way that the laws of nature make my attempt to jump from here to the moon impossible. I don't need to attempt it in order to prove it cannot be done. All I need to do is take a look at the laws of nature.

 

I understand what you are saying. However, remember that macroevolution can be the result of many microevolution processes. I mean, think about it, thousands of microevolutionary processes may yield a new species. That does not seem bad or ludicrous to me. It sounds logical, just like pgrmdave's analogy: add .01 to 1 many times and you have the number 2.

 

Well, believe that if you wish. But you have to answer the symbolic question of the sundew-to-fly trap evolution. How does natural selection, if it works the way evolutionists claim it does, allow the transitionary forms to survive when they would appear to have a survival disadvantage?

 

For some reason it seems that Intelligent Design folks imply that microevolution stop ocurring somewhere.

 

For reasons I've explained numerous times, natural selection would appear to be an obstacle to macro-evolution. So, "evolution" is limited by natural selection to "horizontal" variations within the basic species level. (micro-evolution) It cannot create a new species, it cannot create new functional features.

 

Very true. Yet, on a evolutionary point of view, they must exist. Yeah, I know this include bias. However, if you are working on a theory you must specify which is the missing evidence to support that theory, the missing fossils, or missing links.

 

Believing that evidence is out there somewhere is one thing. But claiming dogmatically that it is out there even though it hasn't found, just because your theory depends on its existence is, as you well know, ludicrous and is not scientific.

 

And whenever I said that we should debunk or trash Intelligent Design?

 

You didn't, and I'm sorry if I implied you did. That wasn't my intent. But of course, there are plenty people in this forum that are, and I would say they are being hasty in debunking (or trying, anyway, however pathetically) Intelligent Design.

[paultrr]

I myself do not suggest the debunk it approach. What I do think is that ID as an idea that there could have been a designer could and should be devorced from the religious connection it tends to have at least as far as evangelical circles go and more of an attempt should be made to derive hard evidence in its favor before anyone proposes it. By hard evidence I refer to stuff that stands up in the Peer Review level science tends to rely on. What I dislike out there and it isn't just the subject of evolution versus ID where this has been taking place is science as a whole tends to be ignored at times in favor of what the christian populace wants which has down through history never made for sound anything. For examples there just follow the middle age church history as an example. However, the central idea of some designer(no specific one per say) has a place in an open discussion or for that matter alternative theories. The problem there is more having direct(not asumption based) evidence in one's favor which at the present time is something the ID camp does lack.

[Edge]

Well, I did try this example before… I'll try it again. Example A contains complex and specified information. Example B also contains complex and specified information. I suspect that even a bad cryptographer could decode the information in Example B, as it actually does contain a message… the same message as Example A. But it follows a different "code". Example C is complex information, it is not specified. Why? Because it follows no "independent pattern". It is, quite literally, gibberish. Completely meaningless. Letters were typed at random. Example D is complex and specified information… the same message, but in Morse Code.

 

a) Meet me at the Seven-Eleven on the corner of Franklin and Third Street at one o'clock tomorrow afternoon and I'll give you one million dollars.

 

:) Oggv og cv vjg Ugxgp-Gngxgp qp vjg eqtpgt qh Htcpmnkp cpf Vjktf Uvtggv cv qpg q'enqem vqoqttqy chvgtpqqp cpf I'nn ikxg aqw qpg oknnkqp fqnnctu.

 

c) Rojw df ew lkj qwder-cxdask oi hjk youkjp tr Glkdhfjw xcv Dlkpy Qouegl cs jng k'wefmn uneokcdq dkjfoleoc asd E'vn dbno dew kov qlakdoi wjivrod.

 

d)-- . . - -- . .- - - .... . ... . ...- . -. -....- . .-.. . ...- . -. --- -. - .... . -.-. --- .-. -. . .-. --- ..-. ..-. .-. .- -. -.- .-.. .. -. .- -. -.. - .... .. .-. -.. ... - .-. . . - .- - --- -. . --- .----. -.-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- - --- -- --- .-. .-. --- .-- .- ..-. - . .-. -. --- --- -. .- -. -.. .. .----. .-.. .-.. --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- --- -. . -- .. .-.. .-.. .. --- -. -.. --- .-.. .-.. .- .-. ... .-.-.-

 

So, specified complex information is information which follows an independently given pattern or structure. For DNA, you could say that the independently given pattern is the "Universal Genetic Code" which is to DNA what the various rules and conventions which comprise the English language are to Example A above. The UGC is a set of rules which the DNA code adheres to regardless of what organism it is found in.

Nice explaining, now it is more clear to me. Well, if the thing is really like you are implying then I must say you (and the Intelligent Design crowd) are right.

 

I think that's a pretty good way to put it. The information in tree rings is not "predictive", in other words, it doesn't tell you how to build the next tree. It tells you about the history of the tree, what's happened to it, how long it's been around, etc. It's complex information, but it's not specified.

I see DNA either like it, or like a set of instructions. Or maybe - and I may be wrong - can be like the factors that - if measured - can tell you if there's going to be tornado on the weather, or if it's going to be a sunny day.

 

You're welcome.

I'll give a look into google for that.

 

 

Allow me to be a bit absurd here…Does that mean that I can claim that I can jump from the Earth to the moon and you can't say that I'm nuts? After all, just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done, right? Well, I'm saying that the laws of nature make macro-evolution impossible in the same way that the laws of nature make my attempt to jump from here to the moon impossible. I don't need to attempt it in order to prove it cannot be done. All I need to do is take a look at the laws of nature.

If you went back to the middle ages and told someone about the telephone they surely would mark you as crazy. Yeah, you are right, we can say (or at least until now) that it's impossible to make a jump to moon by ourselves.

 

Yet, you miss that many inventions came from many, many tries. Like the light bulb. If Thomas Alba Edison suddenly decided to abandon the project because of many failed attempts it would not be good, right?

 

On the Miller experiment, something at least was accomplished. Not sastifactory, enough. Granted.

 

Well, believe that if you wish. But you have to answer the symbolic question of the sundew-to-fly trap evolution. How does natural selection, if it works the way evolutionists claim it does, allow the transitionary forms to survive when they would appear to have a survival disadvantage?

I already told ya that I don't have the answer. You tell me this: what's junk DNA for?

 

If you can't answer the question directly, did I disprove Intelligent Design?

 

Answer: No.

 

Believing that evidence is out there somewhere is one thing. But claiming dogmatically that it is out there even though it hasn't found, just because your theory depends on its existence is, as you well know, ludicrous and is not scientific.

Maybe dogmatic, but ludicrous? I mean, evidence has been found to support it, claiming that there must be more is not that crazy and/or ludicrous, because based on past events you may as well continue finding evidence.

 

You didn't, and I'm sorry if I implied you did. That wasn't my intent. But of course, there are plenty people in this forum that are, and I would say they are being hasty in debunking (or trying, anyway, however pathetically) Intelligent Design.

I have questions:

 

Do you take everything that Michael Behe says as true? He may be mistaken on some of his claims, as any human and scientist.

 

And second, are you a scientist or something of the sort?

[TRoutMac]

Nice explaining, now it is more clear to me. Well, if the thing is really like you are implying then I must say you (and the Intelligent Design crowd) are right.

 

Thank you, Edge, and thank you for taking the time to read it and consider it with an open mind. Here is a small collection of descriptions of DNA and its function from various non-ID web sites which I have gathered. Anywhere you look on the Internet, at university web sites and anywhere else, DNA is described in terms very similar to the following:

 

"an instruction manual for building and operating a living organism"

 

"[The genetic code] could well be called the Rosetta Stone of life."

 

"Let us think of DNA as the totality of information needed to reproduce any organism. It is, in a manner of speaking, a language."

 

"What is the function of the codons on the DNA molecule? To give instructions for specifying and ordering amino acids."

 

"If DNA can be thought of as the language of life, then the four bases can be seen as letters and the codons as arrangements of letters, or words."

 

Evolutionary biologists recognize that DNA is a sort of language. To support this, you'll notice that the nomenclature used with describing DNA and the genome in general consists of words which relate to our use of language. Words like "code", "signals", "transcription", "translation", "read", "grammar", "encode", "decode", "messenger" (as in "messenger RNA") are all words that are used to describe the function of DNA and they also describe our use of language. A gene, which is a particular stretch of DNA, is also referred to as a "sentence", and as the code in DNA is read (there's another language term: "read") it is read 3 base-pairs at a time. These groups of 3 base-pairs are called "codons" and can be compared to the words in our written language. Certain other codons designate the beginning and ending of a "sentence" just like punctuation in our written language.

 

Having said that, it's probably even more accurate to compare DNA to software, as has been done on this thread. The main reason I say that is that our written language communicates between two intelligences. That is, you write an e-mail to your mother… that e-mail is read by an intelligent agent just as it is authored by an intelligent agent. Software, on the other hand, is certainly authored by an intelligent agent, but the instructions are "read" by an inanimate, unintelligent device (also designed by an intelligent agent) called a computer. That software source code looks like gibberish to you and I (assuming you're not a software engineer) and yet it obviously does contain complex and specified information. Point is, the Read Only Memory of the computer has been designed and programmed to read that source code, and the information processing system in a living cell is likewise able to "read" the DNA code by virtue of its design.

 

The bottom line is, DNA does indeed contain complex specified information, in just the same way as my previous example. DNA is a "language", this is well-established scientific fact. And at the risk of sounding like I'm gloating, the Intelligent Design crowd is right about this. It's frankly the only interpretation of the evidence that makes any sense at all.

 

I'll admit… even as a life-long Christian I have to say I find this "creepy" in a way. Although generations upon generations of reproduction, recombination of genetic information have obliterated the original, initial DNA sequence, somebody wrote that code. And whoever it was, they ain't human. And in a way, that's kind of creepy. Now, being a Christian, I'm naturally convinced (by faith) that this "someone" is God of the Bible. And when I remember that, it's somewhat less creepy. But it's still kind of creepy.

 

If you went back to the middle ages and told someone about the telephone they surely would mark you as crazy. Yeah, you are right, we can say (or at least until now) that it's impossible to make a jump to moon by ourselves. Yet, you miss that many inventions came from many, many tries. Like the light bulb. If Thomas Alba Edison suddenly decided to abandon the project because of many failed attempts it would not be good, right?

 

Yeah, they would "mark you as crazy", but on the basis of what? They wouldn't have been able to produce any logical barrier, no reasonable explanation of why, due to natural laws and such, a telephone was impossible. They would likely believe a telephone was impossible, but only on the basis of their lack of technology. But as for my jump to the moon, there are well-known laws of nature which stand as an impassable barrier. Impassable, that is, if I am to jump under my own power without the aid of a spacecraft, etc. However, when we look at macro-evolution and we look at how natural selection works, it's quite easy to see that, providing our understanding of natural selection is accurate, there appears to be natural laws which stand as an obstacle to macro-evolution.

 

I already told ya that I don't have the answer. You tell me this: what's junk DNA for?

 

Yes, you did… I realize that. But it appears nobody has the answer. The only answer they offer is one which merely displaces the question. Imagine the sundew and fly trap on a timeline representing the alleged evolution from sundew to fly trap, and then pick a point halfway between the two and imagine that organism… let's call it the "mid-point" organism. Now, what some will say is that this "mid-point" organism had a function entirely different from either the sundew or the flytrap, that I'm incorrect to assume that this "mid-point" organism would be a conglomeration of sundew and fly trap parts. Okay, for the sake of discussion, let's give 'em that point. Now guess what? We've got the same problem all over again. Now, pick a point halfway between the midpoint organism and the sundew… tracing the "evolution" back further. Again, how did we get from the sundew to this "quarter-point" organism without a degradation in function and survivability along the way? You see, as a simple matter of logic, it cannot work. Because somewhere along the line you have to have a transitional form, and that transitional form is not going to be functional, will not be able to compete, and will selected for extinction by the process of natural selection.

 

If you can't answer the (junk DNA) question directly, did I disprove Intelligent Design?

 

Junk DNA answer to come shortlly… this post is long enough as it is!

 

Maybe dogmatic, but ludicrous? I mean, evidence has been found to support it, claiming that there must be more is not that crazy and/or ludicrous, because based on past events you may as well continue finding evidence.

 

There is only fossil evidence that evolutionists interpret as evidence for their side. That same evidence can be interpreted to support ID as well. And there is other fossil evidence (the "cambrian explosion") which would appear to directly conflict with the evolutionary view.

 

http://www.discovery.org/articlefiles/pdfs/cambrian.pdf

 

Plus, there is recent evidence that the evolutionary timetable is way, way off. Last March, in Montana, they found a T-rex fossil. They accidentally broke the femur and inside that femur they found soft tissues. For a variety of reasons, it's not believed that soft tissues (blood cells, fibrous tissues, blood vessels, etc.) could survive 65 million years (T-rex is believed to have existed 65 million years ago) and yet here's a fossil with soft tissues. Again, I would emphasize at best, this merely calls into question the 65 million year old age of T-rex. To be fair, it doesn't necessarily disprove it, but on the other hand, it may disprove it. See links below.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4559780

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

 

Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University said this:

 

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation],"

 

Notice that rather than question the dating of T-rex and the evolutionary timetable, she chooses instead to rethink the theories about how fossils are preserved. Now, granted, either may be in error. I'm not saying that she should not question the fossilization theories, but I find it interesting that she doesn't think to question the evolutionary timetable and dating of T-rex fossils. Maybe, just maybe, T-rex was around much, much more recently than their dating methods would indicate. Wouldn't questioning both theories be a more objective approach?

 

Do you take everything that Michael Behe says as true? He may be mistaken on some of his claims, as any human and scientist.

 

Of course not. For one thing, Michael Behe is a Roman Catholic and I'm a Christian… that means he and I would have profound theological disagreements. For another, Behe appears to accept an "old Earth" paradigm, which I tend to reject (albeit cautiously, since there's really no way to prove it empirically) No, I don't agree with Behe about "everything". But the points he makes both in favor of ID and against macro-evolution are compelling to say the least.

 

And second, are you a scientist or something of the sort?

 

No, I'm not a scientist by profession.

[Edge]

Nice, thanks for answer, TRoutMac.

 

Just one more thing. You mentioned that you have given positive evidence that supports ID. Can you just post them again. Examples besides the complex specified information that the DNA has.

 

I mean, sure, it supports it. However, I think there must be more on it.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

TroutMac:

You see, as a simple matter of logic, it cannot work. Because somewhere along the line you have to have a transitional form, and that transitional form is not going to be functional, will not be able to compete, and will selected for extinction by the process of natural selection.

I think it's more elegant than natural selection and also more natural to assume that somehow, via a mechanism we don't yet understand, the environment pushes on the genome and causes it to change in such a way that the offspring will stand a better chance of surviving. In other words, a cause and effect relationship between the environment and the lifeform that can survive in that environment.

We still have to explain why life exists at all and the reason for that is most likely (in my mind at least) the same reason that drives speciation. Something drives life into existence.

It would seem to me that life brings about a balance in a tug of war that we aren't even aware of yet. That probably gets into the nature of the fundamental properties of the fundamental particle and how it combines to form larger complex identities and so on. If there is a designer, I suspect it spent a lot of time on those properties.

[TRoutMac]

If you can't answer the (junk DNA) question directly, did I disprove Intelligent Design?

 

I actually have answered the "junk DNA" question directly in previous posts, but I've summarize that again below. Indeed, you have not disproven Intelligent Design.

 

It surprises me that scientists would declare something they don't yet understand as "junk". To do so presupposes that the complete function of DNA is already known, and is therefore known to be functionless.

 

It turns out that to assume that non-coding DNA is "junk" is exactly the kind of "argument from ignorance" that naturalists accuse IDers of. (the "God of the Gaps" rhetoric) They are declaring these stretches of non-coding DNA as "junk" just because they don't presently understand what they contribute to the organism. What a great way to stifle scientific inquiry!! As I understand it, the only thing we know with any certainty about non-coding DNA is that whatever its function, it does not code for proteins. But that does not mean it has no function.

 

You have to remember that at one point in history, the entire DNA strand looked like "junk". We didn't understand what any of it meant. How would we have learned what we now know about DNA's function if we had written off the entire DNA strand as "junk" when we first laid eyes on it?

 

And sure enough, research is presently uncovering functions for what used to be called "junk DNA". Non-coding DNA has been implicated in the control of embryo development. Scientists at the Jackson Laboratory, Maine, USA, found that a type of transposable element (TE), a major class of supposed ‘junk’ or ‘parasitic’ DNA, activates during embryo development in mice.

 

Also, it seems hard to imagine how the existence of "junk DNA" makes any sense even from an evolutionary standpoint. Why would organisms evolve such elaborate machinery to splice them? It would seem that natural selection would favor organisms that did not have to waste resources processing a genome filled with 98% junk, don't you think? Isn't it reasonable to suspect that since we have a system which processes the entire DNA strand, that the entire DNA strand would be worth processing? And shouldn't we therefore try to discover that worth?

 

Alexander Hüttenhofer of the University of Münster, Germany, said this:

"Five or six years ago, people said we were wasting our time. Today, no one regards people studying non-coding RNA as time-wasters."

[TRoutMac]

You mentioned that you have given positive evidence that supports ID. Can you just post them again. Examples besides the complex specified information that the DNA has.

 

1) Presence of complex and specified information in living organisms. Intelligent (human) designers produce such information.

 

2) Presence of irreducibly complex, functionally integrated systems and "machinery" within living organisms. Intelligent (human) designers produce machinery with these same characteristics.

 

3) Presence of error-correcting information processing systems within living systems. Intelligent (human) designers have devised information processing systems which include error-correction schemes.

 

4) Presence of a virtually universal "programming" language system (UGC) which encodes instructions for the development and operation of every organism. Intelligent (human) designers devise standards of communication, programming languages, protocols for engineering drawings, information storage, etc.

 

5) Presence of functional systems in living organisms which exploit, and are bound by, the laws of physics in order to perform various functions much the same way that (human) intelligence has designed and produced functional systems which exploit, and are bound by, the laws of physics in order to perform various functions.

 

6) Certain organ systems and design themes are shared across a broad range of organisms, similar to how intelligent (human) designers design around common functional systems in the machines we design.

 

7) (Astronomy) Anthropic principle: many facets of the universe and particularly our solar system appear to be fine-tuned to support life on Earth. An intelligent (human) designer, when setting up (for example) an aquarium. All parameters of water quality will be adjusted and set to best suit the fish species that will inhabit the tank.

[Boerseun]

1) Presence of complex and specified information in living organisms. Intelligent (human) designers produce such information.

What started of as garbled nonsense quickly went through a weeding process: Those that could function as a template for duplication did so, the rest obviously didn't. And evolution favours a set of instructions that creates an organism that suits the environment - hence speciation. It might look designed because of the apparent complexity. That is not to say that there was a conscious, aware intelligence driving it at all.

2) Presence of irreducibly complex, functionally integrated systems and "machinery" within living organisms. Intelligent (human) designers produce machinery with these same characteristics.

Once again, same as above. Whilst 'irreducible complexity' is used by the ID community as one of their bulwarks against evolution and speciation, it's actually meaningless. Consider: As an experiment, imagine the morphing of a gorilla into a human (I know, we share a common ancestor, but bear with me here...). What step of a gorilla gradually losing its hair, developing a bigger cranium, walking upright etc. is impossible? At what point of this morphing exercise, is the species unable to live? Why use a single example (of the sundew and the venus fly-trap) to prove it impossible, whilst there are literally millions of viable examples? Who says the one evolved from the other and not from a common ancestor with a host of different forms inbetween?

3) Presence of error-correcting information processing systems within living systems. Intelligent (human) designers have devised information processing systems which include error-correction schemes.

Refer to my answer on 1. Those that didn't develop 'error-correcting' systems, spawned failed offspring, and aren't around any more.

4) Presence of a virtually universal "programming" language system (UGC) which encodes instructions for the development and operation of every organism. Intelligent (human) designers devise standards of communication, programming languages, protocols for engineering drawings, information storage, etc.

Or, alternatively, we simply share a common ancestor, and through millions of years we've kept what works, and discarded (through death and the inability to procreate) what didn't work. Thus, a 'universal language'.

5) Presence of functional systems in living organisms which exploit, and are bound by, the laws of physics in order to perform various functions much the same way that (human) intelligence has designed and produced functional systems which exploit, and are bound by, the laws of physics in order to perform various functions.

Anything, absolutely anything, that proposes to live in this universe, has to abound by its laws. Simple existence depends on physical laws. Even for a rock. I fail to see the relevence of this point. If a fish developed a gut that failed to respect the laws of chemistry, it won't digest food and therefore die.

6) Certain organ systems and design themes are shared across a broad range of organisms, similar to how intelligent (human) designers design around common functional systems in the machines we design.

Probably because species share a common ancestor, and, once again, discarded what didn't work, and retained those adaptions which does.

7) (Astronomy) Anthropic principle: many facets of the universe and particularly our solar system appear to be fine-tuned to support life on Earth. An intelligent (human) designer, when setting up (for example) an aquarium. All parameters of water quality will be adjusted and set to best suit the fish species that will inhabit the tank.

The Anthropic Principle, indeed. If the world was any different, we would be different as well, and we would be amazed that the world was designed around our specific requirements. Doesn't matter what the conditions on this hypothetical 'changed' Earth is, if it allows intelligent life to evolve, that intelligent life would be formed around the physical environment. Life evolves in reaction to environmental stimulus and conditions. The Earth wasn't built around us - we evolved around what Earth had to offer. Hence opposable thumbs. They serve a marvellous function to manipulate the environment, but the initial function was to grapple branches and swing from tree to tree. Hence our upright gait - when the savannahs offered more than the trees did, walking upright was a response to the environment. That left our thumbs wanting something to grip. So we started playing around with branches, and invented clubs. That improved hunting results. And so on, and so on.

 

I'm just of the opinion that such changes appearing as a response to changing environmental conditions is a more reasonable explanation than to just say whatever the case may be, it was intentionally designed 'as is' by some unknown and unnamed conscious intelligence. That, in my mind, sounds more like clutching at straws than a bona fide scientific argument.

[TRoutMac]

I'm just of the opinion that such changes appearing as a response to changing environmental conditions is a more reasonable explanation than to just say whatever the case may be, it was intentionally designed 'as is' by some unknown and unnamed conscious intelligence. That, in my mind, sounds more like clutching at straws than a bona fide scientific argument.

 

Yes… and Mt. Rushmore used to be the heads of 4 ordinary people, but natural processes eventually "weeded out" all faces that weren't Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson. Sure. Makes sense to me.

 

But seriously, that's a nice pipe dream, Boerseun. But there's one little problem… you've got no way to back it up. Nobody does. The only evidence available to you can only objectively support what IDers don't even dispute, and that is small, "horizontal" genetic variation within species. (micro-evolution) Natural selection stands in the way of anything else.

 

As for the anthropic principle, from what we can observe in our own solar system, this is the only planet capable of supporting life. Once again, the evidence doesn't support your claim that 'If conditions were different, we would be different and would be marvelling at the anthropic principle.' (paraphrase) No, it appears that if things were any different, we would be dead. Wherever we look in our solar system, on the other planets where "things are different", there is no life.

[Boerseun]

Yes… and Mt. Rushmore used to be the heads of 4 ordinary people, but natural processes eventually "weeded out" all faces that weren't Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson. Sure. Makes sense to me.

Mt. Rushmore is obviously not the result of evolutionary action, because there's no 'death' involved. This is an irrelevant analogy. If there was any beneficial reason for mountains to look like dead presidents (and only if mountains procreated via sex thus bestowing their genes on their offspring), then yes, Rushmore could be formed naturally. But you and I and everybody here know that mountains don't procreate, so this is a false analogy. Please refrain from using them.

But seriously, that's a nice pipe dream, Boerseun. But there's one little problem… you've got no way to back it up. Nobody does.

Exactly. That is why evolutionists are happy to call it 'evolution theory'. It seems as if ID, who cannot even begin to prove their point apart from using certain 'weak spots' in a theory thats a self-confessed work in progress, can't see that this applies to them as well. You can't prove ID. This is not to say that ID or evolution is right or wrong. But ID's approach to the whole issue is non-scientific, and that's whats irking the science community. You can't say because A is wrong, B must be right. What about C, D and E?

The only evidence available to you can only objectively support what IDers don't even dispute, and that is small, "horizontal" genetic variation within species. (micro-evolution) Natural selection stands in the way of anything else.

By using this argument, discarding 'macro'-evolution completely, you're saying that in ID's opinion, speciation doesn't happen through evolutionary changes, therefore ID must be right. This is illogical. What about C, D and E, again?

Besides - ('macro')evolution is currently the best hypothesis we have to describe such things as diverse as the (incomplete, for sure, but we're getting closer every day) fossil record, and the astonishing similarities between closely related species. From ID's point of view, 'design' similarities at best points to a lazy creator. Why create different species to fill the same niches at all? Compare a grazer to an ant colony - they fill the same niche, and consume roughly the same amount of vegetable matter every day. Why built two species when one can do? If you follow this line of reasoning, then Earth is probably some sort of testing ground for weirdness.

As for the anthropic principle, from what we can observe in our own solar system, this is the only planet capable of supporting life. Once again, the evidence doesn't support your claim that 'If conditions were different, we would be different and would be marvelling at the anthropic principle.' (paraphrase) No, it appears that if things were any different, we would be dead. Wherever we look in our solar system, on the other planets where "things are different", there is no life.

Sure. If things were any different, and all of a sudden we're introduced to such a different environment, we'll die. There are plenty places we haven't looked yet, like under Europa's ice, or a more thorough search on Mars, or some sulphur-dependent life on Io. But that being as it may, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. So I'll make it again:

If we lived in a different world, under different circumstances, we would look very different, because we would have evolved to compensate for the environment. And then we'd say "Gosh - everything was built for us, 'cause here we are!" We wouldn't know about the alternatives.

 

If Earth was slightly larger, we'd probably be shorter and stockier to compensate for higher g. If Earth was smaller, we'd probably be tall and thin with bigger chest cavities to compensate for thinner air. There are so many variables that still allows life, and there's no way for anybody to say that Earth as it is is the only possible scenario under which life is possible.

[TRoutMac]

Mt. Rushmore is obviously not the result of evolutionary action, because there's no 'death' involved.

 

It's a fair point, Boerseun. However, either Intelligent Design is a valid potential explanation or it's not. It can't be valid in this context but invalid in another context. You guys are trying to have it both ways… we can't consider Intelligent Design for the origin of this complex arrangement of parts, but we can consider Intelligent Design for that complex arrangement of parts. This is logically inconsistent.

 

Exactly. That is why evolutionists are happy to call it 'evolution theory'.

 

Oh. Is that why so much controversy was generated when Kansas changed its standards to allow teaching evolution's weaknesses along with strengths?

 

But ID's approach to the whole issue is non-scientific, and that's whats irking the science community. You can't say because A is wrong, B must be right. What about C, D and E?

 

In other words, you'll believe anything as long as it doesn't involve what might possibly be an infinitely superior, infinitely knowledgeable intelligent agent.

 

…you're saying that in ID's opinion, speciation doesn't happen through evolutionary changes, therefore ID must be right.

 

If you think that's the basis of ID theory, you haven't been paying much attention.

 

Besides - ('macro')evolution is currently the best hypothesis we have to describe such things as diverse as the (incomplete, for sure, but we're getting closer every day) fossil record, and the astonishing similarities between closely related species.

 

I get it, we have to accept macro-evolution not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis that we have no other explanation. Yeah… that's scientific. Sounds like argument from ignorance to me. At any rate, your statement is false. Intelligent Design is a better explanation by far.

 

From ID's point of view, 'design' similarities at best points to a lazy creator.

 

So now you're making judgements about the diligence of the designer. Do you think it's "laziness" that makes an automobile manufacturer design cars that share certain parts? No, when that happens, we call it "efficiency", don't we?

[Edge]

In other words, you'll believe anything as long as it doesn't involve what might possibly be an infinitely superior, infinitely knowledgeable intelligent agent.

Well, TRoutMac. Not trying to get involved in the debate, but science can't recognize this.

 

It's a fair point, Boerseun. However, either Intelligent Design is a valid potential explanation or it's not. It can't be valid in this context but invalid in another context. You guys are trying to have it both ways… we can't consider Intelligent Design for the origin of this complex arrangement of parts, but we can consider Intelligent Design for that complex arrangement of parts. This is logically inconsistent.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but are you saying that just because we can see design on some things then everything including life must be designed?

 

That's like saying that just because we see some microevolutionary changes on nature then macroevolution must be real.

 

Kinda misleading, don't you think? Or maybe I didn't understand what you were trying to say.

 

Oh. Is that why so much controversy was generated when Kansas changed its standards to allow teaching evolution's weaknesses along with strengths?

Just another request. Can you mention some weaknesses around Evolution besides the missing evidence and the fact that macroevolution has not been observed?

[BEAKER]

… this post is long enough as it is!

I concur! But I must say very informative. I haven't read the whole thing, and I believe I have a post or two back in the 2 digit era of this thread. I'm just glad to see the debate continues with open minds on both sides.

 

Personally, I'd say there really can only be one side of this issue, but then I just can't force myself to cast my common sense to the wind and embrace an idea that leaves us all floundering in a ever deepening sea of information and hypothetical hearsay; simply for the sheer ultimate (joy) of declaring to the whole world..."I finally proved it! we're all an accident! -Yeahhh! Now citizens, go about your business untill you cease to function and rot in obscurity. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtin, or the mountain or evidence that seems to support contary points of view".

 

But that's just me.B)

[TRoutMac]

Well, TRoutMac. Not trying to get involved in the debate, but science can't recognize this.

 

Science can recognize the 'marks' left behind by an Intelligent Designer. If there is an Intelligent Designer, then "it" is a great deal more intelligent, knowledgeable than we are. Perhaps "infinitely" is hyperbole, and is certainly not provable scientifically, so your point is well-taken.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken, but are you saying that just because we can see design on some things then everything including life must be designed?

 

No, sorry… perhaps I could've made myself more clear. In nature, we see quite a bit of "phenomena" (trying to be as general as possible) which can be explained by reference to natural causes. And I have no problem with that. Where appropriate, we ought to explain things by reference to, well, the best explanation. And for a vast majority of scientific questions, "natural causes" of various kinds serves quite well as the best explanation.

 

Imagine this, however: Imagine that you're a scientist and you're the first to land on Easter Island, where you find these giant statues. At that moment you're faced with a question: What caused these statues? Are these statues the result of Intelligent Design, or are they caused by natural processes? True, you will probably reach your conclusion before you even finish asking yourself the question… the answer is that obvious.

 

Nevertheless, what I'm saying is simply that if it's scientifically acceptable to invoke Intelligent Design on Easter Island (and of course it is) then it's also scientifically acceptable to invoke Intelligent Design for origin of life so long as we see the same "cues" for Intelligent Design in life that we see in the statues on Easter Island. And of course, we do see those same cues.

 

Intelligent Design proponents say that Intelligent Design can always be considered a valid hypothesis when faced with something that appears to be designed (like the statues of Easter Island).

 

On the other hand, ID bashers say that, when faced with something that appears to be designed, Intelligent Design can only be considered a valid hypothesis when they say it can. Intelligent Design for Easter Island statues? Fine. But Intelligent Design for origin of life? Unscientific.

 

That's inconsistent logically.

 

Can you mention some weaknesses around Evolution besides the missing evidence and the fact that macroevolution has not been observed?

 

1. Evolution cannot account for the increase in information necessary to produce new species, new features, new structures.

 

2. The feasability of evolution is critically dependent upon a determination of the age of the Earth which isn't even verifiable.

 

3. The Cambrian Explosion shows diversity of life appearing in the fossil record all at once, not bit-by-bit over millions and millions of years.

 

4. Evolution cannot account for irreducibly complex systems. Such systems cannot arise through slight, successive modifications and improvements.

[Boerseun]

Ah - Easter Island. And the Rosetta stone. Again.

 

You see, using these, and yes, Mt. Rushmore, as examples boosting the case for ID is actually way off mark.

 

Let's see: Here we have a bunch of cleverly cut stones looking like monuments sitting on Easter Island. We know that they are designed, and that an intelligence are behind it. And it's quite simple, really. They don't have a system where information gets passed along. They don't have sex, to put it bluntly. So, a pebble can't lie around for a million years and end up being the Rosetta stone. Therefore they were designed. I agree. But so what?

 

DNA, on the other hand, contains information pertaining to the physical characteristics of the animal. And every generation's information set is different than the previous generation. Why is this important? Because amongst all the individuals of the species, this information change will lead to slightly better adaptions caused randomly in the genetic binding when two sex cells meet. And this will lead to animals changing over time to fit neatly in the available niches. Therefore, using Easter Island as an equivalent to the information content in DNA is pointless. Yes, we can identify it as being intelligently designed, but only because there's no other mechanism working the changes. In DNA there's a clear mechanism working the changes, and running the information content in the cells backwards through time, we should see less and less complexity until we come to the very first molecule able to serve as a template for replication. Because there's another force at play here, using Mt. Rushmore, Rosetta and Easter Island as indicators of how to recognise "Intelligence" is valid - only as far as recognizing Intelligence goes. But that is quite conveniently ignoring the simple truth that every generation is genetically different than the previous.

[TRoutMac]

DNA, on the other hand, contains information pertaining to the physical characteristics of the animal. And every generation's information set is different than the previous generation. Why is this important? Because amongst all the individuals of the species, this information change will lead to slightly better adaptions caused randomly in the genetic binding when two sex cells meet. And this will lead to animals changing over time to fit neatly in the available niches.

 

First of all, the statues and DNA both contain complex and specified information, therefore they are comparable. Specified complexity is complexity which conforms to an independently given pattern. In the case of the statues, that independently given pattern is the known form and characteristics of a human head and face. DNA's independently given pattern is the Universal Genetic Code.

 

Secondly, genetic recombination does not and cannot increase the volume of information. As the Tierra example you guys tried to use earlier demonstrates, (much to your collective chagrin) information deteriorates, degrades, decreases, and cannot provide new features or functions as a result. Isolated groups which interbreed only recombine within their gene pool, and so we see some micro-evolution as a result. But we've never seen that process create new functions, new structures. It might alter the coloring, the size, even the proportions to one extent or another, but it doesn't create new appendages, new features, etc.

 

Yes, we can identify it as being intelligently designed, but only because there's no other mechanism working the changes. In DNA there's a clear mechanism working the changes…

 

In DNA there is no clear mechanism for this. That's why there's so much debate amongst evolutionists regarding things like PE, gradualism, etc.

 

…and running the information content in the cells backwards through time, we should see less and less complexity until we come to the very first molecule able to serve as a template for replication.

 

And as you do this, you will see that irreducibly complex systems collapse entirely and cease to function the very instant you make them "more simple". Hence, they could not have increased in complexity gradually.