Intelligent design / creationism

[Fishteacher73]

thank you for your kind response. I do appologize if I offended you or anyone else.

I do have two questions regarding your mention of PE.

Please tell me, in your opinion, how "quickly" would specieation occure?

 

Also, what are some examples of "stress" that are put upon the population that would cause the cycle of mutation and natural selection to occure more rapidly?

 

thank you and appreciate your input! :hihi:

 

 

Sorry to have been out of the loop...term papers to grade soccer games to go to etc.....

 

Quickly I think would be very relative. I think one should look at generations of the organism. (Something that only devides every few decades or so (some bacteria in the crust) to some that can reproduce at a rate of , if I recall, from one bacterium to over 28 trillion in about two days.) So I think you look at probably around F10-F20 or so would provide enough time for discernable differentiation (just a guess through breeding fish).

 

As for stresses, they come from anywhere and every where. From new forms of predation/predation avoidance methods, just about any abiotic factor that can change, gain/loss of food supplies, etc. Perhaps the biggest push for differentiation is actually a lack of a prior stress. After every major extinction there has been a period after in which the remaining species went on a "gold rush" filling all the vacated niches and lots of diversification.

[Fishteacher73]

When assembling a jigsaw puzzle you don't really begin to see the big picture with the first piece but, the big picture does begin to take shape long before the last piece is placed.

 

We are also looking at about 1000 different jugsaw puzzles all mixed together with pehaps some pieces missing and not really sure what were supposed to be putting together.

[BEAKER]

DNA isn't chaotic at all, merely more complex than we're able to handle right now. Thoughts?

 

-jp

 

I think any other viewpoint would be ignoring the obvious.

[Lolic]

We developed something comparable to the human eye in structure and function many decades ago: the camera. And recently an artificial eye was developed that should help blind people to see within the next few years.

 

Thank you for bringing that up. I’ve not made my point yet such that you follow me.

 

What is involved in the development of the camera and artificial eye? Is it fair to say “information” or “knowledge” or “intelligence”? And that information came from design engineers who were knowledgeable in areas such as optics, signal processing, etc?

 

It took information and intelligence to design and manufacture those items.

 

Here’s my point:

 

1) without DNA there is no self replication

2) without self replication there is no natural selection

3) so one can’t use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing (DNA) they are trying to explain.

 

Macro evolution doesn’t make DNA possible. The information in DNA, which gives us self replication, existed first.

 

Without the information in DNA to turn amino acids into proteins in the proper manner, provide assembly instructions, and build micro-machines for the cell, we wouldn’t have self replication.

 

The information came first.

 

The real question is where did the information come from for the first DNA, or what is the origin of the information found in DNA? And because Darwinian and natural science explanations can’t explain it, that is why we can’t just toss out the possibility of Intelligent Design.

 

Science is a search for causes. Wouldn’t it be bad science to put ourselves in a box and eliminate possibilities from the beginning without considering all possibilities in a rational manner?

 

Wouldn’t it be better to not make initial constraints, but instead follow the evidence?

 

The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that searches for signs of intelligence from space. Should biologists likewise search for signs of intelligence in biological systems?

 

SETI would consider a series of prime numbers to be a sign of intelligence from outer space. Yet the information content in the DNA of one fingertip of a SETI researcher is millions of times greater. Why would we consider so little information from outer space to be a sign of intelligence, yet we reject a sign of ID here on earth?

 

Evolution can’t take credit for the origin of information in DNA because as stated earlier, the DNA had to exist first in order to have self replication which is needed to have any kind of natural selection.

[Lolic]

Which I imagine is also not the full story of what Ernst Mayer had to say on the subject (similar to how the quote of Darwin is not).

 

And what year is that quote from anyway? And what's the source?

 

TeleMad,

Please forgive my lack of citation earlier. Here is the information you requested.

 

Systematics and the Origin of Species

NY Columbia: University Press 1942

 

Realizing this is somewhat dated, I would like to add some more information as this might not satisfy.

 

Here is a list of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinian evolutionary claims. This is the first of 10 pages. If interested, you can find the entire list at:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114

in total there about 300 people who signed it.

 

 

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

 

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

 

Scientists listed by doctoral degree or position. Updated January 2005.

 

Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia

Russell Carlson Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia

Fred Sigworth Professor of Cellular & Molecular Physiology-Graduate School Yale University

Michael Behe Professor of Biological Science Lehigh University

Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol

Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University

William Dembski Associate Research Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of Science Baylor University

David Chapman Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Donald Ewert Ph.D. Microbiology University of Georgia

Bernard d'Abrera Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)

Mae-Wan Ho Ph.D. Biochemistry Hong Kong University

Scott Minnich Professor, Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry University of Idaho

Fred Schroeder Ph.D. Marine Geology Columbia University

Jeffrey Schwartz Assoc. Res. Psychiatrist, Dept. of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences University of California (Los Angeles)

Ralph Seelke Professor & Chair, Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences University of Wisconsin, Superior

Giuseppe Sermonti Editor Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum (Italy)

Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

David Snoke Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy University of Pittsburgh

Frank Tipler Professor of Mathematical Physics Tulane University

John A. Davison Emeritus Associate Professor of Biology University of Vermont

James Tour Chao Professor of Chemistry Rice University

Pablo Yepes Research Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy Rice University

[Lolic]

I have not read the book you speak of, but am familiar with the point that you bring out from it.

 

The Haekel Drawings: While these are considered poor science (The images were not faked, but the scale was ditorted in comparing various embryonic stages) the basic concept represented by them has other evidence in the genetic areana.

 

Miller-Uray experiment is now usualy considered inaccurate. The believe atmospheric conditions are much different than they were when the experiment was conducted. Other experiments using what we think is a more accurate representaion of the primordial atmosphere have yielded amino acids as well.

 

Hi Fishteacher,

 

I would be interested in discussing more after you read this...sorry it's so long. :(

 

INTRODUCTION to ICONS of EVOLUTION: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong

(Washington DC: Regnery, 2000)

 

http://www.iconsofevolution.org/intro/

 

Edit: the information is available at the above link, note there is no indication it is copyrighted. -Lolic This is a must read for anyone interested in evolutionary theory and truth.

 

Edit: Copyrighted text removed by Tormod. Please observe our FAQ and general copyright rules.

[Fishteacher73]

These examples are so frequently used as evidence for Darwin's theory that most of them have been called "icons" of evolution. Yet all of them, in one way or another, misrepresent the truth.

 

As I have said there have been mis-interpretaions of some of the evidence that iis listed above, the interpretaions can be misleading in some of the ways they are presented, but the evidence itself cannot mis-represent the facts (truth can be a loaded word, so I try to avoid it)...

 

I do need to pick up this book, sounds very interesting, because I am interested in seeing how some of the evidence is misleading, acording to the author.

 

 

Again, science is not clean of its hoaxes or incorrect interpretations of the evidence, but it is rare that it is done intentionally (Piltdown man for ex.). Perhaps the author has issue in the context of how these examples are presented, but I really can not see fault in how most of them are currently interpreted.

[TeleMad]

Here’s my point:

 

1) without DNA there is no self replication

2) without self replication there is no natural selection

3) so one can’t use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing (DNA) they are trying to explain.

 

Which doesn't mean that our eyes aren't the product of evolution. Evolution can increase genetic information, so our eyes could be the product of evolution. So the discussion about the eye was just a red herring?

 

Do you want to argue against evolution or abiogenesis? They're two different things.

[TeleMad]

Here is a list of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinian evolutionary claims. This is the first of 10 pages. If interested, you can find the entire list at:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114

in total there about 300 people who signed it.

 

Are you familiar with Project Steve? It's list of pro-evolution scientists, and only scientists named Steve are allowed to sign it. And, it's longer than your list.

[TeleMad]

I would be interested in discussing more after you read this...sorry it's so long. :)

 

INTRODUCTION to ICONS of EVOLUTION: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong :cup:

(Washington DC: Regnery, 2000)

 

by Jonathan Wells ...

 

I'm not sure you are allowed to quote 8 full pages out of a book, even if you do give a reference.

[TeleMad]

By the way, you forgot to mention all the people who are near sighted, or far sighted, or have other vision problems. You're making the eye out to be an example of perfect design but you're leaving out the imperfections. Not a huge problem but we do have a blind spot at the optic disk. Also, many people's lenses do cloud up, the majority of us need glasses by the time we're 40, etc.

 

 

I wish to expand on that.

 

I don't have my anatomy book here at the house, so this is just a short list of visual defects off the top of my head.

 

glaucoma

cataracts

detached retina

near sightedness

far sightedness

blindness

conjunctivitis

herpetic ulcers

 

I'm sure an opthamologist could extend this list vastly.

 

Then there are the other facts I pointed out: blind spot because of the optic disk, and increased rigidity of the lense over time such that most people need glasses by the age of forty.

 

There's also the fact that the human eye is inferior to the eyes of eagles and other birds that hunt from high up.

 

 

 

Also, if the designer made the perfect vision system, how come we can't see atoms or stars 10 billion light years distant? We humans had to EXTEND our visual abilities using technology to see these things.

 

Further, that is likely one reason we have not yet made something that can actually replace a full eye yet: we haven't been focussing on that. Instead, we've spent much more time searching for methods of seeing smaller and seeing farther.

[TeleMad]

Lolic:Charles Darwin himself admitted that the intricate engineering displayed in the human eye was so specialized and complex that he could not begin to imagine how the eye might have developed through the evolutionary process of natural selection.

 

“To suppose the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree.” (the origin of species)

 

Telemad: This is an out-of-context quote in that Darwin goes on later to say that he CAN see how eyes could be the product of evolution. It's like me saying, "I freely confess that it seems absurd to the highest degree that observer A can see event X occur before event Y while observer B can see event X occur after event Y", then a bit later going to explain how theory actually says such is the case.

 

Here's how Darwin continues from the quote.

 

 

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

[jp3089]

I wish to expand on that.

 

Edit: Long quote from this very same page removed by Tormod. Please use quotes sparingly. This goes for all participants in this thread.

 

Actually, I would see those facts as an argument against evolution... Apparently the evolutionary process doesn't work too well if our eyes are so bad. Wouldn't natural selection picked out only our ancestors with the best eyesight (among other things)?

 

Besides, imperfect bodies (including eyes) fit directly into a Biblical Creationist worldview... The Fall in Genesis. Let me know what you think, Telemad.

 

-jp

[MortenS]

Of course natural selection would fine tune eyesight, but natural selection will rarely make something perfect, just good enough. I would not use modern humans as a proof against natural selection, though, because all our medical advances are fighting against the powers of selection every day, pushing back what selection will remove.

 

Also, natural selection works best at removing bad properties of organisms that occur before reproductive age. When the organism already have had their offspring, selection would not matter that much, since the genes are already passed.

[Tormod]

Admin note:

 

This thread will be closed soon - it is now past 200 posts and it's time to start new threads based on the key concepts discussed here. I will leave that up the participants.

[motherengine]

it might be better for scientists who publish books if they would draw a distinct line between where the scientific method stops and basic human philosophy begins. it really does not matter what evidence there is concerning evolution because of the impossibility of knowing the mind of a possible creating entity one cannot empirically show that the universe is not designed. 'god' could have designed a universe that tricks all perceptive attempts by its very nature. personally i think alot of the fuel for the raging debate of god vs science is caused by scientists trying to be philosophers as well. creationism may be a bogus science (i certainlly believe it to be) but instead of letting this be the focal point of the issue many people push on in a futile attempt to 'prove' that god does not exist. waste of time and energy that only creates more distance between groups and problems i think.

[Lolic]

Evolution can increase genetic information, so our eyes could be the product of evolution. So the discussion about the eye was just a red herring?

 

Holey Mackerel TeleMad, (trade you one fish for another :cup: ) no. There are numerous pathways that point to design, intelligent design. The eye is one example. It’s sophistication, irreducible complexity, the inference of design, specified complexity, the integration with the brain, signal processing – some want to attribute that to natural laws and I think the evidence shows otherwise. So do many other people, and they have very good arguments, logic, and evidence.

 

They wait not for the illusive transitionary fossil.

Likewise, the question of “the origin of the information in DNA” also shows intelligent design. Evolution can’t account for this information because the DNA had to be present before self replication.

 

Daniel Hillis remarked, “There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things, one is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex.”

 

But whether evolution is able to perform what otherwise would require engineers to perform is precisely the question.

 

Science has a bit of an issue going on, having defined science as the study of material processes, they disqualify design from the start, and that ensures that some materialistic account of evolution must be true in their mind. The answer is derived or caused by the initial assumption.

 

Is that good science? Should scientists begin with predispositions that don’t allow us to follow the evidence?

 

Now really TeleMad, you like to pick apart my quotes, (the length, the year, etc,) but why not answer the actual question? Isn’t it a fair question?