# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

## Chairtime

Without quoting the Bible or any religious beliefs, can you support one theory or the other? (ID or E)  Please keep this thread sterile.  Use only facts, evidence, logic and/or scientific analysis.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, in part, that both energy and matter in the universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the universe must have existed only during the millisecond or so after the Big Bang, creation, or whatever event caused the universe.

Although the Laws of Thermodynamics apply principally to energy, it is interesting to note that matter is also becoming less and less useful.  Therefore, while the Laws of Thermodynamics do not directly disprove the theory of evolution, they do indicate that evolution (if it is indeed a process via which life is constantly improving and becoming more ordered) runs counter to the general scheme of the universe.

Philosophically speaking (where I'm much more comfortable from an academic sense), there is causation.  Basically, every event has a cause- and each cause must have a cause (ad nauseum)...  Following this to its ultimate conclusion, there must have been an uncaused cause at some point.  Of course, it is impossible to prove what this uncaused cause was.

Finally, to use the logic- if not the mantra- of the intelligent design crowd, evolution has never been demonstrated on a macro scale.  That is, we see a species that looks as if it may be a bit more basic than another and induce that perhaps the more complex creature evolved from the more basic.  Like observing a motorcycle and a bicycle.  With all the similarities, the motorcycle obviously must have evolved from the bicycle.  The problem is, how do you explain the evolution of the combustion engine by chance (i.e., without intelligent guidance)?  

To illustrate, Darwin proposed that species evolve due to mutations that made certain members of the species just slightly more survivable than the other members.  So, in a colony of white moths with a predator who easily sees white, the darker members of the colony may have greater survival- resulting eventually in black moths.  Therefore, microevolution (highlighting variances already present in the species) is pretty logical.

Macroevolution, however, is a different story.  Let's suppose the ability to fly would have greatly assisted the survival of one of our prehistoric animal friends- great!  That would explain the evolution of birds.  Problem is, how would the little stubs- nay the first cells that must have predated the stubs- have given the little creature any advantage?  If evolution kept "working at" creating those wings- even though the first few hundred generations of animals sporting the stubs would not benefit- then evolution must have inherent intelligence.  This is because a process guided only by chance wouldn't carry on the line through all the generations with the little stubs.

Ergo, even if evolution of the species does occur, what explains this appearance of intelligence in the evolutionary process?

----------


## Chairtime

> Ergo, even if evolution of the species does occur, what explains this appearance of intelligence in the evolutionary process?


Pete:  Regardless of what religious beliefs I may have, your example leads me to conclude logically that, intelligence is present in the evolutionary process.

----------


## drk

I have a counterpoint to the entropy argument that runs counter to my beliefs: While entropy increase is mandatory, when a system such as biological organisms increase in order, if there is an offsetting increase in randomness in the surrounding systems, then it is not contrary to the Second Law.

----------


## Chairtime

> I have a counterpoint to the entropy argument that runs counter to my beliefs: While entropy increase is mandatory, when a system such as biological organisms increase in order, if there is an offsetting increase in randomness in the surrounding systems, then it is not contrary to the Second Law.


No habla espanol

----------


## drk

You know, I hate when people post links to lengthy works on other websites, but this is really useful for this purpose.

I know we are having a friendly, topical, conversation, here as opposed to a symposium or exhaustive literature review, but I really think the link illustrates the level of scientific thought that goes into the intelligent design argument.

I'm telling you, ID is misunderstood and being jingoistically villified.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...20of%20Science

Cut and paste of conclusion:
An openness to empirical arguments for design is therefore a necessary condition of a fully rational historical biology. A rational historical biology must not only address the question "Which materialistic or naturalistic evolutionary scenario provides the most adequate explanation of biological complexity?" but also the question "Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?" To insist otherwise is to insist that materialism holds a metaphysically privileged position. Since there seems no reason to concede that assumption, I see no reason to concede that origins theories must be strictly naturalistic.


Simply put, evolution is not so "all that" that it deserves to be presented as scientific, all the while calling ID "nonscientific". It's unjustified, logically, to do so.

There's way more where that came from on this resource, if you care to look.

Rinselbergianlly yours,
drk

----------


## Chairtime

I knew this thread would separate the science from the arguments.

----------


## chip anderson

Do you think todays lens designs are intelligent design or evolution?:)   Chip

----------


## Chairtime

> Do you think todays lens designs are intelligent design or evolution?:) Chip


"Intelligent evolution."

----------


## Chairtime

A set of dice is rolled onto a green felt table.  Is the outcome random?  Or is it a result of measurable forces of gravity, friction and speed?

----------


## Jedi

> A set of dice is rolled onto a green felt table. Is the outcome random? Or is it a result of measurable forces of gravity, friction and speed?


If it is a human rolling the dice I would say it was random, or at least beyond duplication. (Height of the hand when released, number of shakes, strength of shakes, whether the dice started in the same position, wind speed, etc. etc.) Now if it was machine rolling the dice and many of the above variables are controlled, then It is possible to "predict" the outcome.

----------


## QDO1

> The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, in part, that both energy and matter in the universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the universe must have existed only during the millisecond or so after the Big Bang, creation, or whatever event caused the universe.
> 
> Although the Laws of Thermodynamics apply principally to energy, it is interesting to note that matter is also becoming less and less useful. Therefore, while the Laws of Thermodynamics do not directly disprove the theory of evolution, they do indicate that evolution (if it is indeed a process via which life is constantly improving and becoming more ordered) runs counter to the general scheme of the universe.


The second law of thermodynamics assumes a closed eco system.  he earth is not a closed eco system , so in respect of evoloution etc.  does not have any bearing on the subject

----------


## QDO1

> Macroevolution, however, is a different story. Let's suppose the ability to fly would have greatly assisted the survival of one of our prehistoric animal friends- great! That would explain the evolution of birds. Problem is, how would the little stubs- nay the first cells that must have predated the stubs- have given the little creature any advantage? If evolution kept "working at" creating those wings- even though the first few hundred generations of animals sporting the stubs would not benefit- then evolution must have inherent intelligence. This is because a process guided only by chance wouldn't carry on the line through all the generations with the little stubs.


That is not strictly true - there are some species of monkey, lizzard and frog, that can glide - by basically extending a limb out to make a skin flap. One wouldnt call them a wing persay, but when looked at one could imagine the evoloutionary path

----------


## Chairtime

> If it is a human rolling the dice I would say it was random, or at least beyond duplication. (Height of the hand when released, number of shakes, strength of shakes, whether the dice started in the same position, wind speed, etc. etc.) Now if it was machine rolling the dice and many of the above variables are controlled, then It is possible to "predict" the outcome.


Good answer. So if everything is measurable and controlled, and the outcome can be predicted, one could logically conclude that the same forces control the dice as control the Earth.

----------


## QDO1

While we are on the subject of dice, and numbers lets consider DNA

The probability of assembling the 241 amino acids in a precise predetermined sequence by chance is 

Probability = ~10-313 

Pro-ID debaters would like us to think that the Probability = ~10-313 is so big that there is no chance that ever happened on its own.  Lets consider a long chain of DNA and use dice to repersent the pairings


If you had 65 dice and needed to roll all sixes, here are some of the approaches you could take
Method 1) Roll all the dice and see if you got all sixes.  If not roll them all again.
The odds of rolling 65 sixes in a single roll is one chance in 3.8x1050.  This is near impossible.  At best, youre going to be rolling for a very long time.  This is the classic Pro-ID standpoint

Method 2) Roll one die.  If it is not a six, roll it again, otherwise roll the next die.  Continue until you have all sixes.  You can expect to complete this in about 390 tries. 

Method 3) Roll all 65 and keep the sixes.  Roll the remaining, again keeping the sixes.  Continue until you have all sixes.  You would achieve the 65 sixes in about 29 tries.  You could do this in a matter of minutes. 

Method 4) Roll some of the dice, keep most of the sixes.  Roll some of the remaining dice, possibly including a few of the sixes.  Continue until you have all sixes.  In terms of time required, this approach is somewhere in between 2 and 3. This is the Darwinist evoloution standpoint

----------


## Spexvet

> Finally, to use the logic- if not the mantra- of the intelligent design crowd, evolution has never been demonstrated on a macro scale. That is, we see a species that looks as if it may be a bit more basic than another and induce that perhaps the more complex creature evolved from the more basic. Like observing a motorcycle and a bicycle. With all the similarities, the motorcycle obviously must have evolved from the bicycle. The problem is, how do you explain the evolution of the combustion engine by chance (i.e., without intelligent guidance)? 
> 
> To illustrate, Darwin proposed that species evolve due to mutations that made certain members of the species just slightly more survivable than the other members. So, in a colony of white moths with a predator who easily sees white, the darker members of the colony may have greater survival- resulting eventually in black moths. Therefore, microevolution (highlighting variances already present in the species) is pretty logical.
> 
> Macroevolution, however, is a different story. Let's suppose the ability to fly would have greatly assisted the survival of one of our prehistoric animal friends- great! That would explain the evolution of birds. Problem is, how would the little stubs- nay the first cells that must have predated the stubs- have given the little creature any advantage? If evolution kept "working at" creating those wings- even though the first few hundred generations of animals sporting the stubs would not benefit- then evolution must have inherent intelligence. This is because a process guided only by chance wouldn't carry on the line through all the generations with the little stubs.
> 
> Ergo, even if evolution of the species does occur, what explains this *appearance* of intelligence in the evolutionary process?


Pete, 
Do you think that a major mutation could not ever / has not ever occurred? Philosophically speaking, if you believe micrevolution, the leap to macroevolution is much shorter than the leap to magic.

----------


## Chairtime

> Pete, 
> Do you think that a major mutation could not ever / has not ever occurred? Philosophically speaking, if you believe micrevolution, the leap to macroevolution is much shorter than the leap to magic.


Whoa!  There's no magic in this thread.  Lets stick to science, okay Professor Spexvet?

----------


## drk

> While we are on the subject of dice, and numbers lets consider DNA
> 
> The probability of assembling the 241 amino acids in a precise predetermined sequence by chance is 
> 
> Probability = ~10-313 
> 
> Pro-ID debaters would like us to think that the Probability = ~10-313 is so big that there is no chance that ever happened on its own. Lets consider a long chain of DNA and use dice to repersent the pairings
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, but the problem is that your progress each step along the way has to be preserved. If a mutation/accident/random fluctuation did not make the biological entity more naturally selectable, then the trait wouldn't have the staying power and it would have died off. Why would the sixes be passed along if it was useless, let alone detrimental?

You are demonstrating that random mutations are possible, but you also have to prove that random mutations can accrue a purposeful advantage that would outcompete others in the gene pool. So, that's a biiiiiiig stretch.

That points out the problem with "irreduceable complexity", the eye being a good example. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../chapter10.asp

----------


## Pete Hanlin

That is not strictly true - there are some species of monkey, lizzard and frog, that can glide - by basically extending a limb out to make a skin flap. One wouldnt call them a wing persay, but when looked at one could imagine the evoloutionary path.
Yes, but even the "flap" would not have appeared all at one time.  One could imagine a flap that could evolve over numerous generations, but how would that original "microflap" have helped the animal in question?  They wouldn't be able to glide or anything, so the flap would have to continue developing with a goal of eventually allowing flight.  Again, there would have to be an intelligence inherent to evolution.  The same thing holds true for the eye.  I can imagine the structures of the eye evolving.  I'm less sure I could imagine the evolution of the potassium/sodium exchange across the neurons of the retina that makes vision possible.  How did the crystalline lens occur?  Did a few cells clump together in an eye- which gave such an advantage over the creatures who didn't have a clump of cells in the eye that the individual creature in question was better fit to survive and pass this propensity towards the clump on to the next generation (which, supposedly, had an even slightly better formed clump of cells that- after many many many generations- formed a crystalline lens along with the focusing bodies in the eye).  My argument is, if life has evolved it certainly seemed to have a coach of some sort...

Do you think that a major mutation could not ever / has not ever occurred? Philosophically speaking, if you believe micrevolution, the leap to macroevolution is much shorter than the leap to magic.
By a major mutation, do you mean the sudden appearance of a complete organ, aperature, or characteristic?  If so, I'd have to say "no," I don't believe this happens.  Even in cases where an animal does have a major mutation, it usually leads to the creature's death.  Even in cases where it doesn't, the mutation hinders the animal and is not passed down to offspring.  As to the "magic" reference, I have respected the request of the thread originator not to delve into religious arguments. In all fairness, using the term "magic" is a pot shot at religious belief in a thread that was supposed to remain sterile.

The second law of thermodynamics assumes a closed eco system. he earth is not a closed eco system , so in respect of evoloution etc. does not have any bearing on the subject.
Please explain to me how matter and energy upon the earth fails to obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.  Unless you've created a perpetual motion machine, the laws of entropy most certainly do apply upon the earth as well.  You can pour a cup of hot water into a cold tub and the heat will disperse.  You can't recollect the heat from the cold water, however.  In the universe and upon the earth, energy and matter devolve.  If life is truly becoming more and more organized, it is the only group of atoms in the universe that has mastered the trick.

----------


## drk

Nice, Pete,..._the eye..._

----------


## QDO1

> The second law of thermodynamics assumes a closed eco system. he earth is not a closed eco system , so in respect of evoloution etc. does not have any bearing on the subject.
> Please explain to me how matter and energy upon the earth fails to obey the Laws of Thermodynamics. Unless you've created a perpetual motion machine, the laws of entropy most certainly do apply upon the earth as well. You can pour a cup of hot water into a cold tub and the heat will disperse. You can't recollect the heat from the cold water, however. In the universe and upon the earth, energy and matter devolve. If life is truly becoming more and more organized, it is the only group of atoms in the universe that has mastered the trick.


The earth is not a closed eco system, it has a constant energy stream from the sun, and is hit by meteorites

----------


## drk

Another funny one is that an appendage half-forelimb/half-wing wouln't be outright detrimental to the organism until it gave it the advantage of flight.  Kinda tough to pick nuts with a "wingie" thing :Eek:

----------


## QDO1

One could imagine the difference between a leg of a tortoise compared to that of a turtle - the turtles foot being more of a paddle.. it does not take much nonce to work out that the slowest swimmers get eaten and eventually the feet become more paddle like... following on from that it is quite easy to imagine a paddled foot becoming a fin. A fin is not so far from a wing, some birds use thier wings like fins in the water, and some fish leap out of the water and fly a bit

----------


## ksquared

We can argue all day about how to interpret the 2nd law. Personally I think its a weak argument which is why I didnt include it in the cosmic evidence I presented in that other thread . I dont recall any of you were able to show evidence for nothing created something out of nothing so whether the 2nd law supprts the universe having a beginning is rather a moot point. 

My point here is the scientific evidence doesnt stop with the cosmos. Scientists are discovering that the universe has been precisely tweaked to enable life an earth. A set of "interdependent life supporting" conditions called anthropic constants which add to the mounting evidence that the universe was designed.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross calculated the probability of whether the anthropic constants (122 in all) could have come about through a process of natural selection or random chance. The result of his calculations was one chance in 10 to the 138th power. Thats one chance in one with 138 zeroes after it, that the conditions for life on earth came about through a random process of chance. There is virtually a zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life supporting condition we have, unless there is an Intelligent Design behind it all.

Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias:  _Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbably accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan_.

But the evidence doesnt stop with the cosmos and the anthropic principles. The evidence in the biological world is even more compelling. Not only do we have evidence of the universe exploding out of nothing and the anthropoid constants, but when we take a look at life, we find it doesnt support the macro-evolutionist theory that non-life becoming life. Simple life eventually evolving into complex creatures like our selves. Not only is there almost a complet lack of evidance in the fossil record and other areas, it seems to be missing when it comes to biology as well.. Now that we have the right tools, we find irreducible complexity in even the simplest life form. Complexity and design, the likes of which none of us could have even dreamed existed. 

Phillip Johnson points out _Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses_. 

Even Dawkins admits this: (_our) philosophical commitment to materialism and reductionism is true, but I would prefer to characterize it as a philosophical commitment to a real explanation as apposed to a complete lack of <one>._ 

Although Dawkins makes a half-hearted admission of bias, Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University provides a complete written confession: 

_We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories. Because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."_

The corner the Darwinists painted themselves into is rather bleak. Darwinists continue to dogmatically assert that life in all of its diversity came about through random, materialistic, naturalistic processes. By allowing their ideology and faith to overrule observation and reason, they have no choice but to try and reduce to the debate as one of science verses the Bible thumping Creationists in an attempt to distract from the evidance and facts. When the evidence doesn't support the position, in this case the macro-evolutionary theory, the only option is to try and discredit the opposition with a campaign of misinformatoin and personal attacks on any who dare to challenge. 


Weve also let the neo-Darwinists change a definition of a word. In this case, a very important word, the meaning of science. A new definition that is so narrow in scope, the only possible answer is the just so theory of the macroevolution. 

The ID movement is about letting scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads and not be constricted by the philosophy and faith of those who refuse to look at the evidence. Were tired of science being held captive by the philosophy and faith of a theory that has little supporting evidence. 

ID proponents are simply making a rational inference from the evidence. We are following the evidence exactly where it leads, back to an intelligent cause.

*In the words of the Intelligent Designer, whomever he/she may be:*
*Let my Science go.*

----------


## chm2023

[QUOTE=ksquared] 
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross calculated the probability that the anthropic constants (122 in all) could have come about through a process of natural selection or random chance. The results of his calculations were one chance in 10 to the 138th power. Thats one chance in one with 138 zeroes after it that the conditions for life on earth came about through a random process of chance. There is virtually a zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life supporting condition we have, unless there is an Intelligent Design behind it all.


_Do you believe the universe had no beginning and has no end--in other words, do you believe that the universe is infinite in time? I believe this is the point of view of the ID gang. This being the case, not only has something with an inverse probability of one to the 10/138 power happened, it has happened an infinite amount of times. The argument would be, there is no possibility it hasn't happened._

_Also, are you saying that natural selection and random chance are the same thing? They're not--that's the whole point of natural selection after all--so I don't see how you can assign the same probabilities?  Perhaps I misunderstood?_

----------


## drk

> One could imagine the difference between a leg of a tortoise compared to that of a turtle - the turtles foot being more of a paddle.. it does not take much nonce to work out that the slowest swimmers get eaten and eventually the feet become more paddle like... following on from that it is quite easy to imagine a paddled foot becoming a fin. A fin is not so far from a wing, some birds use thier wings like fins in the water, and some fish leap out of the water and fly a bit


Nice post, but really a morphological classificational system posing as a historical process.

And, once again, it's the "internodal lines" that need to be evaluated, not the nodes themselves.  How the heck does a fully-formed choloroplast evolve?

----------


## Chairtime

> As to the "magic" reference, I have respected the request of the thread originator not to delve into religious arguments.


Thank you.


> One could imagine the difference between a leg of a tortoise compared to that of a turtle - the turtles foot being more of a paddle.. it does not take much nonce to work out that the slowest swimmers get eaten and eventually the feet become more paddle like... following on from that it is quite easy to imagine a paddled foot becoming a fin. A fin is not so far from a wing, some birds use thier wings like fins in the water, and some fish leap out of the water and fly a bit


Can someone offer some definitions of evolution here? No one is saying that animals don't evolve and improve. The debate is whether or not life was designed by intelligence or evolved randomly.

----------


## QDO1

> Astrophysicist Hugh Ross calculated the probability that the anthropic constants (122 in all) could have come about through a process of natural selection or random chance. The results of his calculations were one chance in 10 to the 138th power. Thats one chance in one with 138 zeroes after it that the conditions for life on earth came about through a random process of chance. There is virtually a zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life supporting condition we have, unless there is an Intelligent Design behind it all.



The bit you forgot to mention is that that this astrophysisist is also an evangelical pastor, with a programme aimed at converting athiests to theisim called "Reasons to believe". It is all well and good trying to use the word astrophysisist PHD like a full stop, but you have to understsand the motivation of the man to consider his work




> When we take a look at life, we find it doesnt support the macro-evolutionist theory that non-life becoming life. Simple life forms that went on to evolve into complex creatures like our selves. Not only is there almost a complet lack of evidance in the fossil record and other areas, it seems to be missing when it comes to biology as well.. Now that we have the right tools, we find irreducible complexity in even the simplest form. Complexity and design, the likes of which none of us could have even dreamed existed.


I think it would be fairer to say that there generally is more of a problem with macro-evoloution outside of the scientific community, as opposed to inside the scientific community. It is not 100% true to say that fossil records show a complete lack of evidence to support macro-evoloution... there is for example fosilised evidence of the transitions between one form and another. 
One of the best examples of transitional fossils is shown below.. chimpanzie-human. Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, _Pan troglodytes_ (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils. 



(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern 
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My 
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My 
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My 
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My 
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My 
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My 
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My 
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y 
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y 
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y 
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y 
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y 
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern 

There are many other examples

----------


## QDO1

> Nice post, but really a morphological classificational system posing as a historical process.
> 
> And, once again, it's the "internodal lines" that need to be evaluated, not the nodes themselves. How the heck does a fully-formed choloroplast evolve?


my last post addresses the issues of inter nodal lines.  There is fossil evidence of some of the transitions, and DNA and living evidence of the similarities between species

You are absoloutly right there is not a time line in there, if there was - it would show us when to expect the fossil evidence of the transitions

----------


## Pete Hanlin

The earth is not a closed eco system, it has a constant energy stream from the sun, and is hit by meteorites...
Indeed, and from the moment that energy enters our atmosphere it becomes less and less useful- just like everywhere else in the universe.  The earth is part of closed system (i.e., the universe).  As such, the laws of thermodynamics are perfectly applicable to the earth as well.  That is, energy cannot be "created" on the earth- or anywhere else.  When you burn gasoline, you are consuming years and years of collected energy (from the sun which invested itself into the carbon-based lifeform from which the fossil fuel was derived).  Of course, the energy at this point is less useful than in its original form.  Likewise, the energy is not destroyed- it is merely converted and expressed in the heat of the energy, the friction of the tyres, etc.- again, in less organized and useful form.

I'm merely proposing the organization of life is the same way.  Of course, the disturbing part of that- from an evolutionary view- is that life would be in a state of going from complex to less complex forms (not vice versa).  I'm not sure, but I seem to have read somewhere (in a scientific journal- not in a religious pamplet) that our DNA structure does seem to be "devolving" so to speak.  That is, becoming more and more frayed.  Of course, that could just be due to the "umbrella" effect of modern medicine.  Individuals who would normally have died without producing offspring due to disease now live long enough to reproduce (and pass "defective" genes to their offspring).  BTW, as an individual who would have died at age 11 without modern medicine, I'm not suggesting the overall effect of modern medicine is anything but positive!

----------


## Chairtime

> The bit you forgot to mention is that that this astrophysisist is also an evangelical pastor, with a programme aimed at converting athiests to theisim called "Reasons to believe". It is all well and good trying to use the word astrophysisist PHD like a full stop, but you have to understsand the motivation of the man to consider his work


Does this not apply to both sides of the analysis?  Does the athiest not want to convince theists they are wrong?  The effect of bias seems to cancel itself out.

----------


## drk

Nice post, but arranging various skulls in some order proves nothing and is misleading, IMO.

If I were to arrange that picture, I would put pan troglodytus on the left and homo sapiens on the right and try to arrange old chimp skulls underneath, receeding into the past to compare with old human skulls underneath the modern human skull, receeding into the past and look for convergence as they get older.

Where are the old monkey skulls in your picture? This looks arranged to show a progression that doesn't necessarily exist.  Take the modern chimp skull out and you may simply be demonstrating change in a human skull over time, at most, or variation within the species, at worst.

----------


## Chairtime

*Check out this quote by Charles Darwin!!*  "To think that the eye had evolved by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

----------


## QDO1

> Thank you.Can someone offer some definitions of evolution here? No one is saying that animals don't evolve and improve. The debate is whether or not life was designed by intelligence or evolved randomly.


we are discussing a few things here.  If you go back to my post about dice you will see that "randomness" is not what it seems - evoloution is where the randomness of the next group of sellections is effected by some outside influence - like cats eating mice that run slow.  In this example, it is like reducing the number of sides on the dice - in the "how fast are your legs" department, thus making it more probrable that mice will evolve into a faster and stronger breed.  It could develop further untill a new super breed of mice evolved that were bigger and stronger, and more similar to a rat in size.  because of practacle things like genital position and size, up till now rats and mice never interbred, but in my example the rats could take  fancy to these new "super mice", inter-breed and thus a hypothetical new specis could be spawned..

If we want to wind this argument all the way back to the begining then we must look at the primordal soup - there have been experements to show that amino acids can be formed spontaneously from basic elements + energy (lightning for example).  Amino acids are the building blocks for cells.  single and few cell organisims now evolve, and consume eachother, it is not too big a step to realise that that is the beginning of "Natural sellection"  Scientists have not been able to re-create a single cell organisim from amino acids, but most are in agreement that that is the most probrable start to life as we know it

studies of clouds in space have found glyceryne, and Amino acids have been found in meteorites, some of which are identical to those found on earth.  that poses 2 questions - is there life elsewhere in the universe, because it appears the basic building blocks are "out there", and has life on this planet being effected by the amino acids arriving from meteors?

----------


## chm2023

> *Check out this quote by Charles Darwin!!* "To think that the eye had evolved by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."


 
INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY ALERT!!!  The following is the rest of this quotation.  (Shame Chairtime!!)



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. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)

----------


## Chairtime

> 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. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)


What do you mean, shame??  That's not the same quote as mine.

----------


## QDO1

> Nice post, but arranging various skulls in some order proves nothing and is misleading, IMO.
> 
> If I were to arrange that picture, I would put pan troglodytus on the left and homo sapiens on the right and try to arrange old chimp skulls underneath, receeding into the past to compare with old human skulls underneath the modern human skull, receeding into the past and look for convergence as they get older.
> 
> Where are the old monkey skulls in your picture? This looks arranged to show a progression that doesn't necessarily exist. Take the modern chimp skull out and you may simply be demonstrating change in a human skull over time, at most, or variation within the species, at worst.


If you check the text below, the order is actually on a time line, some chimps evolved, and some did not.  what the sculls do show is that the modern chimp has the same ancestor as the modern human.  The scientists could have equally placed a skull in for the ancestor of the chimp, on the chimps family tree side, but there was little evoloution on that side, so effectivly the fossil records just show almost equivelent (but different aged chimps)  I assume if the fossils have been dug up, scientists could produce sculls of similar looking chimps, at different timelines within the same period (on the chimp side of the family tree)

----------


## Chairtime

> we are discussing a few things here. If you go back to my post about dice you will see that "randomness" is not what it seems - evoloution is where the randomness of the next group of sellections is effected by some outside influence - like cats eating mice that run slow. In this example, it is like reducing the number of sides on the dice - in the "how fast are your legs" department, thus making it more probrable that mice will evolve into a faster and stronger breed. It could develop further untill a new super breed of mice evolved that were bigger and stronger, and more similar to a rat in size. because of practacle things like genital position and size, up till now rats and mice never interbred, but in my example the rats could take fancy to these new "super mice", inter-breed and thus a hypothetical new specis could be spawned..
> 
> If we want to wind this argument all the way back to the begining then we must look at the primordal soup - there have been experements to show that amino acids can be formed spontaneously from basic elements + energy (lightning for example). Amino acids are the building blocks for cells. single and few cell organisims now evolve, and consume eachother, it is not too big a step to realise that that is the beginning of "Natural sellection" Scientists have not been able to re-create a single cell organisim from amino acids, but most are in agreement that that is the most probrable start to life as we know it
> 
> studies of clouds in space have found glyceryne, and Amino acids have been found in meteorites, some of which are identical to those found on earth. that poses 2 questions - is there life elsewhere in the universe, because it appears the basic building blocks are "out there", and has life on this planet being effected by the amino acids arriving from meteors?


Regarding the dice.  You are using the analogy to compare each roll of the dice to a much smaller time frame than I am.  I'm comparing the entire existence of the universe to ONE roll of the dice.  Meaning, all the results we see today were predestined by the events that took place in the beginning of the universe.

----------


## drk

I caught the timeline part.

If what you said is true, then why does it not make sense that
1.) Chimps have not changed much over time
2.) Human skulls have changed somewhat over time?

Where does it show that chimps and man had a common ancestor?  Help me out!

----------


## QDO1

> Regarding the dice. You are using the analogy to compare each roll of the dice to a much smaller time frame than I am. I'm comparing the entire existence of the universe to ONE roll of the dice. Meaning, all the results we see today were predestined by the events that took place in the beginning of the universe.


why do you assume there was a begining - is infinity so scary a concept?

----------


## drk

> Meaning, all the results we see today were predestined by the events that took place in the beginning of the universe.


And whoa, isn't that deep?  Why, oh why has the universe been embued with such properties that life can exist?  

Are we to say "well, just because it had to be _some_ way, and _why not_ this way"?

*Are you telling me that some of you believe in an inanimate universe that starts itself and has the conditions necessary to create life?  Man, you tell me: who has faith?*

----------


## QDO1

> I caught the timeline part.
> 
> If what you said is true, then why does it not make sense that
> 1.) Chimps have not changed much over time
> 2.) Human skulls have changed somewhat over time?
> 
> Where does it show that chimps and man had a common ancestor? Help me out!


I am out of my field of expertize here, but look how continental drift, and ice ages have effected modern man - separating one group from another for a long period of time. It is not inconcivable that one group of monkeys learnt to hunt in the plains, whilst due to geographical issues, another continued to forrage in the forrest

----------


## Chairtime

> why do you assume there was a begining - is infinity so scary a concept?


Evolution itself proves there must be a beginning.  *Take a look at your own chart in reverse!!*  Clearly it comes to a point.

----------


## drk

The 1950's "Miller" experiment to which you refer has long been debunked.

"During the second hour, the Origins special discusses the origin of life on Earth. The program recalls the Stanley Miller experiment that produced amino acids (the building blocks of life) by mixing several gases in a chamber with electricity. Origins explains that amino acids are found in meteorites and that these can be fused into simple peptides through impacts. Like most evolutionists, they ignore the huge chemical problems of getting some of the essential building blocks and then growing them into chains, and obtaining the pure handedness required for life. But even if this all these mountainous chemical hurdles could be climbed, this does not help particles-to-people evolution because it does not produce the genetic _information_ so crucial for life. All life contains vast quantities of _information_ stored on DNA molecules. Yet, all available evidence indicates that such _information_ does not and cannot arise by itself in matter; rather it always has an intelligent source.7"

----------


## drk

> I am out of my field of expertize here, but look how continental drift, and ice ages have effected modern man - separating one group from another for a long period of time. It is not inconcivable that one group of monkeys learnt to hunt in the plains, whilst due to geographical issues, another continued to forrage in the forrest


Yes, that's entirely plausible.

----------


## QDO1

> Evolution itself proves there must be a beginning. *Take a look at your own chart in reverse!!* Clearly it comes to a point.


You are using the chart and assuming a much smaller time frame than I am. I'm comparing the entire existence of the universe to an infinite amount of time

Smirk

----------


## Chairtime

> You are using the chart and assuming a much smaller time frame than I am. I'm comparing the entire existence of the universe to an infinite amount of time
> 
> Smirk


thanks for conceding on that one

----------


## QDO1

> The 1950's "Miller" experiment to which you refer has long been debunked.
> 
> "During the second hour, the Origins special discusses the origin of life on Earth. The program recalls the Stanley Miller experiment that produced amino acids (the building blocks of life) by mixing several gases in a chamber with electricity. Origins explains that amino acids are found in meteorites and that these can be fused into simple peptides through impacts. Like most evolutionists, they ignore the huge chemical problems of getting some of the essential building blocks and then growing them into chains, and obtaining the pure handedness required for life. But even if this all these mountainous chemical hurdles could be climbed, this does not help particles-to-people evolution because it does not produce the genetic _information_ so crucial for life. All life contains vast quantities of _information_ stored on DNA molecules. Yet, all available evidence indicates that such _information_ does not and cannot arise by itself in matter; rather it always has an intelligent source.7"


I did say they havent managed to go beyond that experement 


> Scientists have not been able to re-create a single cell organisim from amino acids, but most are in agreement that that is the most probrable start to life as we know it

----------


## QDO1

> thanks for conceding on that one


Mmm and your views on infinity are?

----------


## Chairtime

> Mmm and your views on infinity are?


My view is that infinity exists right until the end of time.

----------


## Chairtime

I have an idea.  Why don't we list all the known, major things on earth that were created by intelligent design, and all the major things that were created at random.

----------


## QDO1

> My view is that infinity exists right until the end of time.


I dont have a problem with the terms infinitly big, or infinite time - in either direction.  to that end there could be an infinite amount of universes, and civilisations.  we could be so infinitally far away from eachother we could never meet, or infinitally at different times to each other we would never meet. strictly speaking Neil Armstrong is an extra terrestrial - from the point of a supposed person who lived on the moon

----------


## QDO1

it is one thing posturing a pre-determination argument on the basis that one could using the laws of physics, always roll a six on a dice...  your argument thus folows that if one had the reins on all things physical, you could engineer the big bang, and then by intellegent design - end up where we are today

But where do the folowing come in to play?

freewill?proof without faith?why such a convolouted route?

----------


## drk

QDO1, I gotta give it to you: you are tenacious.

We've violated the thread rules, here, but what the heck?

I agree that theistic evolution is a contorted process. IMO it's a difference-splitting device. I don't buy it, for what that's worth.

Free will can exist in a spiritual sense, i.e. assuming the determined physical human body has a non-determined, non-physical quality. You know what that's called. You have intelligently inferred a soul's necessary existence for true free will, which is a central Christian tenet. Your system infers determinism, ultimately, as you are aware.

----------


## QDO1

> QDO1, I gotta give it to you: you are tenacious.
> 
> We've violated the thread rules, here, but what the heck?
> 
> I agree that theistic evolution is a contorted process. IMO it's a difference-splitting device. I don't buy it, for what that's worth.
> 
> Free will can exist in a spiritual sense, i.e. assuming the determined physical human body has a non-determined, non-physical quality. You know what that's called. You have intelligently inferred a soul's necessary existence for true free will, which is a central Christian tenet. Your system infers determinism, ultimately, as you are aware.


the hair I am trying to split is the one between design and intellegence - the phrase intelegent design, makes the assumption that some /one/thing actually designed  the universe.  whereas evoloution is inherently without design.  One could say evoloution is enforced loaded quasi-random design... that is that weak organisims / traits do not flourish, and strong organisims/ traits ones take over

the thread rules are broken by the word inteligent, because without discussing that word, arguing about the chronologically in-beween bits are just empty postures

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Let's try a slightly different angle (I think this is called the cosmological argument- but I know it by the "Watch in the Woods").

Let's say we take a bunch of globs of different colored paint and fling them against a blank canvas.  In fact, let's do it millions and billions of different times.  Do you suppose the result will ever be the Mona Lisa?  Of course not, because the Mona Lisa was the work of an intelligent painter who created the image with a purpose in mind.

"Oh, you're being facetious," you may protest.  Yet would you argue that the human body (or even the body of a goldfish) is less complex or well-designed than the Mona Lisa?  Evolution (if you take it back all the way to primordial goo) claims that atoms were flung together time and again until eventually voila- you have a single celled organism.  Several billion lucky (we're talking chance here, so luck would seem to have a part of it) tosses of the cells later, we have a fish, another billion or so tosses (gee, we're really lucky), and you get a bird, then a monkey, then a man!

By the way, you might point out that in your pictures of skulls, some- if not most- of them do not depict actual recovered skulls.  Rather, in most cases a tiny _fragment_ of skull is discovered, and scientists build a composite skull based on their theories and deductions based on the shape of the recovered fragment.  This wouldn't be so troublesome if scientists didn't have a tendancy to place the wrong dinosaur skull on a body and other such embarrasing errors.

My point remains, you may be able to convince me that natural selection occurs- but the thought that it would happen by chance is patently absurd!  For evolution to be successful, it requires a guiding influence- or intelligence within the system.

----------


## drk

Natural selection and random mutation unarguably exist, but they are relatively weak forces that do not have the capability to have driven the evolutionary process as has been postulated.

----------


## spartus

How very, very annoying. I got about 2/3 done with a very long post, did something dumb, and -poof!- whole thing gone. Needless to say, I'm typing *this* one up in Notepad and will paste it in when I'm done. 




> Finally, to use the logic- if not the mantra- of the intelligent design crowd, evolution has never been demonstrated on a macro scale. That is, we see a species that looks as if it may be a bit more basic than another and induce that perhaps the more complex creature evolved from the more basic.


Yawn. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level, or speciation.




> "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."







> I'm telling you, ID is misunderstood and being jingoistically villified.
> 
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...%20of%20Science
> 
> Cut and paste of conclusion:
> An openness to empirical arguments for design is therefore a necessary condition of a fully rational historical biology. A rational historical biology must not only address the question "Which materialistic or naturalistic evolutionary scenario provides the most adequate explanation of biological complexity?" but also the question "Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?" To insist otherwise is to insist that materialism holds a metaphysically privileged position. Since there seems no reason to concede that assumption, I see no reason to concede that origins theories must be strictly naturalistic.
> 
> Simply put, evolution is not so "all that" that it deserves to be presented as scientific, all the while calling ID "nonscientific". It's unjustified, logically, to do so.





> (Source)
> *Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.*
> 
> Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.


...and introducing our new Secretary of Education, Miss Cleo!

 





> One could imagine a flap that could evolve over numerous generations, but how would that original "microflap" have helped the animal in question? They wouldn't be able to glide or anything, so the flap would have to continue developing with a goal of eventually allowing flight.


I'm going to address this one in reverse. Anyone ever been to New Zealand? Heard of it, at least? The place is full of flightless birds. Most of them are fairly fat and lazy as well, particularly the sleeps-20-hours-a-day-national-symbol Kiwi bird. The reason they're all flightless is until just a few hundred years ago, there were no cats, dogs, rats, and most destructively, opossums in the country--in short, no predators. They're chiefly herbivorous, so flying as a means of defense or getting to food no longer was necessary, so they stopped flying. The fat and lazy part came later. Now, you may be asking yourself how *they* got there. Duh. They're birds. They flew there. I don't know if you've looked at a map, but New Zealand is out in the middle of *nowhere*. Too far for other animals to swim, so they got to live in a little bird paradise for a very long time. The introduction of other species has really devastated a great many of the birds. The story of the kakapo is the most heartbreaking one, if you're inclined to read up on it.

Anyway. Islands are wonderful for this sort of thing, as until fairly recently, they were quite separate from the mainland and each other. This is why weird and rare species survive only on isolated islands--Komodo dragons, the flightless birds down under and lemurs are merely the first examples to spring to mind. Lemurs are an interesting case unto themselves. The only place lemurs--interesting proto-monkeys--still exist in the world is on Madagascar, which is, naturally, an island. There's one other thing that's special about Madagascar: no monkeys, just as where monkeys live, there are no lemurs. Lemurs are the older of the species--they either evolved into monkeys long ago or died out when faced with the competition--probably a combination of the two. The aye-aye, which is a particularly rare lemur, has an interesting mutation that they use to great effect: They have one very, very long finger. It's not because they're rude little proto-monkeys (though it's unwise to rule it out), it's that they like to eat ants, and the easiest way for them to reach this snack is to stick their finger into the anthill and slurp 'em up. 

The curious thing about this is that there are several species of monkey in mainland Africa that like to eat the very same type of ants, but don't have the lengthened finger. Instead, they use long, thin sticks to the same end. Tool use--no wonder the long-fingered lemurs lost out! Islands give us a fantastic insight into parallel evolution under similar circumstances--two smaller branches off the larger branch.




> By a major mutation, do you mean the sudden appearance of a complete organ, aperature, or characteristic? If so, I'd have to say "no," I don't believe this happens. Even in cases where an animal does have a major mutation, it usually leads to the creature's death.


While the X-Men have cool mutations, not all mutations are necessarily major to be beneficial. A mole is a mutation. Webbed toes are a mutation. Height, red hair, bad teeth--all can be described as "mutations". It's not always a second head, or the ability to cloud men's minds. 




> Even in cases where it doesn't, the mutation hinders the animal and is not passed down to offspring.


Um. Ever heard of recessive genes? Good, bad, ugly or indifferent, a lot of it is passed down to offspring, just not actively. Just because it's dominant doesn't mean it's not present. 




> Scientists are discovering that the universe has been precisely tweaked to enable life an earth.


Indulge me and look at that the other way around. Life has been tweaked to enable (and enhance) its own existence here. 




> Can someone offer some definitions of evolution here? *No one is saying that animals don't evolve and improve.* The debate is whether or not life was designed by intelligence or evolved randomly.


Ahem. 




> ...evolution has never been demonstrated on a macro scale.


See my case? It's over there in the corner, resting. Thanks, I'll be here all week.


Anyway. This exchange was fun: 




> Check out this quote by Charles Darwin!! "To think that the eye had evolved by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."






> INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY ALERT!!! The following is the rest of this quotation. (Shame Chairtime!!)
> 
> 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. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)





> What do you mean, shame?? That's not the same quote as mine.


Rimmy, Rimmy. As usual, technically correct, but disingenuous to the hilt. You're right, in that what chm posted is *not* the same quote as yours--the words are different and everything. What it is is the *rest* of the quote. Let me explain what you've done, since I'm sure you'll continue to squeal your innocence: You took the part of the quote that supported your argument, and ignored the part that didn't.

Continued (reached the max post length)...

----------


## spartus

> Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872):
> 
> photosensitive cellaggregates of pigment cells without a nervean optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skinpigment cells forming a small depressionpigment cells forming a deeper depressionthe skin over the depression taking a lens shapemuscles allowing the lens to adjust
> 
> All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists. 
> 
> Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
> 
> *Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.* (They wrote a book about it, even.)


Emphasis added.

Also:




> ("Common Pathways of Illumination," Natural History 12/94, p. 10) According to Gould, "Anti-evolutionists continually cite this passage as supposed evidence that Darwin himself threw in the towel when faced with truly difficult and inherently implausible cases. But if they would only read the very next sentence[s], they would grasp Darwin's real reason for speaking of absurdity 'in the highest possible degree.' (Either they have read these following lines and have consciously suppressed them, an indictment of dishonesty; or they have never read them and have merely copied the half quotation from another source, a proof of inexcusable sloppiness. Darwin set up the overt 'absurdity' to display the power of natural selection in resolving even the most difficult cases -- the ones that initially strike us as intractable in principle. The very next liner, give three reasons all supported by copious evidence for resolving the absurdity and accepting evolutionary development as the cause of optimally complex structures." 
> 
> Besides Gould's article there have appeared several others on the topic of the evolution of the eye, demonstrating that such an evolution is far from "absurd," but rather is entirely plausible. 
> 
> See professor Kenneth R. Miller's excellent article on eye evolution, "Life's Grand Design" (Technology Review, v. 97, no. 2, Feb./Mar. 1994, pp. 24-32). 
> 
> See also D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger's article, "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve" (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1994, v.. 256, pp. 53-58). 
> 
> In his recent book, River Out of Eden (Basic Books, 1995), Richard Dawkins points out how Nilsson and Pelger set up a computer model of evolving eyes to determine if a smooth gradient of change exists from a pigmented eye spot to the camera eye with a lens and cornea, and how long it would take such a transformation to occur. They employed pessimistic figures for the amounts of change possible per generation -- giving their model only 50% "heritability" (many human traits are over 50% inheritable), and chose pessimistic values for the coefficient of variation (how much variation there typically is in a population). And they determined that Darwinian evolution could produce a good camera eye in less than a half a million years! That's a mere "blink of the eye" in geologic time! 
> ...








> It is not inconcivable that one group of monkeys learnt to hunt in the plains, whilst due to geographical issues, another continued to forrage in the forrest


See my bit on lemurs up there. Great minds, etc., etc.





> I have an idea. Why don't we list all the known, major things on earth that were created by intelligent design, and all the major things that were created at random.


Great idea! You start, and the grownups will go out for cocktails. Don't forget to use every color crayon!




> Let's say we take a bunch of globs of different colored paint and fling them against a blank canvas. In fact, let's do it millions and billions of different times. Do you suppose the result will ever be the Mona Lisa? Of course not, because the Mona Lisa was the work of an intelligent painter who created the image with a purpose in mind.


If you did it trillions and trillions of times, over tens of thousands of trillions of years, you eventually would do it. The chance is beyond infinitesimally minute, but it exists. I'm not saying that it'd be a good idea to try, but the probability, while miserably small, exists. 

(Note upon finishing the second draft: The first one was better. Y'all missed out.)

----------


## rinselberg

This seems like an opportune moment to offer some cross-references back to the Atheism Vs Religion thread.

Poster: spartus
Post tittle: untitled
Subject: Critical assessment of Michael Behe and other Intelligent Design theorists.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=296

Poster: rinselberg
Post title: RinselNews - Fair and Balanced
Subject: Brief discussion of ID (Intelligent Design) and well known ID theorist Michael Behe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=265

Poster: rinselberg
Post title: Fossil evidence for macroevolution
Subject: Discusses transitional evolutionary forms in the fossil record from a Neo-Darwinist viewpoint.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=237

Poster: rinselberg
Post title: Deism and the Big Bang
Subject: Responds to *ksquared's* discourse concerning the Big Bang theory of the origins of the observable universe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=161

Poster: rinselberg
Post title: A Neo-Darwinist speaks
Subject: Comments on the possible natural evolution of human morality and links to a profile of the widely published Neo-Darwinist Robert Trivers.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=59



_Listen to RinselTunes online at ..._
http://www.laramyk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=558

----------


## spartus

Thank you. In my first draft, I referenced back to that stuff, then got sloppy (and frustrated) the second time around.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

If you did it trillions and trillions of times, over tens of thousands of trillions of years, you eventually would do it. The chance is beyond infinitesimally minute, but it exists. I'm not saying that it'd be a good idea to try, but the probability, while miserably small, exists. 
Ah, well obviously putting faith in an chance that is "beyond infinitesimally minute" makes loads more sense than believing in an intelligent force that created- or guided the creation of- the universe!  I wonder, would you concede that the existance of God is possible (perhaps possible only by a chance that would be beyone infinitesimally remote," but possible)?  If not, why is your long-shot chance of evolution possible, but not the chance that there could be a God?

PS- Oh, and Da Vinci is turning over in his grave!   :Rolleyes:

----------


## Chairtime

*C O N T A M I N A T I O N   A L E R T*

Contaminant:  irrelevant non-scientific peroration
Source:  poster "spartus"
Specimen:  "_Don't forget to use every color crayon_"
Threat Level:  'very low'
Decontamination Method:  self-destruction

----------


## rinselberg

_
At left, the "Hatena" organism possesses a green alga as a symbiont, with a tail sticking out from the cell wall. At right, two daughter cells are created during cell division, with one of the daughters inheriting the green symbiont. The other daughter goes out and captures a new algal cell. The black scale bar represents 10 microns in length. Credit: http://www.sciencemag.org/_


I was checking the latest world news from MSNBC and chanced upon this report about a current scientific development that seems to fit nicely onto this thread. Scientists are observing what may be an ongoing process of _endosymbiosis_ - where two different species combine genetically to give rise to a new, third species. The process occurs at the cellular level, when one species incorporates another species, forming a new "conglomerate" organism. Scientists believe this powerful form of genetic recombination was central to the development of modern, multi-celled plants and animals from single-celled organisms.

Some will see this as a validation of the power of a spontaneous, undirected and randomly-driven Neo-Darwinian process, culled only by natural selection of the fittest, to evolve highly complex lifeforms.

Others will hail it as a substantiation of the careful purpose that must have been incorporated into the evolutionary process by an Intelligent Designer.

For the moment, I simply present it as another news report.

_For the complete MSNBC report:_
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9686843/



_Listen to RinselTunes online at ..._
http://www.laramyk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=558

----------


## QDO1

> If you did it trillions and trillions of times, over tens of thousands of trillions of years, you eventually would do it. The chance is beyond infinitesimally minute, but it exists. I'm not saying that it'd be a good idea to try, but the probability, while miserably small, exists. 
> Ah, well obviously putting faith in an chance that is "beyond infinitesimally minute" makes loads more sense than believing in an intelligent force that created- or guided the creation of- the universe! I wonder, would you concede that the existance of God is possible (perhaps possible only by a chance that would be beyone infinitesimally remote," but possible)? If not, why is your long-shot chance of evolution possible, but not the chance that there could be a God?
> 
> PS- Oh, and Da Vinci is turning over in his grave!


Refers you back to my post about dice, and probrability.  See senario's 1 thru 4 - It is easy to quote a probrability with the No. 1 hat on, because without thought it makes sense.  Infact we are not in the No. 1 System, more like No. 3/4

I will try to illustrate this...

Imagine a scenario where we have a tribe of monkeys who paint, by flinging blobs of paint.  Also imagine we have a species of tigers with a taste for these monkeys.  The monkeys who can fling blobs of paint and make something by chance, that happens to act as a camoflauge will have a higher probrability of surviving, than those who cant.  Those who cant have a higher probrability of being eaten.  After many generations, the paint monkeys are wicked artists, and the tigers have moved on to eating wildebeast

You might look at the painting the monkey made and say haha here is a beautiful painting of a treetrunk - it is so complex that the chances of that happening are for example 1,000,000,000:1 where as infact the odds are far shortened.  True the odds of randomly painting the picture could be the hypothetical 1,000,000,000:1, but natural selection, has in a sense held some of the dice back, and reduced the odds to a point where the picture is painted with skill, as opposed to randomness

A complete pile of twaddle you say - well, artists were employed in the wars to produce camofluge, and there are many examples of where camoflauge in nature, enables an animal to live

----------


## QDO1

The we are here, there is an infinitessamally small chance of us being exactly here, the way we are now, therefore we are here by some intellegent design theory just does not stack up

I can illustrate this

If one of the founding fathers of America never got on the boat, America may well look completly different, interms of populus, where the cities are etc.  to what it does today.  We might not even be here ourselves.  The fact that we are we are today relies on the fact that those families got on the boat.  But perhaps there was a family that was supposed to go over, that did not get on the boat - if that had happened who knows what would have happened

We are where we are, no one designed america the way it is now, by saying - lets put X/Y on the boat, but leave off A/B.  It is unreasonable to look at a person in California, and say... the chances of you being here are infinitly small, therefore you must be here by intelegent design.  What we are looking at is a snapshot (today) of where we are today, and because we have records, one might be able to trace the roots back to the Mayflower.  Just because we can do that proves nothing in terms of probrability, or intellegent design

----------


## chm2023

> What do you mean, shame?? That's not the same quote as mine.


Perhaps you fell prey to the skewed use of your quote by someone else--it is a big favorite of fundamentalists. I know it's not the same quote, it's the rest of the passage from On the Origin of the Species, first edition. By only quoting the first line, which is clearly rhetorical in light of the entire passage--the very next line refutes the suggestion that the evolution of the eye is "absurd"--you completely misrepresent Darwin's seminal work.   Cherry picking from the writings of a scientist of this caliber is a dangerous game.

So that's what I mean by "shame"--you are misrepresenting the ideas of an intellectual giant. It's a cheap trick, and a telling one. If Darwin was so off base, why are you anxious to make him appear to support your POV?

----------


## Chairtime

> Perhaps you fell prey to the skewed use of your quote by someone else--it is a big favorite of fundamentalists. I know it's not the same quote, it's the rest of the passage from On the Origin of the Species, first edition. By only quoting the first line, which is clearly rhetorical in light of the entire passage--the very next line refutes the suggestion that the evolution of the eye is "absurd"--you completely misrepresent Darwin's seminal work. Cherry picking from the writings of a scientist of this caliber is a dangerous game.
> 
> So that's what I mean by "shame"--you are misrepresenting the ideas of an intellectual giant. It's a cheap trick, and a telling one. If Darwin was so off base, why are you anxious to make him appear to support your POV?


Why are you so anxious to avoid meaningful discussion on the subject of ID vs. Evolution?  (very telling by the way)

----------


## chm2023

I will give this one last go:


I believe that God created the universe  (and I don't hide behind "intelligent design".  For heavens sake, have the courage of your convictions.);  I also believe in evolution  (this would be the means).  My objection to the intelligent design folks is that they are trying to disguise faith and insinuate it into the science cirriculum, where it does not belong.

The discussion of probability is interesting.  Things that are highly, wildly improbably happen daily:  someone won the PowerBall the other day.  What were the odds of them winning--something like one in 300 million if memory serves.  You can make the argument, which somewhere here did, that every outcome is one in a gazillion if you factor in all the variables.  Starting from my birth, what were the odds that today I would Fedex an invoice for moderating research groups at 9AM to a company in Reston VA for $32,000?  Beyond minute, but it happened.

This kind of stuff freaks me out if I think about it much.  Reminds me of one of the classic Simpsons Halloween episodes where Homer goes back in time and is warned not to touch anything or the history of the world would change dramatically.  Well you can imagine...:D

----------


## chm2023

> Why are you so anxious to avoid meaningful discussion on the subject of ID vs. Evolution? (very telling by the way)


What's very telling is your inability to admit your mistake.

----------


## Chairtime

> What's very telling is your inability to admit your mistake.


What's more telling is your need to pursue the admission.

----------


## Chairtime

Note to self:  don't fall for chm2023's antics

----------


## Steve Machol

> What's very telling is your inability to admit your mistake.





> What's more telling is your need to pursue the admission.


This is ridiculous. I suggest you keep to the topic.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Chairtime

> it is one thing posturing a pre-determination argument on the basis that one could using the laws of physics, always roll a six on a dice... your argument thus folows that if one had the reins on all things physical, you could engineer the big bang, and then by intellegent design - end up where we are today
> 
> But where do the folowing come in to play?
> freewill?proof without faith?why such a convolouted route?


*Freewill* - determines our *individual* existence to a large degree. Does not alter intelligent design of the universe.  Can you even picture a world without free will?

*Proof without faith* - In what sense?  

*Why such a convoluted route* - You mean, why didn't the Intelligent Designer just create the end result directly? Not sure. Maybe it defeats the whole point.

----------


## QDO1

> *Freewill* - determines our *individual* existence to a large degree. Does not alter intelligent design of the universe. Can you even picture a world without free will?


thats just plain daft - if ID takes into account the progression of life to get us where we are, freewill is the antithisis of ID, it lets us choose to deviate from the design.  If we have freewill, we can't have intelegent design - not in the complete sense anyway




> *Proof without faith* - In what sense?


what proof do you have for ID, real tangiable proof, or is it just faith? 




> *Why such a convoluted route* - You mean, why didn't the Intelligent Designer just create the end result directly? Not sure. Maybe it defeats the whole point.


then it is not that intellegent then

----------


## Chairtime

> freewill is the antithisis of ID,


I think you have a different understanding of free will. Free will is limited to my actions, words and thoughts. My will does not control my form and it does not control the form of my offspring. (If it did, I would be a little bit taller and a lot smarter.)


> what proof do you have for ID, real tangiable proof, or is it just faith?


That's what this thread attempts to explore. There is evidence and reasonable doubt on both sides of the debate.  Neither is proven.


> then it is not that intellegent then


We will be lucky if we can quantify Intelligent Design, let alone the _Designer_.

----------


## QDO1

> I think you have a different understanding of free will. Free will is limited to my actions, words and thoughts. My will does not control my form and it does not control the form of my offspring


the freewill actions of Hitler for example have had a massive effect on where we are today.  Either Hitler was in the design, or freewill defeats Intelegent design in its most absolute sense.  You have free will to choose your partner, and thus your offspring will be as a result of your freewill, so yes freewill does control the form of your offspring

----------


## QDO1

Quote:
Originally Posted by *QDO1*
_what proof do you have for ID, real tangiable proof, or is it just faith?_

Quote:
Originally prosted by *Chairtime*
That's what this thread attempts to explore. There is evidence and reasonable doubt on both sides of the debate. Neither is proven.

QDO1:
Well stop avoiding the question, and cough up some proof.  Freewill and Intelegent design seems to be a Idea or philosophy, rather than something that is qualitative and tangiable

----------


## QDO1

Looking at the thread from front to back, I still see no evidence for ID. Pete had a stab at it in his first post. Beyond that it seems that belief and "wanting it to be true" seem to be the motivations and reasons about suggesting ID is true 

To begin to prove ID then one must firstly show some evidence. It is not good enough to say "we are complex" so therefore the design must have been intellegent

To humor the debate, and perhaps add a vital perspective: follow this link

http://www.venganza.org/ - home of the church of the flying spagettie monster

----------


## Robert Martellaro

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. 
-Isaac Asimov

----------


## QDO1

> To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. 
> -Isaac Asimov


Issac Asimov had amazing foresight, and is due much respect

----------


## chip anderson

On his death bed Asimov expressed regret that he could not find evidence of God, but said he could not.

----------


## chm2023

> On his death bed Asimov expressed regret that he could not find evidence of God, but said he could not.


??????

George Will was discussing this over the weekend (the ID thing).  He made the point that the recent Dover Pa election (wherein 7 of 7 school board members who had voted to include ID in the district cirriculum were voted out of office) was the truly worrisome result of the elections for Republicans.  His theory (not especially his actually, well accepted by many) is the the Republican party is made of 2 parts--the libertarian, small government, low taxes part, and the social conservatives, mainly evangelicals.  The coalition is uneasy as are all political coalitions, but what will really test it is when the social conservatives start to move to involve the government in promoting personal beliefs--things like ID, stem cell research.  

There's a really interesting article in The New Yorker on a somewhat similiar topic--talks about Casey v Santorum and how the Democrats are moving to win that election.  Basically, they are taking abortion off the table--Casey is pro-life--and saying to their base, "Look, we can hold fast to a hard pro-choice position with no limits (minors, 3rd term etc)   and let the Republican appear to take the high ground and end up with a radical like Santorum, or we can bite the bullet and help elect someone like Casey who holds with most core Democratic beliefs."   Santorum is behind by 15 points.  Of course it helps that Casey is very, very popular and that his Dad was extremely popular.  Guess we'll see.

----------


## QDO1

> ??????
> 
> George Will was discussing this over the weekend (the ID thing). He made the point that the recent Dover Pa election (wherein 7 of 7 school board members who had voted to include ID in the district cirriculum were voted out of office) was the truly worrisome result of the elections for Republicans. His theory (not especially his actually, well accepted by many) is the the Republican party is made of 2 parts--the libertarian, small government, low taxes part, and the social conservatives, mainly evangelicals. The coalition is uneasy as are all political coalitions, but what will really test it is when the social conservatives start to move to involve the government in promoting personal beliefs--things like ID, stem cell research. 
> 
> There's a really interesting article in The New Yorker on a somewhat similiar topic--talks about Casey v Santorum and how the Democrats are moving to win that election. Basically, they are taking abortion off the table--Casey is pro-life--and saying to their base, "Look, we can hold fast to a hard pro-choice position with no limits (minors, 3rd term etc) and let the Republican appear to take the high ground and end up with a radical like Santorum, or we can bite the bullet and help elect someone like Casey who holds with most core Democratic beliefs." Santorum is behind by 15 points. Of course it helps that Casey is very, very popular and that his Dad was extremely popular. Guess we'll see.


there you go -  the issue is religious and political.  If it were an issue of straight science, none of the above would need to happen.  Perhaps one might think... what is taught in Religious education - Christianity alone - or all the other religions, and athiesm too?

----------


## chm2023

> there you go - the issue is religious and political. If it were an issue of straight science, none of the above would need to happen. Perhaps one might think... what is taught in Religious education - Christianity alone - or all the other religions, and athiesm too?


Well that depends re religious education: if you are attending a church related school, you are schooled in your faith, and perhaps others. Comparative religion looks at various and is a legitimate topic for public schools, though it's hardly core cirriculum or appropriate for lower grades.

Kansas is re-writing their definition of science (for schools); the current definition is "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

Those clever Kansas folks are taking out the word "natural". Leaving room of course, for the "supernatural". Which is lovely, just not science.

Of course, it's an ill wind: I got quite a chuckle out of that numbnuts Pat Robertson threatening the good citizens of Dover with the wrath of God. It's so disconcerting to think of God confiding in this toad..... :Eek: 




> *Rev. Ridiculous doesn't speak well for intelligent design
>   By LEONARD PITTS JR. 
> Knight Ridder Newspapers 
> 
> 
> 'And the Lord did look with discontent upon the town of Dover in the province of Pennsylvania. For Dover was a wicked and prideful place and had turned its back on God. Its people had voted out school board members who tried to introduce intelligent design into schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
> 
> "And the Lord was wrathful and said, I will smite them with burning coals from the sky. Their fields I will make barren, their rivers I will cause to rise in flood, their football teams will lose, their sewers will back up, no one who lives there shall hit the Powerball. And I will help them not."
> 
> ...

----------


## QDO1

perhaps they ought to teach intellegent design in religious education lessons, and science in science lessons?

----------


## chm2023

> perhaps they ought to teach intellegent design in religious education lessons, and science in science lessons?


Ta-dah!!!!!!:cheers:

----------


## drk

I have a take on this ID thing: Really, if you want your kid to get a Christian education, send them to a Christian school. If you send your kids to a public school, or public university, you get what you deserve.

You all will see, however, in the not-so-distant future, that ID will become more and more accepted in non-religious circles. It may never become the predominant theory of the day, but it will increase, as the case for it is increasing. ID will not necessarily lead people to God, though. Look for more panspermia and alien visitation explanations. I kid you not. I kid you not.

The problem in Christianity is that at least half of Christianity thinks that it is possible to usher in God's kingdom here on earth: sort of "reform" society and the planet. That is a non-biblical fallacy. Fundamental Christians know that things are going to go downhill quickly.

So, to sum up,
ID: good
Fighting with secular authorities: bad
Saving the world with a broad-based approach: foolish
Saving each individual personally: God's will.

----------


## Steve Machol

> *To put it another way: gravity is "just" a theory, but I don't hear anyone arguing with Isaac Newton. Or suggesting students be taught the "alternative" theory that we are held to earth by invisible strips of Velcro.*


I couldn't resist sharing this:

*Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory*
_August 17, 2005 | Issue 4133_ 

KANSAS CITY, KSAs the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling. 

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
more......

----------


## QDO1

> I couldn't resist sharing this:
> 
> *Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory*


In this context, "Evangelical scientist" is a bit like saying "married batchelor"  

To be absoloutley fair, I suppose if you believe in angels, one would worry what holds them up, and how they fly

----------


## drk

You'd better click the link, QDO.  You're not familiar with the satirical "Onion"?

----------


## QDO1

> You'd better click the link, QDO. You're not familiar with the satirical "Onion"?


oh yes, but i didnt want to be accused of taking the Pi$$ too much.. LOL - did you click my earlier link?

----------


## Chairtime

QDO1 I clicked your link about the Spagetti Monster.  Cute.  Obviously an athiest website dreamed up by some guy who has a lot of time on his hands.

----------


## QDO1

> QDO1 I clicked your link about the Spagetti Monster. Cute. Obviously an athiest website dreamed up by some guy who has a lot of time on his hands.


yes - it is as relevant to science as the religious version of intelegent design, read it again carefully, seems exactly the same as the christian version, but with a different god as the designer..  Its a shame it takes humor to highlight the sillyness of the intelegent design proposition

----------


## chm2023

> I couldn't resist sharing this:
> 
> *Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory*
> _August 17, 2005 | Issue 4133_ 
> 
> KANSAS CITY, KSAs the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling. 
> 
> Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
> more......


 
Very good, love the Onion!!!!:D  They had a similiar article about "faith based" initiatives proposed by Bush, having religious orgs take over traditionally govt functions.  My favorite was "faith based air traffic control".  (Fact stranger than fiction dept:  faith based FEMA):hammer:

----------


## Chairtime

> yes - it is as relevant to science as the religious version of intelegent design, read it again carefully, seems *exactly the same as the christian version*, but with a different god as the designer.. Its a shame it takes humor to highlight the sillyness of the intelegent design proposition


Well not _exactly_ the same.  Unless I missed the 2000-year-old Spagettie Bible and the Noodle that died on the cross.

----------


## QDO1

wait 2000 years... and where in the thread was it mentioned about not refering to the scriptures or religion.. right at the beginning?




> Without quoting the Bible or any religious beliefs, can you support one theory or the other? (ID or E) Please keep this thread sterile. Use only facts, evidence, logic and/or scientific analysis.

----------


## Chairtime

> the christian version, but with a different god as the designer..


You're the one who brought up God and Christianity, remember?

----------


## QDO1

to bring this thread back on topic.. would someone explain to me the limits of intellegent design... is it all encompassing, and defines where each of us is today, because that is waht was supposed to happen, or is it more limited - in otherwords like planting a tree - maybee a big tree will come, maybee it will wither away?

----------


## chip anderson

God has no limits, God's designs have no limits.

----------


## QDO1

> God has no limits, God's designs have no limits.


so, as far as you are concerned, your childrens children are predestined by god?

----------


## chip anderson

No god determines my or my children's future.    God determines my existance and my children's.  God does not (or at least not usually) direct what happens to me or them in an immeadiate sense.  As to what happens as a result of the choices I make in this life, yes, God determines this.   If God has something that he wishes me to accomplish in this life, yes he can both determine and enable this.


Look If you choose not to believe, I hope you are right.  I personally do not care what your fate is, but for your sake, I hope you are right.  For my sake I hope I am right.   I don't care if there ain't no heaven,  but I pray there ain't no hell for both our sakes.

Chip

----------


## Chairtime

> to bring this thread back on topic.. would someone explain to me the limits of intellegent design... is it all encompassing, and defines where each of us is today, because that is waht was supposed to happen, or is it more limited - in otherwords like planting a tree - maybee a big tree will come, maybee it will wither away?


Intelligent Design is just that.  Design.  Nothing hoakey like spiritual planning or ultimate destiny.  ID is a scientific theory.  Imagine for example, life on Earth is a direct result of Aliens creating us and planting us here.  The Aliens were so Intelligent they DESIGNED our DNA, genes, blood, bone structure, brains and everything else.  They designed us to have 2 eyes for depth perception and 2 ears for stereo sound.  They DESIGNED the process of life as we know it.  They DESIGNED our minds to "think" in the way we might design artificial intelligence in a robot, only much better.  They DESIGNED our ability to decide things, learn things and invent things.  That is ID in a nutshell.

----------


## QDO1

> Intelligent Design is just that. Design. Nothing hoakey like spiritual planning or ultimate destiny. ID is a scientific theory. Imagine for example, life on Earth is a direct result of Aliens creating us and planting us here. The Aliens were so Intelligent they DESIGNED our DNA, genes, blood, bone structure, brains and everything else. They designed us to have 2 eyes for depth perception and 2 ears for stereo sound. They DESIGNED the process of life as we know it. They DESIGNED our minds to "think" in the way we might design artificial intelligence in a robot, only much better. They DESIGNED our ability to decide things, learn things and invent things. That is ID in a nutshell.


thanks for that, earlier in the thread there was the implication that it was actally more than that

----------


## drk

My suggestion to Intelligent Design proponents would be to let only the non-God-believing portion promote the theory to eliminate the complicated morass of misunderstanding as to what I.D. is.

I really think Christians should wash their hands of this debate.  

Leave I.D. to the alien-believers.

----------


## QDO1

just as an footnote...


Aliens are not that uncommon.  Neil Armstrong was technically an Alien on the Moon.  Although some dispute he ever got there.

----------


## QDO1

> My suggestion to Intelligent Design proponents would be to let only the non-God-believing portion promote the theory to eliminate the complicated morass of misunderstanding as to what I.D. is.
> 
> I really think Christians should wash their hands of this debate. 
> 
> Leave I.D. to the alien-believers.


is that because the god-believing version is so proposterous, and miss-guided, it doesnt stand up to inspection? or because the god believing portion are so delinquent, they cant explain their corner?

----------


## Spexvet

> ID is a scientific theory.


Sorry, there is NO science in religious theory. You wanna teach ID, do it in theology class.

----------


## Chairtime

> Sorry, there is NO science in religious theory. You wanna teach ID, do it in theology class.


Sorry, there is NO religion in science theory.  The belief in intelligent aliens is a scientific theory, not a religious one.

----------


## Chairtime

> is that because the god-believing version is so proposterous, and miss-guided, it doesnt stand up to inspection? or because the god believing portion are so delinquent, they cant explain their corner?


No, it's because those who are anti-ID don't believe a word that comes out of any Christian's mouth.

----------


## QDO1

> No, it's because those who are anti-ID don't believe a word that comes out of any Christian's mouth.


that is a little unfair.. try saying something that stands up to inspection, and we will start believing you

By the way, I never said I was anti ID, it just seems a proposterous proposition (as stated)

Although it seems utterly unproven, on balance, the alien version of ID makes more sense than the religious, because in a sense we have evidence of Aliens - our probes have left the earth and gone throughout the solar system, and we have stepped on the moon. (we are the aliens in this sense)

The proposition of life on other planets seems pretty realistic, after the analaysis of meteors, shows the basic building blocks of life

----------


## Chairtime

> that is a little unfair.. try saying something that stands up to inspection, and we will start believing you
> 
> By the way, I never said I was anti ID, it just seems a proposterous proposition (as stated)
> 
> Although it seems utterly unproven, on balance, the alien version of ID makes more sense than the religious, because in a sense we have evidence of Aliens - our probes have left the earth and gone throughout the solar system, and we have stepped on the moon. (we are the aliens in this sense)
> 
> The proposition of life on other planets seems pretty realistic, after the analaysis of meteors, shows the basic building blocks of life


It was just a blunt way of saying that evolutionists don't think Christian ID theorists can be objective. At least that's how I interpreted drk's answer.

As for aliens, it's irrelevant who actually designed us. But the meteor thing doesn't qualify as ID. Unless the meteor was designed to plant us here.

----------


## QDO1

> It was just a blunt way of saying that evolutionists don't think Christian ID theorists can be objective. At least that's how I interpreted drk's answer.
> 
> As for aliens, it's irrelevant who actually designed us. But the meteor thing doesn't qualify as ID. Unless the meteor was designed to plant us here.


i think there is a point here... if we are talking as adults we can all make our choices, and have a mature debate... If what we are talking about here is to do with is what is taught in schools, then religious ID is for the relegious lessons, and it has a rightfull case to be there, allong with athiesim, and non-christian religions.  lets keep the science lessons strictly on what is generally accepted to be science.  the religious lessons have a purpose (someone might explain that to me one day) and the science lessons teach science theory and good practice, which assumes a skeptisisim and a knowlege that sciene is something that in the overall sense has evolved

----------


## spartus

> ID is a scientific theory.


Aww, poor Rimmy. Eaten all your crayons, have you? Now it's back to clowning statements of "fact". ID is precisely as scientific, as I keep trying to tell you, as astrology. You'd best get off this particular bus while you still look slightly farsighted in doing so--even someone as dumb as Rick Santorum figured it out. Ah well. Blind squirrel, nut. 

Now, as far as the FSM and your noting of possible logical fallacies concerning Its Noodly Ways, this is easy to explain. From the initial letter to the Kansas Board of Education:




> For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. *But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.*


The FSM has remained undetected until recently because He has wished it. Only a fool would think otherwise.

----------


## QDO1

> Aww, poor Rimmy. Eaten all your crayons, have you? Now it's back to clowning statements of "fact". ID is precisely as scientific, as I keep trying to tell you, as astrology. You'd best get off this particular bus while you still look slightly farsighted in doing so--even someone as dumb as Rick Santorum figured it out. Ah well. Blind squirrel, nut. 
> 
> Now, as far as the FSM and your noting of possible logical fallacies concerning Its Noodly Ways, this is easy to explain. From the initial letter to the Kansas Board of Education:
> 
> 
> 
> The FSM has remained undetected until recently because He has wished it. Only a fool would think otherwise.


I really like the FSM, makes me feel bad about italian food though, chuckle chuckle

----------


## QDO1

> *Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told*
> 13:30 19 October 2005NewScientist.com news serviceCeleste Biever*Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.*
> 
> 
> Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of theory was so broad it would also include astrology.
> 
> The trial is pitting 11 parents from the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania, against their local school board. The board voted to read a statement during a biology class that casts doubt on Darwinian evolution and suggests ID as an alternative.


That makes Behe more of a muppet than I originally thought... did you know that they had the length of the year wrong when astrology was first devised, so nowadays we are a whole month out from where we are supposed to be... what does that make me - a leo? a virgo or sagitarious? i suppose a chouce of 3 out of 12 isnt so bad...

----------


## drk

My thinking is this, and I must admit, I'm learning a lot on these threads:
Intelligent design, while I obviously believe in a form of it, is a bad move by Christians, not unlike the gay marriage thing. Why should Christians sweat whether the public schools teach "the truth" or not? Even if I.D. were accepted as a valid scientific viewpoint (which I still think it is, but I won't argue it), there is plenty else wrong in the public school system that Christians would be obligated to attack as well: sex education, multiculturalism, ad nauseum.

As a Christian, we have to accept that we cannot expect to use the civil, political, and legal systems to spread what we think is truth. We have to take a more "separate but equal" type of approach in schooling, cultural customs such as marriage, separate moral systems, etc. Christians will become more and more unique and strange over time.

While there are many that want to usher in God's kingdom on earth, it will happen just fine without our help. It only seems to stir up great misunderstanding and animosity. 

This is an admission of defeat, in a way, but a defeat in a battle we were destined to lose, anyway. Wise Christians will understand that.

Leave intelligent design to the scientists that believe it, and leave the debate to the scientists. When/if, in due course, it becomes accepted to the secular world, it will automatically be included in school curricula.

----------


## QDO1

IN RE classes (religious education) they ought to teach about the world religioins, and ideas like ID and NCET - New Creation Evoloution Theory (that is the theory that says that modern genetics leads back to the ark).  They ought to teach in RE that Islam and christianity share the same roots, and also cover such debates as the meaning (or not) of the trinity etc.  They ought to go in depth about athiesm, agnostisisim and other major religions such as the church od scientology, mormom, cults and paganisim - that would be a fairly comprehensive religious education

In Geography children ought to be taught about who, where, why, and mans imact onthe environment, and introduced to plate tectonice, global warming, and the formation of rock and the fundaments of archeology

In cookery classes they ought to teach inter continental cuisine and about things like nutrition and malnutrition

In English children should be taught to talk without moving thier arms like a delinquent baboon

In history, besides the normal stuff,  they ought to cover the history of science, religion, and indigenous peoples

In Science they ought to teach the fundaments of science, but also the principles of scientific review, the changing view of science, and the principles and reasons for research. 

in this way everyone gets a rounded education, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IS TAUGHT TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES
We live in a global world, and our children will be more global than we ever will be, its about time we stopped being so hard nosed about our local provincial ideas, and embraced the fact that others in the world can manage to live well too.  that applies as much to cuisine as it does to religion and science

----------


## Spexvet

> ...there is plenty else wrong in the public school system that Christians would be obligated to attack as well: ... multiculturalism...


Multiculturalism = bad?

----------


## QDO1

> Multiculturalism = bad?


thats food for a thread all of its own...  perhaps we should go there tenderly

----------


## spartus

The plot thickens. Well, no. Actually, I think it's thinning.




> *Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design*
> 
> *Vatican City, Nov. 18* - The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
> 
> The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.
> 
> *"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be,"* the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."
> 
> ...
> ...

----------


## QDO1

the intelegent design thing seems to me a non starter... it does not describe events in evouloutanary history..dinasaurs for example, which were wiped out by a meteorite - if the meteor was in the design, then the design wasnt very good.  If the meteor wasnt in the plan, then it is more than unlikley that we would be here now

----------


## spartus

They're working on the dinosaur problem.




> *Biblical creation museum to rise in Kentucky in 2007*
> 
> *Facility, nation's largest, holds that world is 6,000 years old, baby dinosaurs rode in Noah's ark.*
> 
> By Michael Powell / Washington Post
> 
> PETERSBURG, Ky. -- The guide, a soft-spoken fellow with a scholarly aspect, walks through the halls of this handsome, half-finished museum and points to the sculpture of a young velociraptor. 
> 
> "We're placing this one in the hall that explains the post-Flood world," explains the guide. *"When dinosaurs lived with man."*  
> ...

----------


## QDO1

> "We call him our 'missionary lizard,' " Looy says. "*When people realize the T. rex lived in Eden, it will lead us to a discussion of the gospel. The T. rex once was a vegetarian, too.*"


I think they might just possibly realise something else

----------


## QDO1

So while we are at it... how does the story of noah's ark, and the flood fit in to this ID theory?

----------


## QDO1

there seem to be several options coming out here

ID - some form of intellegence has designed and intellegently pre-thought out life on this planet god/buddah/aliens/any one elseCreationisim - exclusivley a supernatural God created life exclusivley on this planet.  This argument also comes with or without freewill and pre-destination attachedStraight Evoloution - life has evolved from the basic chemicals, on this planet, over a long period of time.  this is basically the Darwinist viewHybrid evoloution - meteors with some elements of life have had an impact on the origins of life, and then evoloution has taken its course*Option 1.*  Ought to show traces of the intellegence left behind.  the process, interaction and design would be quite evident, there would be a fosil void up to the point the design was implemented.  It is arguable that the intellegence would have also included the effects of evoloution, and world wide disasters.  There ought to be a purpose, and that purpose might be obvious to us.  Idea 1 does not explain who designed the designer, or the designers designer

*Option 2.*  Creationisim - the religious version of ID.  This argument is quite intangiable, and basically relies on the premis that god is supernatural and thus not actually proovable.  The argument states that he creates (and steers?) as he wishes, and chooses to reveal (or not) as he will.  The religious argument needs not respond to Logical argument or scientific facts, because the position is based on faith, rather than facts

*Option 3.* This option is the mainstream option being taught nowadays, has the most scientific proof, but there are gaps, which are slowly being filled.  This is the most logical and tangiable evedincial position.

*Option 4.*  this is unproved, but from a scientific stand point is a slight possibility, and possibly in some instances have been the beginning of life in some planatary environments

----------


## rinselberg

blogged daily from *High Altitude Overflight Imagery Interpretation Office*


*AUTOMATIC IMAGERY DATABASE UPDATE*

Target ID: Intelligent Biological Design / Irreducible Biological Complexity postings


Target image: Hair-like microscopic structures called *cilia.*

Target status: Current and active / activity level high

OptiBoard URLs: *WordOfTheDay211* and *WordOfTheDay215*

Additional target data: "ksquared"


*EndOfAutoTransmtRecord*


graphics: http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/airplane/patches.html http://www.military-graphics.com

----------


## QDO1

Here is a thought you are on a nice long walk in the mountains and come across an object. You examine it closely and observe that, as an object its both very complex and highly ordered. It has precisely flat and smooth edges, is as transparent and has several perfectly symmetrical sides. Kind of cool huh?

You have a good look around and see that you are surrounded by millions of these things. Each one is beautiful, unique and symmetrical, and each one is unique. Not one of them is the same as another 

Here is the big question. Who designed these objects, was intelligence involved? 

Nope, not at all  they are snowflakes

The ID camp look at highly complex objects claiming that this complexity must have been designed, it could not have possibly come to be without intelligent design. Furthermore they offer this complexity of our universe as scientific evidence, and poof that there must be a designer


So I throw down to the ID crowd the following. Please answer the following questions, and dont miss the details: 

Prove / show the: who, where, why, when and what? 
Who is the designer?What did this designer do?How did the designer create?Why did the creation take place?When was this designing done? The common thing so far about proponents of ID is that they love to bash science, Darwinism or evolution; but they cant stump up the bare faced facts of what they are purporting as the truth. So dish the details. What can you offer beyond the premise that a ??? did ??? on the date of ??? that caused ??? which explains everything else that happened from that point in time onwards. Please be specific 

This is why ID should not be taught in science classes. Because in science we try to be specific, base our judgments on facts and observations, lay the theories open to scrutiny. 

Without at least beginning to nail down any details of the theory of ID how can anyone begin to take it seriously

If people want ID taught in schools then it should be in the same lessons that cover: the FSM, Pink unicorn on the lawn, major and minor religions gods and deities and cultural / tribal rites

----------


## rinselberg

This barely visible water-borne rotifer achieves locomotion using the complex and microscopic hair-like structures called *cilia.*




> *cilia:* hair-like structures that are used for locomotion, and in some species, for feeding: A cilium consists of a membrane-coated bundle of fibers called an axoneme. The axoneme contains a ring of 9 double microtubules surrounding 2 central single microtubules. The filaments of the 11 microtubules are composed of two proteins ...
> 
> Experiments indicate that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered "walking" of the dynein arms on one microtubule up the neighboring subfiber of a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other ...
> 
> What we see in the cilium is not only profound complexity, but also *irreducible* complexity on the molecular scale. The cilium *must* have the sliding filaments, connecting proteins, and motor proteins for function to occur. In the absence of any one of those components, the apparatus is useless.
> 
> The lowly cilia may be composed of single molecules, but the complexity of the cilium is final and fundamental. Since the *irreducibly complex* cilium cannot have functional precursors, it cannot be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select.



credit: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/index.html

For the complete post from OptiBoard member *ksquared:* http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=215 


I can think of one way that the *irreducible complexity* argument could be rebutted by Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theorists; the key word is *spandrel:*




> In addition to his work on punctuated equilibrium, Gould, together with Richard Lewontin, in an influential 1979 paper, popularized the use of the architectural word "spandrel" in an evolutionary context, using it to mean a feature of an organism that exists as a necessary consequence of other features and is not actually selected for. The relative frequency of spandrels, so defined, versus adaptive features in nature, remains a controversial topic in evolutionary biology.


credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

So it may be that the cilia evolved through genetic mutation and natural selection as a *spandrel*: The cilia may have evolved as a necessary consequence of the development of other organic components which provided certain survival advantages other than locomotion and/or feeding. Or it may be (although I'm not sure that this fits within what Gould meant to convey by "spandrel") that the evolutionary precursors of the cilia, although incapable of locomotion or feeding functionalities, conferred other (yet undiscovered) adaptational advantages for the evolving organisms.

Enterprising RinselNews science reporter Rinselberg (also an OptiBoard member) asked the widely published and well known Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theorist Robert Trivers for a reaction:


_Check your PC speaker loudness control and CLICK on the audio icon (above) to download a one-minute audio clip with Robert Trivers._


Rinselberg has posted previously on the topics of Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent (Biological) Design Theory, and also on Theology, via:

Post tittle: serendipity
Subject: Latest observations of endosymbiosis - a powerful Neo-Darwinian "bullet"?
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...8&postcount=64

Post title: RinselNews - Fair and Balanced
Subject: Brief discussion of ID (Intelligent Design) and well known ID theorist Michael Behe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=265

Post title: Fossil evidence for macroevolution
Subject: Discusses transitional evolutionary forms in the fossil record from a Neo-Darwinist viewpoint.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=237

Post title: Deism and the Big Bang
Subject: Responds to *ksquared's* discourse concerning the Big Bang theory of the origins of the observable universe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=161

Post title: A Neo-Darwinist speaks
Subject: Comments on the possible natural evolution of human morality and links to a profile of the widely published Neo-Darwinist Robert Trivers.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=59



_Listen to RinselTunes online at ..._
http://www.laramyk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=558

----------


## Chairtime

If there was no intelligent design, then how do you explain how organized Rinselberg is?

----------


## QDO1

What this irreducible complexity argument using cilia as an example chooses to ignore


Cilia are found in some form or another in almost every single organism existence
Most scientists will say that cilia developed a very long time ago in the evolutionary chain, formed from mutated duplicated membrane protein genes. I wont bore you with the presumed process of the development of Cilia, because to be frank it is tedious, but if any one insists I can post itOpps did I say proteins? Ah the irreducible argument just fell over again. The irreducible argument conveniently completely ignores the building blocks of the organism/structure concernedNo one has been able to find a real cilium with an irreducible set of proteinsThe Irreducible Cilia argument also chooses to ignore organisms with simpler cilia-like structures (called pseudocilia) that lack some of the structures in true cilia.  An example of that organism is the Apiocystis Brauniana, it is thought that pseudocilia represent an intermediate stage in the evolution of true ciliaA. brauniana cell 8-10 μm pseudocilia visible

----------


## ksquared

*Ksquared simple word for the day evolves into an* *irreducibly complex** .... cilia argument*

QDO1:What this irreducible complexity argument using cilia as an example chooses to ignore.....Cilia are found in some form or another in almost every single organism <in> existance. 

Ksquared:The existence of cilium in many different organisms in some form or another doesnt change the fact that cilia are irreducibly complex. Its not the _quantity_ of complexities; its the _quality_ of the complexities that determine whether something is irreducible. 

QDO1: Most scientists will say that cilia developed a very long time ago in the evolutionary chain, formed from mutated duplicated membrane protein genes. I wont bore you with the presumed process of the development of Cilia, because to be frank it is tedious, but if any one insists I can post it.

Ksquared: Most scientists will agree life came into existence a long time ago but the origin of life question isnt about the when. The question that needs to be answered is the how. Invoking the mutation process is also purely speculative, especially when most scientists know that mutations rarely produce an increase in function. More often than not, the changes they cause are harmful, instead of beneficial. Using mutations to explain how something came into existence is even more problematic when there are multiple genes and functions involved. All of which would need to mutate simultaneously and without interfering with any of the original function in order to produce any added benefit. 
QDO1: Opps did I say proteins? Ah the irreducible argument just fell over again. The irreducible argument conveniently completely ignores the building blocks of the organism/structure concerned. No one has been able to find a real cilium with an irreducible set of proteins.

Ksqaured: Opps, I'm afraid you did. Proteins are at the very heart of IC argument and one of the causes for the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking. And not only is the irreducible complexity of the proteins an inconvenient problem for evolutionists, DNA presents an even more perplexing issue. DNA is not only complex, it also contains a specific message (the instructions for building the proteins), and its very existence creates a chicken-egg dilemma because DNA relies on proteins for its production but proteins rely on DNA for _their_ production. So which came first, proteins or DNA? 

Proteins are the building blocks of life, performing all of the jobs inside the cell except for storing the genetic information. Composed of long chains of chemical units called amino acids, the amino acids are like an alphabet of sorts. If the letters (amino acids) are arranged correctly youll get meaningful text (functional proteins). If not, you get gibberish (a non functional protein if it even forms at all). If the text is coherent youll have meaningful sentences (cilia). 

The sequencing of the amino acids in the chain determines the shape and function of the protein. Once the chain is complete, the amino acids collapse back on themselves forming an architecture thats pre-programmed by the order of the amino acids. If the amino acids are sequenced correctly, the chain will fold into a functional protein. 

There are 30,000 distinct types of proteins, each containing a different combination of the 20 amino acids. Some of the chains are hundreds of units long. 

Heres a quick look at some of the difficulties a protein 100 amino acids long would encounter in order for it to be created by random chance and natural selection. 

*1st*  The amino acids in living tissue must use a peptide bond to connect with the other amino acids in the chain. Other types of chemical bonds exist in nature but only a peptide can be used to connect the amino acids. In nature, only half of the possible chemical bonds are peptides. The probability of building a chain where all of the linkages involve peptide bonds is roughly one chance in 10 to the 30th power.

*2nd* - Every amino acid has a distinct mirror image of itself, one left-handed version or L-form and one right-handed version or D-form. These mirror-image forms are called optical isomers. In nature the right-handed and left-handed isomers occur in roughly equal frequency but functioning proteins will only tolerate left-handed amino acids. The probability of randomly attaining only L-form amino acids in a peptide chain is roughly one chance in 10 to the 30th power.

*3rd* - The amino acids of functioning proteins need to link in a very specific sequence. There are 20 biologically occurring amino acids so the probability of getting a specific amino acid at the right spot in the chain is 1 in 20. Now even if we assume some of the slots along the chain can tolerate several different amino acids, the probability of the functional sequencing is roughly 1 chance in 10 to the 65th power. If we factor in the peptide bonding and using only the L-forms, the probability of attaining a functional protein by chance is roughly 1 in 10 the 125th power. 

Obtaining functionally sequenced bio-macro-molecules using the random and mindless process of natural selection is in the words of Ilya Prigogine (1977 Nobel prize in Chemistry) "*vanishingly small . . . even on the scale of . . . billions of years*." And he was being polite. 

The chances of a single functional protein coming into existence using a random mindless process are the about the same as a chimp with a typewriter randomly typing out the entire works of Shakespeare, the 1st time through, without any spelling errors. Now I dont know about you, but I personally find it hard to imagine a chimp randomly typing a coherent sentence, let alone an entire volume. I just can't seem to muster up that kind of blind faith.

The Darwinian macro-evolutionists conveniently ignore Darwins own words - If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. 

Tomorrow, Ill take a closer look at the lowly ameba, the simple single celled organism that is conveniently located at the beginning of the evolutional tree of life and is responsible for all of the complexity we see around us today. A simple little creature, whos DNA contains enough information (instructions) to fill 1,000 sets of the encyclopedia Britannica.

----------


## rinselberg

I would like to respond to the post just above by *ksquared*, which you may open in a new browser window for reference by clicking on this URL:
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=132

ID (ID: Intelligent Biological Design) theorists have brought the microscopic structures known as cilia and flagella to center stage in arguments that put forward the idea of "irreducible (biological) complexity", and how that (in ID's view) negates the evolutionist thinking of the Neo-Darwinists.

Just to recap, I would like to repeat the diagram that I posted previously in this thread, this time captioned exactly as it was in its original context:


*Ultrastructure of Cilia and Flagella*

WRT ksquared's latest post, I wouldn't know a "peptide bond" if White Sox pitcher Freddy "Nightmare on Elm Street" Garcia ...


_Freddy Garcia. Stephen Jay Gould, the celebrated Harvard University professor and Neo-Darwinist "supreme", loved to contemplate baseball and analyze it statistically. He wrote at length about the game._

... threw one too far inside and hit me with it; nevertheless, I would like to offer some comments from a Neo-Darwinist about the ID concept of irreducible biological complexity:


> Most of us are vaguely familiar with [the tenets of Neo-Darwinism], which state roughly that from random mutations and recombinations in the replication of an organism's genome, new traits can emerge, that the process of natural selection causes organisms with beneficial new traits to survive and replicate, and that from the accumulation of more new traits over a long period of time new species will form. This is how the many varied species on earth [evolved, or] came to be ...
> 
> ID proponents claim that some traits are too complex, "irreducibly complex," to have emerged by the processes of random mutation and natural selection.
> 
> For example, the flagellum is an appendage some bacteria have sticking out that allows them to swim. It is sort of like a microscopic rotating paddle. Flagella are composed of around 30 protein subunits from different genes that work together like a machine to create motion.
> 
> If we delete just one of the genes for a subunit, the whole thing can stop working. This is how they determine it is "irreducible."
> 
> Since the parts don't work separately, ID proponents say, for Darwinian evolution have created the system, there would have to have been numerous mutations all at one time, because natural selection wouldn't select an incomplete system that doesn't yet work. But, since the system has so many parts, it simply couldn't have evolved from mutation all at once ...
> ...


credit: http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/disp.../428385ad0100b





> Every amino acid has a distinct mirror image of itself, one left-handed version or L-form and one right-handed version or D-form. These mirror-image forms are called optical isomers. In nature the right-handed and left-handed isomers occur in roughly equal frequency but functioning proteins will only tolerate left-handed amino acids. The probability of randomly attaining only L-form amino acids in a peptide chain is roughly one chance in 10 to the 30th power.


Here's a Neo-Darwinist, posting or publishing under the subject title "The Left Hand of Darwin", who observes that "physical" processes (i.e., non-biological chemical processes) are actually observed to produce more left-handed or L-form molecular products, than right-handed or R-form molecular products. He goes on to explain why Neo-Darwinists find it very plausible, and not the least bit extraordinary, that life on Earth has evolved in such a way that living proteins are composed exclusively of left-handed or L-form amino acids. Since the article is very brief and fairly readable, even to the laymen (and laywomen) among us, I won't try to summarize or paraphrase any of it. Here is the URL:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000295.html


As he's done before, enterprising RinselNews science reporter Rinselberg (also an OptiBoard member) asked the widely published and well known Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theorist Robert Trivers for his reaction to the national wave of interest in the ideas of ID (ID: Intelligent Biological Design). Professor Trivers, ever the ardent Neo-Darwinist, offered a cautionary message to all who may hear or read the arguments put forth by advocates of ID:


_Check your PC speaker loudness control and CLICK on the audio icon (above) to download a brief audio clip with Robert Trivers: It's a short mp3 file on a fast server, so if you have DSL or broadband Internet, this download will be fast!_


Rinselberg has posted previously on the topics of Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent (Biological) Design Theory, and also on Theology, via:

Post title: Lowly cilia may have Neo-Darwinists singing a brand new tune ... 
Subject: Posits a Neo-Darwinist response to the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=129

Post title: serendipity
Subject: Latest observations of endosymbiosis - a powerful Neo-Darwinian "bullet"?
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...8&postcount=64

Post title: RinselNews - Fair and Balanced
Subject: Brief discussion of ID (Intelligent Design) and well known ID theorist Michael Behe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=265

Post title: Fossil evidence for macroevolution
Subject: Discusses transitional evolutionary forms in the fossil record from a Neo-Darwinist viewpoint.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=237

Post title: Deism and the Big Bang
Subject: Responds to *ksquared's* discourse concerning the Big Bang theory of the origins of the observable universe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=161

Post title: A Neo-Darwinist speaks
Subject: Comments on the possible natural evolution of human morality and links to a profile of the widely published Neo-Darwinist Robert Trivers.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=59



OptiBoard member rinselberg describes how he's carved his own personalized cyberspace on the Web under the mock umbrella tradename *rinselberg.*
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=217

----------


## QDO1

_Ksquared: its the quality of the complexities that determine whether something is irreducible_

How come, surley if it is irreducible it is irreducible, regardless of complexity



_Ksquared: Most scientists will agree life came into existence a long time ago_

True

_Ksquared: but the origin of life question isnt about the when. The question that needs to be answered is the how._

When doesnt bother me, but it might bother Christians or Neo creationists


_Ksquared: Invoking the mutation process is also purely speculative_


A lot less speculative and a lot more substantiated than the ID argument. Scientists have made a very reasonable explanation of the mutation process that has lead to the formation of Cilia


_Ksquared: Especially when most scientists know that mutations rarely produce an increase in function. More often than not, the changes they cause are harmful, instead of beneficial._ 


That is a very good argument for natural selection!

_Ksquared: Using mutations to explain how something came into existence is even more problematic when there are multiple genes and functions involved. All of which would need to mutate simultaneously and without interfering with any of the original function in order to produce any added benefit._ 


Howcome? Do they have to mutate simultaneously? Perhaps one strain mutates in one way, and a second in another, and when they combine the result is something between the two?

_Ksqaured: Opps, I'm afraid you did. Proteins are at the very heart of IC argument and one of the causes for the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking. And not only is the irreducible complexity of the proteins an inconvenient problem for evolutionists,_ 

Which current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking are you referring too? Scientists have been trying to find an irreducible protein, and havent managed it yet

_Ksqaured: DNA presents an even more perplexing issue. DNA is not only complex, it also contains a specific message (the instructions for building the proteins), and its very existence creates a chicken-egg dilemma because DNA relies on proteins for its production but proteins rely on DNA for their production. So which came first, proteins or DNA?_


That is a very simplistic way of putting it, and a red herring. You cannot look at very complex DNA, which has had millions of years of evolution, and equally complex proteins, with millions of years of evolution, and say that today one relies on the other for existence, and proffer that as an argument that all the way through the evolutionary process, that was mutually exclusively always true


_Ksqaured: Proteins are the building blocks of life, performing all of the jobs inside the cell except for storing the genetic information. Composed of long chains of chemical units called amino acids, the amino acids are like an alphabet of sorts. If the letters (amino acids) are arranged correctly youll get meaningful text (functional proteins). If not, you get gibberish (a non functional protein if it even forms at all). If the text is coherent youll have meaningful sentences (__cilia__)._ 


That is true

_Ksqaured: The sequencing of the amino acids in the chain determines the shape and function of the protein. Once the chain is complete, the amino acids collapse back on themselves forming an architecture thats pre-programmed by the order of the amino acids. If the amino acids are sequenced correctly, the chain will fold into a functional protein._ 

_There are 30,000 distinct types of proteins, each containing a different combination of the 20 amino acids. Some of the chains are hundreds of units long._ 


That is true

_Ksqaured: Heres a quick look at some of the difficulties a protein 100 amino acids long would encounter in order for it to be created by random chance and natural selection._ 

_1st  The amino acids in living tissue must use a peptide bond to connect with the other amino acids in the chain. Other types of chemical bonds exist in nature but only a peptide can be used to connect the amino acids. In nature, only half of the possible chemical bonds are peptides. The probability of building a chain where all of the linkages involve peptide bonds is roughly one chance in 10 to the 30th power._

That is untrue. There might be 10 to the 30th power possible mutations, but that doesnt mean that is the chance of the mutation happening like that is a fact. Please refer to my quote at the end of this thread about _dice rolling_ which quite simply and eloquently explains the flaw in the maths here


_Ksqaured: 2nd - Every amino acid has a distinct mirror image of itself, one left-handed version or L-form and one right-handed version or D-form. These mirror-image forms are called optical isomers. In nature the right-handed and left-handed isomers occur in roughly equal frequency but functioning proteins will only tolerate left-handed amino acids. The probability of randomly attaining only L-form amino acids in a peptide chain is roughly one chance in 10 to the 30th power._


Please refer to my quote at the end of this thread about _dice rolling_ 

_Ksqaured:_ *3rd* - The amino acids of functioning proteins need to link in a very specific sequence. Ksqaured: There are 20 biologically occurring amino acids so the probability of getting a specific amino acid at the right spot in the chain is 1 in 20. Now even if we assume some of the slots along the chain can tolerate several different amino acids, the probability of the functional sequencing is roughly 1 chance in 10 to the 65th power. If we factor in the peptide bonding and using only the L-forms, the probability of attaining a functional protein by chance is roughly 1 in 10 the 125th power. 

Obtaining functionally sequenced bio-macro-molecules using the random and mindless process of natural selection is in the words of Ilya Prigogine (1977 Nobel prize in Chemistry) "*vanishingly small . . . even on the scale of . . . billions of years*." And he was being polite. 

The chances of a single functional protein coming into existence using a random mindless process are the about the same as a chimp with a typewriter randomly typing out the entire works of Shakespeare, the 1st time through, without any spelling errors. Now I dont know about you, but I personally find it hard to imagine a chimp randomly typing a coherent sentence, let alone an entire volume. I just can't seem to muster up that kind of blind faith.


Please refer to my quote at the end of this thread about _dice rolling_ This is the plain faced lie proffered by proponents of ID  that they take a situation with say 60 variants, and then say that there are 60! (That is 60*60*60  60 times over) chances of that happening by chance. What they choose to ignore is the process of natural selection  read my post about the dice again to really understand the maths (simply)


Regarding the chimp  please see my earlier post about camouflage, which really is an example of the dice, but with a task attached to the maths


For reference  my previous post about dice:





> While we are on the subject of dice, and numbers lets consider DNA





> The probability of assembling the 241 amino acids in a precise predetermined sequence by chance is 
> 
> 
> 
> Probability = ~10-313 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-ID debaters would like us to think that the Probability = ~10-313 is so big that there is no chance that ever happened on its own. Lets consider a long chain of DNA and use dice to repersent the pairings
> ...






One more thing.. you ought to have a think about**: pseudocilia  if you think that isnt a step on the way", or a reduction of cilia you are pulling the woolly hat of ID over your head

Also read my post about Snowflakes, which if you apply a ID logic are intellegently designed too

----------


## Chairtime

THAT was a nice, easy read.  I think I'll go read Goldilocks and the three bears now.

----------


## spartus

Here's a simple summary of what ksquared is talking about**:




> The divine fallacy, or the argument from incredulity, is a species of non sequitur reasoning which goes something like this: _I can't figure this out, so God must have done it._ Or, _This is amazing; therefore, God did it._  Or, _I can't think of any other explanation; therefore, God did it._  Or, _this is just too weird; so, God is behind it._

----------


## Chairtime

> Here's a simple summary of what ksquared is talking about**:


I don't buy that. Only a fool would think such a thing. Saying "I don't understand it so it must be God" is as foolish as saying "I can't see God so he must not exist."

----------


## QDO1

> I don't buy that. Only a fool would think such a thing. Saying "I don't understand it so it must be God" is as foolish as saying "I can't see God so he must not exist."


There are so many fools out there.  Thats a fact

----------


## QDO1

deleted - multiple post

----------


## spartus

> I don't buy that. Only a fool would think such a thing. Saying "I don't understand it so it must be God" is as foolish as saying "I can't see God so he must not exist."


No, your example is just about a perfect _non sequitur_, which is closely related. However, since it's you, Rimmy, on reflection, I think it's wiser to chalk it up under "extremely simplistic reasoning"¹. But it's cute of you to try and drag the topic back to where you're comfortable.

The entire ID/astrology argument that's rapidly cooling off as something that people who want to be taken seriously realize that it's, for lack of a better term, dumb, is fundamentally based on the argument from incredulity: Since we don't _know_ what started life/evolution/whatever, it must be beyond our understanding, so it's easier to attribute it to a higher power than try to explain it rationally. In this aim, people like ksquared find abstract problems like cilia, then obfuscate their way through what could loosely be called reasoning: Anyone who claims "Most mutations are harmful and kill the mutated," must never have met anyone with red hair. Or known anyone with an autoimmune disorder. Or allergies. Or taken more than a casual look at the behavior of viruses. Or...I could go on, but I think you'll get the idea. A "mutation" is not always an extra arm growing out of your head. A great deal of them are actually fairly boring.

¹: What that statement is saying is *if A+B=C, therefore D*, which is false. If you can't see God, you can't see God. To try and read more into it will always be fallacious, I mean, it could be that right when you looked, He stepped out for a sandwich.

----------


## QDO1

> No, your example is just about a perfect _non sequitur_, which is closely related. However, since it's you, Rimmy, on reflection, I think it's wiser to chalk it up under "extremely simplistic reasoning"¹. But it's cute of you to try and drag the topic back to where you're comfortable.
> 
> The entire ID/astrology argument that's rapidly cooling off as something that people who want to be taken seriously realize that it's, for lack of a better term, dumb, is fundamentally based on the argument from incredulity: Since we don't _know_ what started life/evolution/whatever, it must be beyond our understanding, so it's easier to attribute it to a higher power than try to explain it rationally. In this aim, people like ksquared find abstract problems like cilia, then obfuscate their way through what could loosely be called reasoning: Anyone who claims "Most mutations are harmful and kill the mutated," must never have met anyone with red hair. Or known anyone with an autoimmune disorder. Or allergies. Or taken more than a casual look at the behavior of viruses. Or...I could go on, but I think you'll get the idea. A "mutation" is not always an extra arm growing out of your head. A great deal of them are actually fairly boring.
> 
> ¹: What that statement is saying is *if A+B=C, therefore D*, which is false. If you can't see God, you can't see God. To try and read more into it will always be fallacious, I mean, it could be that right when you looked, He stepped out for a sandwich.


Ive also noticed that when you present a structured logical argument - the subject gets changed, or your argument is just ignored - that says to me that half of  ID debate is just a load of hot air from those who trust thier cult in the face of reasoned logic

----------


## Chairtime

> No, your example is just about a perfect _non sequitur_, which is closely related. However, since it's you, Rimmy, on reflection, I think it's wiser to chalk it up under "extremely simplistic reasoning"¹. But it's cute of you to try and drag the topic back to where you're comfortable.
> ¹: What that statement is saying is *if A+B=C, therefore D*, which is false. If you can't see God, you can't see God. To try and read more into it will always be fallacious, I mean, it could be that right when you looked, He stepped out for a sandwich.


Spartus, are you this sarcastic in real life?  You sound like you are dealing with some issues of low self-esteem so you need to put others down to overcompensate.  Maybe you're a chronic underachiever and you find sarcasm helps to mask the real you.  Whatever it is, I honestly wish you the best.

----------


## spartus

Way to prove QD right, Rimmy.

----------


## rinselberg

This post includes an optional AUDIO segment: Supersax reprises the famous Charlie Parker standard "Ornithology". Recorded: 1975. Track length: 04:05. Source: RinselTunes


_Charlie Parker. CLICK on the photo if you wish to play the audio segment that was selected for this post._



_An ultraviolet-induced fluorescence photograph of the new Archaeopteryx speciment shows its preserved bone substance, including feet that are turned like a dinosaur's._

By Bjorn Carey
Updated: 2:20 p.m. ET Dec. 1, 2005

When it comes to feet, the earliest-known bird species had more in common with Velociraptors than cardinals.

Modern bird feet have a hind toe that points backward and helps the birds perch on branches, power lines, and pirates' shoulders. And until a recent discovery of an extremely well-preserved skeleton of the earliest-known bird species, Archaeopteryx, scientists believed it too had a "perching toe."

The new fossil, known as the "Thermopolis specimen," is incredibly well-preserved. It left clear impressions of its wing and tail feathers in the limestone it was encased in, and the skull is the best-preserved of all the 10 specimens ever discovered. But it may be the feet that prove to be the most important aspect of the find ...

*For the complete MSNBC report:*
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10283203/


Rinselberg has posted previously on the topics of Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent (Biological) Design Theory, and also on Theology, via:

Post title: Intelligent Design: Is it just "smoke and mirrors" ...?
Subject: Neo-Darwinists critique the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=133

Post title: Lowly cilia may have Neo-Darwinists singing a brand new tune ... 
Subject: Posits a Neo-Darwinist response to the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=129

Post title: serendipity
Subject: Latest observations of endosymbiosis - a powerful Neo-Darwinian "bullet"?
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...8&postcount=64

Post title: RinselNews - Fair and Balanced
Subject: Brief discussion of ID (Intelligent Design) and well known ID theorist Michael Behe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=265

Post title: Fossil evidence for macroevolution
Subject: Discusses transitional evolutionary forms in the fossil record from a Neo-Darwinist viewpoint.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=237

Post title: Deism and the Big Bang
Subject: Responds to *ksquared's* discourse concerning the Big Bang theory of the origins of the observable universe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=161

Post title: A Neo-Darwinist speaks
Subject: Comments on the possible natural evolution of human morality and links to a profile of the widely published Neo-Darwinist Robert Trivers.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=59



OptiBoard member rinselberg describes how he's carved his own personalized cyberspace on the Web under the mock umbrella tradename *rinselberg.*
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=217

----------


## Chairtime

> Way to prove QD right, Rimmy.


And way to prove ME right, Mr. Smartypants

----------


## QDO1

> _An ultraviolet-induced fluorescence photograph of the new Archaeopteryx speciment shows its preserved bone substance, including feet that are turned like a dinosaur's._
> 
> By Bjorn Carey
> Updated: 2:20 p.m. ET Dec. 1, 2005
> 
> When it comes to feet, the earliest-known bird species had more in common with Velociraptors than cardinals.
> 
> Modern bird feet have a hind toe that points backward and helps the birds perch on branches, power lines, and pirates' shoulders. And until a recent discovery of an extremely well-preserved skeleton of the earliest-known bird species, Archaeopteryx, scientists believed it too had a "perching toe."
> 
> The new fossil, known as the "Thermopolis specimen," is incredibly well-preserved. It left clear impressions of its wing and tail feathers in the limestone it was encased in, and the skull is the best-preserved of all the 10 specimens ever discovered. But it may be the feet that prove to be the most important aspect of the find ...


Most scientists dont have a problem with macro-evoloutiuon, it is only the ID camp, who c\laim they do.  Most serious scientists dismiss ID and other offshoot constructs such as irriducability as a a diversion to the real science that is going on, such as what is reported in this article

----------


## spartus

> And way to prove ME right, Mr. Smartypants


I'd ask what you're talking about, but I don't think you know either.

----------


## spartus

> Most scientists dont have a problem with macro-evoloutiuon, it is only the ID camp, who c\laim they do.  Most serious scientists dismiss ID and other offshoot constructs such as irriducability as a a diversion to the real science that is going on, such as what is reported in this article


Besides, macroevolution (AKA speciation) has already been proven, as I detailed here. There are a couple more examples here.

----------


## rinselberg

"Body and Soul" featuring Thelonius Monk

Track length 03:05  source: RinselTunes
_CLICK on the record icon (above), if you wish to play the audio segment that was selected for this post._




> Catholics [may] believe whatever science [determines] about the evolution of the human *body,* so long as they [accept] that, at some time of his choosing, God has infused the *soul* into [us].


In 1997, Stephen Jay Gould said that this was his understanding of Pope Pius XII in the 1950 Vatican encyclical _Humani Generis._ The reference is to Catholics, but it seems to me that this could be a very attractive proposition for anyone with faith in God (god or gods; goddess or goddesses) that is also favorably impressed with the scientific credibility of Darwinism. On the other hand, atheists (agnostics ... deists ...?) could also accept it with just a quiet _wink and a nod_ about the "soul" part.

So, could more of us find common ground, or at least draw closer together in our beliefs, if we all went _this a'way?_

In the same essay, Gould coined the acronym NOMA for his concept of science and religion as "nonoverlapping magesteria":


> The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.


The excerpts are from an essay by the celebrated Neo-Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould, first published in 1997 under the title "Nonoverlapping Magesteria", in the scientific journal _Natural History._ The complete essay is available online at the Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive.


rinselberg has posted previously on Neo-Darwinism Vs. Intelligent (Biological) Design, and on Theology, via:

Post title: New fossil evidence for macroevolution: Birds from dinosaurs.
Subject: New fossil reveals a bird-like creature with a dinosaur-like foot.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=144
_Updated with a new audio segment._

Post title: Intelligent Design: Is it just "smoke and mirrors" ...?
Subject: Neo-Darwinists critique the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=133

Post title: Lowly cilia may have Neo-Darwinists singing a brand new tune ... 
Subject: Posits a Neo-Darwinist response to the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=129

Post title: serendipity
Subject: Latest observations of endosymbiosis - a powerful Neo-Darwinian "bullet"?
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...8&postcount=64

Post title: RinselNews - Fair and Balanced
Subject: Brief discussion of ID (Intelligent Design) and well known ID theorist Michael Behe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=265

Post title: Fossil evidence for macroevolution
Subject: Discusses transitional evolutionary forms in the fossil record from a Neo-Darwinist viewpoint.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=237

Post title: Deism and the Big Bang
Subject: Responds to *ksquared's* discourse concerning the Big Bang theory of the origins of the observable universe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=161

Post title: A Neo-Darwinist speaks
Subject: Comments on the possible natural evolution of human morality and links to a profile of the widely published Neo-Darwinist Robert Trivers.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=59



OptiBoard member rinselberg describes how he's carved his own personalized cyberspace on the Web under the mock umbrella tradename *rinselberg.*
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=217

----------


## QDO1

> "Body and Soul" featuring Thelonius Monk
> Track length 03:05source: RinselTunes


Monk is "the man"  allong side Bird, Blakey and all the other Hatters.  I recon Rinsel knows what I mean by "what sort of hat are you wearing"

----------


## Spexvet

> The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, ...


Except that there's this religious document called "The Bible", that says God created everything, which overlaps and conflicts with reality - I mean scientific theory.

----------


## Shwing

May or may not be germane:

Biology, as George Wald has said, was a unique science because it could not define its subject matter.  Nobody had a definition for life.  Nobody knew what it was, really.  The old definitions- an organism that showed ingestion, excretion, metabolism, reproduction, and so on- were worthless.  One could always find exceptions.



This group had finally concluded that energy conversion was the hallmark of life.  All living organisms in some way took in energy- as food, or sunlight-  and converted it to another form of energy, and put it to use (viruses were the exception to this rule, but the group was prepared to define viruses as nonliving.)



For the next meeting, Leavitt was asked to prepare a rebuttal to the definition.  He pondered it for a week, and returned with three objects: a swatch of black cloth, a watch, and a piece of granite.  He set them down before the group and said, Gentlemen, I give you three living things.



He then challenged the team to prove that they were not living.  He placed the black cloth in the sunlight; it became warm.  This, he announced, was an example of energy conversion- radiant energy to heat.



It was objected that this was merely passive energy absorption, not conversion.  It was also objected that the conversion, if it could be called that, was not purposeful.  It served no function.

How do you know it is not purposeful?  Leavitt had demanded.

They then turned to the watch.  Leavitt pointed to the radium dial, which glowed in the dark.  Decay was taking place, and the light was being produced.



The men argued that this was merely release of potential energy held in unstable electron levels.  But there was growing confusion; Leavitt was making his point.



Finally, they came to the granite.  This is alive, Leavitt said.  It is living, breathing, walking and talking.  Only we cannot see it, because it is happening too slowly.  Rock has a lifespan of three billion years.  We have a lifespan of sixty or seventy years.  We cannot see what is happening to this rock for the same reason that we cannot make out the tune on a record being played at the rate of one revolution every century.  And the rock, for its part, is not even aware of our existence because we are alive for only a brief instant of its lifespan.  To it, we are like flashes in the dark.



-From Michael Chrictons The Andromeda Strain  1969

----------


## spartus

I've long been partial to Dave Barry's definition: "Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it."

----------


## rinselberg

The left-handed and right-handed optical isomers of the amino acid valine. Credit: http://www.sp.uconn.edu


_Track length 03:38   "Misty" featuring Johnny Mathis
CLICK on the record icon (above) if you wish to play the audio segment that was selected for this post. CLICK on RinselTunes if you would like to make your own audio selection. CLICK on AskRinselTunes to ask rinselberg about the reason for an audio selection, and be sure to include a post title, post number or other information sufficient to identify a specific post in your inquiry._


I like to call the idea that humanity has been deliberately created by an intelligent designer (who may or may not be God ...), instead of evolving through randomly-driven Darwinian processes, "Intelligent _Biological_ Design". It's more commonly known as "Intelligent Design" or "ID". One of the observations that ID advocates have brought to center stage is the phenomenon of biological _homochirality_. The first example that comes to mind is that all known terrestrial life forms exhibit DNA that is composed only from *left-handed* amino acids. How could this have happened, except by a process of deliberate design? Or, as I lifted from a previous poster on this thread:


> Every amino acid has a distinct mirror image of itself, one left-handed version or L-form, and one right-handed version or D-form. These mirror-image forms are called "optical isomers." In nature, the right-handed and left-handed isomers occur in roughly equal frequency, but functioning proteins will only tolerate left-handed amino acids. Yet, the statistical probability of randomly attaining only L-form amino acids in a peptide chain is roughly *one chance in 10 raised to the 30th power!*


A recent laboratory experiment illustrates how left-handed amino acids could have become the exclusive biological component, through randomly-driven Darwinian processes:


> A chemical reaction that demonstrates how key molecules in the biological world might have come to be predominately left or right handed has been reported by scientists at Imperial College London. 
> 
> Ever since discovering that the building blocks of the biological world, such as amino acids and sugars, are distinctively left or right handed - possessing a quality known as chirality - scientists have been puzzling to answer how and why. 
> 
> They believe that at the dawn of biological life there were even numbers of molecules in each form, but through hitherto unknown processes, one particular form came to completely dominate over the others (for example left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars), a feature known as homochirality. 
> 
> Now, using simple organic molecules, the Imperial researchers have demonstrated that an amino acid itself can amplify the concentration of one particular chiral form of reaction product. Importantly, the experiment works in similar conditions to those expected around pre-biotic life and displays all the signs to suggest it may be a model for how biological homochirality evolved. 
> 
> The research is published this week in the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition ...


I lifted that from a press release of the Imperial College London, dated 21-Jun-2004, and posted under the title How left-handed amino acids got ahead.

Neo-Darwinists use the term "frozen accident" to convey the idea that the very first or "root" node on the evolutionary tree - i.e., the very first life form to develop - was composed with only the left-handed forms of amino acids, and then passed that trait forward to all subsequent life forms that emerged, through the processes of Neo-Darwinian (or genetic) evolution. And it may not have been just a random or 50/50 chance that the left-handed forms came to dominate instead of the right-handed forms: It's been observed that the effects of magnetic fields, and/or circularly polarized UV light from neutron stars, could have tipped the balance in favor of left-handed amino acids in the chemical environment that predated and eventually gave rise to life on earth. This is my interpretation of an article that was posted, along with some additional discussion, under the title The Left Hand of Darwin. That website is known as "The Panda's Thumb".



rinselberg has posted previously on Neo-Darwinism Vs. Intelligent (Biological) Design, and on Theology, via:

Post title: NOMA: An Rx for the faithful from Stephen Jay Gould
Subject: The nonoverlapping magisteria of science and religion
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=149

Post title: New fossil evidence for macroevolution: Birds from dinosaurs.
Subject: New fossil reveals a bird-like creature with a dinosaur-like foot.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=144
_Updated with a new audio segment._

Post title: Intelligent Design: Is it just "smoke and mirrors" ...?
Subject: Neo-Darwinists critique the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=133

Post title: Lowly cilia may have Neo-Darwinists singing a brand new tune ... 
Subject: Posits a Neo-Darwinist response to the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=129

Post title: serendipity
Subject: Latest observations of endosymbiosis - a powerful Neo-Darwinian "bullet"?
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...8&postcount=64

Post title: RinselNews - Fair and Balanced
Subject: Brief discussion of ID (Intelligent Design) and well known ID theorist Michael Behe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=265

Post title: Fossil evidence for macroevolution
Subject: Discusses transitional evolutionary forms in the fossil record from a Neo-Darwinist viewpoint.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=237

Post title: Deism and the Big Bang
Subject: Responds to *ksquared's* discourse concerning the Big Bang theory of the origins of the observable universe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=161

Post title: A Neo-Darwinist speaks
Subject: Comments on the possible natural evolution of human morality and links to a profile of the widely published Neo-Darwinist Robert Trivers.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=59



OptiBoard member rinselberg describes how he's carved his own personalized cyberspace on the Web under the mock umbrella tradename *rinselberg.*
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=217

----------


## QDO1

I put this one - chirality, under the normal ID trait - "er - I dont understand it, it is so amazing, it must have been god"

Thalidomide is a sedative drug that was prescribed to pregnant women. When taken during the first trimester of pregnancy, Thalidomide prevented the proper growth of the foetus, resulting in horrific birth defects in thousands of children around the world. Why? The Thalidomide molecule is chiral. There are left and right-handed Thalidomides. The drug was a 50/50 mixture. The left handed molecule, was a sedative, whereas the right one was found later to cause foetal abnormalities. The tragedy is claimed to have been entirely avoidable had the physiological properties of the individual thalidomide molecules been tested prior to use

So what has this to do with this discussion  - well chirality is effected by evoloution too, it is just the lefthanded molecule won.  There are a lot of theories why - rotation of the earth, magnetic fields, or just plain evoloution of the fittest.  It must be noted that many examples of chirality in chemistry and physics show a left handed pre-dominance.  Just as Thalidomide is chiral, and has very different properties to its left or right handed version, many other chemicals and structures are too... If Thalidomide was a factor in evoloution, one would see that it is pretty obvious that the left hand molecule would have predominance in cases of selection

----------


## rinselberg

There are two new and superbly written articles on the Internet about Evolution, that also discuss Intelligent Design. These articles are scholarly, but written for a lay audience.

"Better Living Through Evolution"
_The science of novelty and complexity in life forms_
by Daniel L. Hartl
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110512.html

"Intelligent Evolution"
_The consequences of Charles Darwin's "one long argument"_
by Edward O. Wilson
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110518.html


_rinselberg has posted previously on Neo-Darwinism Vs. Intelligent (Biological) Design, and on Theology, via:_

Post title: The Left Hand of Charles Darwin
Subject: Neo-Darwinists address the issue of biochemical homochirality
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=154

Post title: NOMA: An Rx for the faithful from Stephen Jay Gould
Subject: The nonoverlapping magisteria of science and religion
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=149

Post title: New fossil evidence for macroevolution: Birds from dinosaurs.
Subject: New fossil reveals a bird-like creature with a dinosaur-like foot.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=144

Post title: Intelligent Design: Is it just "smoke and mirrors" ...?
Subject: Neo-Darwinists critique the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=133

Post title: Lowly cilia may have Neo-Darwinists singing a brand new tune ... 
Subject: Posits a Neo-Darwinist response to the ID theory of "irreducible biological complexity"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=129

Post title: serendipity
Subject: Latest observations of endosymbiosis - a powerful Neo-Darwinian "bullet"?
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...8&postcount=64

Post title: RinselNews - Fair and Balanced
Subject: Brief discussion of ID (Intelligent Design) and well known ID theorist Michael Behe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=265

Post title: Fossil evidence for macroevolution
Subject: Discusses transitional evolutionary forms in the fossil record from a Neo-Darwinist viewpoint.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=237

Post title: Deism and the Big Bang
Subject: Responds to *ksquared's* discourse concerning the Big Bang theory of the origins of the observable universe.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=161

Post title: A Neo-Darwinist speaks
Subject: Comments on the possible natural evolution of human morality and links to a profile of the widely published Neo-Darwinist Robert Trivers.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=59

----------


## rinselberg

_There are some who say that Intelligent Design is the wave of the future. Let them come to OptiBoard._




> Tomorrow, Ill take a look at the lowly amoeba, a single-celled organism conveniently located at the beginning of the evolutionary tree, that is responsible for all of the [biological] complexity that we see around us today: A simple little creature, whos DNA contains enough information (instructions) to fill 1,000 sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica.


I think that there is a tendency among some who favor the idea of Intelligent (Biological) Design, over Darwinian evolution, to confuse the technical or biometric meaning of the term "information" or "information content", with _intelligence._


credit: http://www.genomesize.com/index.php

I have posted (above) a representation of genome size, as scientists have been able to measure it, for an almost encyclopedic range of life forms. An organism's "C-value" is the amount of DNA in a single copy of its genome. This chart expresses C-values in units of mass, using the _pg_ - picogram, or one-trillionth of a gram. There is a straightforward conversion formula for translating C-values from pg to _Mb_ (megabase) - a biometric measure of information content, similar to (although not the same as) the Mb (megabytes) that are so familiar to PC and Mac users. Basically, if scientists know the mass of an organism's DNA, they can extrapolate very directly to its information content: The number of amino acids (the "instructions") in the genetic code that comes into play when the organism replicates itself in the form of offspring.

There seems to be no correlation whatsoever between an organism's genetic information content, as expressed in terms of C-value, and its _complexity_ - in an intuitive sense.

Humans _(homo sapiens)_ have a C-value of 3.50 pg - not even at the upper end of the range for mammals. We're actually just about average, in terms of the size of our DNA, for a mammal. That range tops out at 8.40 pg of DNA - for _tympanoctomys barrerae_ - the red viscacha rat!

But there's even _worse,_ if we look "down" our evolutionary nose at "lowly" salamanders and lungfish - they have more DNA than any mammal, including us. Among the creatures that are too small to see except with a microscope, genome size can be almost anything - from as little as  0.0023 pg for the parasitic microsporidium _encephalitozoon intestinalis,_ to as much as 1,400 (one thousand, four hundred) pg in the free-living amoeba _chaos chaos:_ This amoeba's genome is between 100 and 1000 times larger than a human's!

So a statement like the one I quoted from another poster (at the very top here), which compares the information content of an amoeba's DNA to 1,000 sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica, is very _problematic_, in terms of how it might support either evolution or Intelligent (Biological) Design.

I think that Neo-Darwinists have a LOT on their docket here, that needs to be sorted out.

But, on the other hand, I think that Intelligent Design advocates are facing an even BIGGER problem here, with respect to _their_ point of view.

What do _you_ think?


For more on the exact topic of this post, see C-value enigma, C-value, genome size and junk DNA.

To see what some OptiBoarders had to say about the *human eye* and its implications for the modern theory of evolution (November 2000):
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1566

For more online reading (including a number of my own recent posts) about Charles Darwin, the modern theory of evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design, scroll back up to the post just above (156), or open a new browser window by _clicking_ on this URL:
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=156

----------


## QDO1

> I think that there is a tendency among some who favor the idea of Intelligent (Biological) Design, over Darwinian evolution, to confuse the technical or biometric meaning of the term "information" or "information content", with _intelligence._


That, was one of the best comments so far in this thread. the other thought on this matter is the quality of the information, and instructional information. I could repersent a list, of numbers from 1 - 1000, like this

*Computer code:* for I = 1 to 1000, print I, next I; (this will generate a list of numbers from 1 to 1000)
*or, descriptivley:* list every number from 1 to 1000
*or, long hand*

1
2
3
....
998
999
1000


the final information list is the same, the amount of information is massivley different

----------


## chm2023

If you walk away from evolution and embrace ID, then you need to accept the notion of God (yeah, it's not necessarily God, just some vague Intelligent Designer. Right...) as a bumbler given to fits and starts and random decisions--why the appendix for instance, or why are various species bound by geography--seems to me God could have let us have those cute koalas and kangaroos in this hemisphere. What is this, God as Bill Clinton, I did it because I could?

It just makes no sense that God or any ID would give us humans bodies whose various parts disintegrate at such widely varying rates.

Whatever.

----------


## spartus

> If you walk away from evolution and embrace ID, then you need to accept the notion of God (yeah, it's not necessarily God, just some vague Intelligent Designer. Right...) as a bumbler given to fits and starts and random decisions--why the appendix for instance, or why are various species bound by geography--seems to me God could have let us have those cute koalas and kangaroos in this hemisphere. What is this, God as Bill Clinton, I did it because I could?
> 
> It just makes no sense that God or any ID would give us humans bodies whose various parts disintegrate at such widely varying rates.
> 
> Whatever.


Some would probably argue that presbyopia, to name just one instance of time-release disintegration, was part of His Divine Plan. Probably only in the large-print editions of the Bible, though.

----------


## chm2023

> Some would probably argue that presbyopia, to name just one instance of time-release disintegration, was part of His Divine Plan. Probably only in the large-print editions of the Bible, though.


LOL:bbg:

----------


## rinselberg

_Panderichthys - credit: http://www.capaventure.fr_ 

Researchers say reexamination of a fossil fish suggests how our ears could have evolved from more primitive organs. The sound conducting middle ear of land animals appears to have evolved from an auxiliary breathing chamber used by prehistoric fish. Critics of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, including ID (Intelligent Design) advocates, have questioned how a complex organ like the eye (or ear ) could have evolved in stages, when having just part of an eye (or ear) would seem not to offer the competitive advantage required for natural selection: "Survival of the fittest."


> "This is another nail in the coffin of the creationist view, in my opinion," said Mark W. Westneat, an associate curator of zoology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. "It is a great fill-in-the-gap story that shows a [clear-cut transitional form] at an important point in evolution."


But some scientists remain skeptical - and the new "ear hypothesis" would require a revision of some earlier thinking on this topic by evolutionists.

For more:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10913802/

----------


## drk

> It was just a blunt way of saying that evolutionists don't think Christian ID theorists can be objective. At least that's how I interpreted drk's answer.
> 
> As for aliens, it's irrelevant who actually designed us. But the meteor thing doesn't qualify as ID. Unless the meteor was designed to plant us here.


Yes, Chairtime, that's what I meant.  True about the "unguided missles".  That would promote "panspermia", not intelligent design.

----------


## drk

> lets keep the science lessons strictly on what is generally accepted to be science. the religious lessons have a purpose (someone might explain that to me one day) and the science lessons teach science theory and good practice, which assumes a skeptisisim and a knowlege that sciene is something that in the overall sense has evolved


I would agree to that, with one disclosure (and I picked it up on this board, somewhere, as a linked quote, and I grossly paraphrase): "Science is the endeavor to explain the physical universe without reference to a God".  

Can we agree on that?  

If so, then I think intelligent design version #1 (secular) would NOT be taught, since it's not very accepted.

Intelligent design version #2 (creationist) would NOT be taught, either, except in religious institutions.

I do think that the subset of I.D. proponents that are Christian creationist (the majority?) are barking up the wrong tree, on this issue.  If they want a creationist viewpoint taught, they're going to have to do that on their own.  

A much better use of their time would be to fight for school vouchers.

----------


## drk

I think after this thread has rambled for so long, a few points need to be made:

1.) Intelligent design proponents don't buy evolutionary theory.

2.) Evolutionary theorists don't buy I.D. theory.

3.) Evolution is put "on the defensive", so to speak, by the I.D. issue, and evolution proponents are fighting back.

4.) Whether evolution or I.D. is appropriate to be taught in schools, one could argue about many, many other curricula issues as well as philosophy of education issues.  That's only a drop in the bucket.

5.) The existence of God cannot be proven tautologically, nor empirically.  It can be inferred from interpretation of the evidence.

6.) Interpretation of the evidence may lead one to see lack of God's existence, as well.  Interpretation on such giant issues will vary widely!

7.) In a nutshell, all who believe in God (as He is commonly known in this culture) are hypocrites if they believe in evolution.  

8.) If you wish to believe in the randomness of evolution and the long time frame it takes, and you are not bothered by the liklihood issues (which, BTW, we all should admit we are in an unlikely position to be reading this), and you want to believe in a form of god, you have some 'splainin' to do.  You will be best served by your own creativity, or embracing an eastern religion.

9.) If you are an atheist, then by definition you believe in the eternal universe and the logical necessity of evolution, otherwise you could not support your atheism.  Nothing wrong with that.  Consistent.

10.) While discussions of the interpretation of the physical evidence is fun, it really doesn't convince everyone.  I think, though, that it should be apparent that there are reasonably consistent arguments on both sides (however mutually exclusive in truth content). 

11.) It all comes down to if you believe in God, and what kind of God you believe in, doesn't it?

----------


## chm2023

> I think after this thread has rambled for so long, a few points need to be made:
> 
> 1.) Intelligent design proponents don't buy evolutionary theory.
> 
> 2.) Evolutionary theorists don't buy I.D. theory.
> 
> 3.) Evolution is put "on the defensive", so to speak, by the I.D. issue, and evolution proponents are fighting back.
> 
> 4.) Whether evolution or I.D. is appropriate to be taught in schools, one could argue about many, many other curricula issues as well as philosophy of education issues. That's only a drop in the bucket.
> ...


Well I believe in God and I believe in evolution so I guess I'm a hypocrite.  Heck I've been called worse.  (This is the de facto position of the Catholic Church FYI).

----------


## drk

Hi, CHM.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume that you have sort of a "theistic evolutionary" stance? God was the source of the universe, but He put forces into play that were random, but He knew that life would evolve (being all-knowing)?

This God has some communication with us, somehow, but certainly not through the "easy-to-misinterpret"/"partially redacted"/"can't-really-tell-what's-allegory-from-what's-historical" Bible? I mean,_ some_ of it is good, but...the rest? All-in-all, we can't really put much trust in the Bible, right?

This God is difficult to know and understand with any degree of certainty, so one's belief about God just about equals another's? I won't impose my view of God on you, and you don't impose your view of God on me, right?

Let's be frank...we're not talking about something "real", here. This whole thing is subjective, subjective, subjective. In today's "it's a small world afterall" milieu, it's just plain offensive to take God that seriously. _Have some couth and get along. That's what's really important!_

Am I even close?

----------


## spartus

> "Science is the endeavor to explain the physical universe without reference to a God". 
> 
> Can we agree on that?


No. 

How 'bout:

"Science is the endeavor to explain the physical universe."

Better still:

"Religion is the endeavor to explain the physical universe using only references to a God."

----------


## drk

Don't pollute your humanistic endeavor of science with mention of God, huh? OK, I'll bite on your definition of that in which you trust. But let me define mine, then:

"Religion is the discipline that explains God's meaning and purpose for our lives, and the events in history and the future, as God has revealed them, including an explanation of creation. Science (our science, not yours) endeavors to explain the physical universe in detail to understand and appreciate God's handiwork and to use creation as God intended us to."

Bet you don't like that, do you, Spartus? You want to lay claim on "science", but "science the process" vs. "science the belief system" are not the same thing. 

You should check out the religious beliefs of your science icons, sometime. You seem more philosophical than scientific, though, if I do say, Spartus. Maybe your icons are the existentialists, for all I know.

----------


## chm2023

> Hi, CHM.
> 
> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume that you have sort of a "theistic evolutionary" stance? God was the source of the universe, but He put forces into play that were random, but He knew that life would evolve (being all-knowing)?
> 
> This God has some communication with us, somehow, but certainly not through the "easy-to-misinterpret"/"partially redacted"/"can't-really-tell-what's-allegory-from-what's-historical" Bible? I mean,_ some_ of it is good, but...the rest? All-in-all, we can't really put much trust in the Bible, right?
> 
> This God is difficult to know and understand with any degree of certainty, so one's belief about God just about equals another's? I won't impose my view of God on you, and you don't impose your view of God on me, right?
> 
> Let's be frank...we're not talking about something "real", here. This whole thing is subjective, subjective, subjective. In today's "it's a small world afterall" milieu, it's just plain offensive to take God that seriously. _Have some couth and get along. That's what's really important!_
> ...


I don't really understand your POV but I'll give it a shot.

Certainly religion is absolutely subjective in the sense there is no "objective" proof. And I am not a big fan of imposing my view, or your view, or Joe Blow's view, on anyone. And the Bible in my opinion is largely parable and oral history.

I don't know if I agree that God is not fashionable, but even if that's so, it really doesn't make much difference. The essence of fashion is that it changes.

There was a big story on last night's news about an article published in L'Obsservature Romano (Vatican newpaper) that re-confirms the Church's support for evolution and rejection of ID.  Explains what I believe much more eloquently that I can.
http://news.com.com/Intelligent+desi...3-6028924.html

----------


## spartus

> Don't pollute your humanistic endeavor of science with mention of God, huh?


I'm not being adversarial, I'm attempting to get you to stop trying to drag religion into places where it doesn't belong.




> OK, I'll bite on your definition of that in which you trust. But let me define mine, then:
> 
> "Religion is the discipline that explains God's meaning and purpose for our lives, and the events in history and the future, as God has revealed them, including an explanation of creation. Science (our science, not yours) endeavors to explain the physical universe in detail to understand and appreciate God's handiwork and to use creation as God intended us to."
> 
> Bet you don't like that, do you, Spartus? You want to lay claim on "science", but "science the process" vs. "science the belief system" are not the same thing.


I don't have a single problem with it. That definition is a great deal broader than your first, hackneyed attempt at it. I don't know what the difference between "my" science and "your" science is, though. But I bet you'll tell me now that I've taken the bait.

But before you do, I have to mention that the way you're trying to define science as a "belief system" is the way a liverwurst sandwich is a salad bar. If you want to get that loose with the definition, traffic lights are a belief system, since I only "believe" the lights going to turn green after I've stopped at a red. And you call me existential. Hmph.




> You should check out the religious beliefs of your science icons, sometime. You seem more philosophical than scientific, though, if I do say, Spartus. Maybe your icons are the existentialists, for all I know.


My trading card set of the Great Thinkers of the Post-Enlightenment Era does that for me already, thanks. Got three mint John Stuart Mills that I'll trade for a near-mint or better Einstein if you've got it.

All kidding aside, how many times do I have to explain this, anyway? The personal religious convictions of others have no bearing on what I think of them. You, you're an interesting guy, fun to argue with about silly stuff like this. However, I think you're much more religious than is really necessary, but it doesn't stop me from wanting to pick your brain and continue to poke and prod back and forth with all this. 

What I like about our conversations is that you'll reply honestly and forthrightly to the more difficult-to-answer questions that I've posed, unlike a few others I may have interacted with lately. ;)

----------


## drk

*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"*


Thank you, Spartus, for the congeniality.

I have never been able to get this point across, effectively, ever, but I'm going to try again.

Let's de-construct the gestalt "science":

Its end is to understand for intellectual satisfaction, and to practically apply the knowledge, ultimately.

Its methods are essentially to use "empiricism"; an objective measure of the objective. Testing like with like.

Its collective body of work is a mixed bag, some true and correct, some less so.

That, I believe, unless I'm missing something, is the whole of science.

Now, let's contrast that to "naturalism":
Naturalism is the point-of-view that everything that exists is, essentially, within a closed system, nature. Anything outside that system is unknowable and, essentially, so speculative as to be practically useless.

People in our current system of science have adopted the naturalistic precept more, and more, and more, to the degree that it is now confused with naturalism and is inseparable from it, in some people's mind.

There, however, is no monopoly on the use of scientific methodology towards scientific aims. Anyone can apply them, even theists, such as myself, and "science" is not proprietary to the "ensconced scientific community" any more than music is proprietary to professional musicians.

What you apparently are, is a naturalist, not a scientist. If you want to maintain (to your above point) a _belief system of naturalism,_ you are as free to do so as you can possibly be. As a theist, I am likewise free to use science to question the body of work science has accumulated, including the evolutionary theory, as many find scientific fault with evolutionary theory, and as anyone who really knows much about evolution is well aware of it's problems (regardless of whether they want to continue using the theory as a valid explanation or not).

As to intelligent design, in the most basic sense, most people of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim-monotheistic-Western-religion _should_ logically and faithfully be forced to admit that they believe it. As to the _intelligent design movement,_ it is nothing more than a continuation of the culture clash between religious people and secularists.

This whole debate is on-point ONLY when debating the issue of religion vs. secularism in our society, NOT when either evolution as a scientific theory or Christian belief is being assailed/apologized for.

My point "science can be defined as the attempt to explain the universe without the reference to God" was a hybridized definition I adopted in concession to the ignorant but ubiquitous confusion between science and naturalism.

You apparently have the position that the appropriate marginalization of religious thought and/or the sanctity of "science" disallows the juxtaposition of the word "God" and "science". You confuse political rights for intellectual concepts, apparently. Just because you want your "freedom from religion" (a right not guaranteed, anywhere), you don't want to address the theological aspects of human existence and would prefer to address only the naturalistic ones. That, sir, is tyranny; in a free-thinking society, why should not all perspectives be allowed into discussion?

"Why...why...it's SCIENCE class, for crying out loud" you may say. "Why should we debate such wide-ranging theories as creationism vs. evolution? No, WE THE PEOPLE have spoken: the only OFFICIAL PERSPECTIVE that we will allow in PUBLIC schools is "_Scientific Naturalism"._ All the while, most do not understand that what is being taught as objective fact has many, many, many unanswered questions and is riddled with near-fatal flaws. My opinion is that ignorance is begetting ignorance: because the general lack of critical thought, people are way to quick to defer to a bearded, tenured, middle-aged man with academic credentials to do academics.  If "science" has the temerity to claim to explain the origins of man and the universe, it ought to have the intellectual guts to debate all comers on a level playing field.

I would not dismiss the intelligent design movement, as it is but a single tentacle of the flying spaghetti monster that is "the religious right". Enjoy your spoils in an ongoing culture battle that you unfortunately are destined to win. If I may say, though, the war goes to our side.

----------


## rinselberg

This Wikipedia Online article Origin of Life surprised me - I wasn't expecting so much interesting material, and I didn't realize how many different theories are still in play.

If you would like to contemplate how life may have appeared on earth without the assistance of an Intelligent Designer(s), this is a good place to start, if you haven't been there already.

----------


## ksquared

> Researchers say reexamination of a fossil fish suggests how our ears could have evolved from more primitive organs. The sound conducting middle ear of land animals appears to have evolved from an auxiliary breathing chamber used by prehistoric fish. Critics of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, including ID (Intelligent Design) advocates, have questioned how a complex organ like the eye (or ear ) could have evolved in stages, when having just part of an eye (or ear) would seem not to offer the competitive advantage required for natural selection: "Survival of the fittest."But some scientists remain skeptical - and the new "ear hypothesis" would require a revision of some earlier thinking on this topic by evolutionists. Rinselberg's complete post


OK, a researcher takes a closer look at the fossil of a pre-historic fish and finds what appears to be an auxiliary breathing chamber. Next he/she takes a look at the middle ears of some land animals and observes some similarities in the bone structure. So what conclusions can be drawn?

*If*: You dont want to be branded as a Bible-thumping creationist, or a wacko, or lose your research funding, you conclude the middle ears of land animals appear to have evolved from the auxiliary breathing chamber of a pre-historic fish. 

*Else*: You conclude that one prehistoric fish has an auxiliary breathing chamber and land animals have middle ears. 

One of the problems with the fossil record is that its inconsistent with gradualism (ie: an auxiliary breathing chamber step by stepping into the middle ear of a land animal). Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear. Any morphological change is usually limited and directionless. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by a steady transformation of its ancestors; they appear all at once and fully formed (Stephen J. Gould  Evolutions Erratic pace). What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin. 

But even if we were able to overcome the huge gaps in the fossil record by finding the rest of the missing intermediate forms, this still wouldnt prove a link between a fish and a land animal. 99% of the biology of any organism resides in the soft anatomy so it would be very difficult to establish a an ancestral relationship between a fish and a land animal by looking at its fossil remains. In other words, 1% may not provide enough evidence.

----------


## rinselberg

Well, ksquared, it's not too hard to identify some of the current and future research problems for Neo-Darwinian evolutionists - like this conversation we've just been having about the evolution of the human ear.

What I haven't been able to see, to date, is how these currently unsolved problems for the Darwinists move us _away_ from the still evolving theory of evolution, and _towards_ any of the theories of Intelligent (Biological) Design.

----------


## spartus

> *"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"*
> 
> 
> Thank you, Spartus, for the congeniality.
> 
> I have never been able to get this point across, effectively, ever, but I'm going to try again.
> 
> Let's de-construct the gestalt "science":
> 
> ...


The difference, and strength, of science as opposed to other what we have decided to loosely call "belief systems" is that it is self-correctable, self-correcting, and what's more, able to acknowledge that going in. There's a thread somewhere where Pete Hanlin decries all this "teaching" of "knowledge", and wishes schools would just stick to the stuff we know, like planets and stuff, instead of all this evolution and things that no one can really _prove_, since we can't go back in time eleventy skillion years, but we can sure tell that planets move. 

This is a profound shift in the religious mindset. Not so very long ago, the position of The Church was that the Earth was the center of the universe, and anything else was heresy. A few intelligent people looked at the evidence, despite the Ptolemy's well-established idea of how it was put together, and came up with a very different--and correct--interpretation of the facts. 

Skipping over the rest of the history lesson, five centuries later, we have the deeply religious folk who would have opposed that exact discovery on purely religious grounds now singling it out as a shining example of scientific knowledge and one of the _few_ scientific things we should teach children. I'll leave you to draw the line between this and the current discussion.




> Now, let's contrast that to "naturalism":
> Naturalism is the point-of-view that everything that exists is, essentially, within a closed system, nature. Anything outside that system is unknowable and, essentially, so speculative as to be practically useless.
> 
> People in our current system of science have adopted the naturalistic precept more, and more, and more, to the degree that it is now confused with naturalism and is inseparable from it, in some people's mind.
> 
> There, however, is no monopoly on the use of scientific methodology towards scientific aims. Anyone can apply them, even theists, such as myself, and "science" is not proprietary to the "ensconced scientific community" any more than music is proprietary to professional musicians.
> 
> What you apparently are, is a naturalist, not a scientist. If you want to maintain (to your above point) a _belief system of naturalism,_ you are as free to do so as you can possibly be. As a theist, I am likewise free to use science to question the body of work science has accumulated, including the evolutionary theory, as many find scientific fault with evolutionary theory, and as anyone who really knows much about evolution is well aware of it's problems (regardless of whether they want to continue using the theory as a valid explanation or not).


You certainly seem driven to tell me what I am--first I'm an existentialist, then a humanist, now I'm a naturalist. Here I thought I was a cynic who didn't know when to shut up. ;)

What's funny, and this a point I keep coming back to which no one's yet satisfactorily explained to me--if so very many scientists have "problems" with evolution, how come I've never heard of any other than "Miss Cleo" Behe? An answer without including the phrases "liberal media" or "socialist professors" would be helpful. When you have a global resource like the Internet, it's hard to claim censorship.





> As to intelligent design, in the most basic sense, most people of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim-monotheistic-Western-religion _should_ logically and faithfully be forced to admit that they believe it. As to the _intelligent design movement,_ it is nothing more than a continuation of the culture clash between religious people and secularists.


If you're going to force anyone who's got a variously translated Book of Genesis in their holy book to believe anything (setting aside the serious problem I have with forcing anyone to believe anything), it would, of course, be full-on Creationism: The whole ball of wax in six days, six thousand-year-old planet and all. Anyone else, very simply, is a hypocrite. In fact, we should round people up and force them to believe, and kill those who don't! That'd be terrific, though not entirely original. 




> This whole debate is on-point ONLY when debating the issue of religion vs. secularism in our society, NOT when either evolution as a scientific theory or Christian belief is being assailed/apologized for.
> 
> My point "science can be defined as the attempt to explain the universe without the reference to God" was a hybridized definition I adopted in concession to the ignorant but ubiquitous confusion between science and naturalism.
> 
> You apparently have the position that the appropriate marginalization of religious thought and/or the sanctity of "science" disallows the juxtaposition of the word "God" and "science". You confuse political rights for intellectual concepts, apparently. Just because you want your "freedom from religion" (a right not guaranteed, anywhere), you don't want to address the theological aspects of human existence and would prefer to address only the naturalistic ones. That, sir, is tyranny; in a free-thinking society, why should not all perspectives be allowed into discussion?


About freedom from religion: you're right in that it's not an explicitly outlined "right" anywhere in the Constitution. However, trying to argue that since I don't want to know about your religion as it affects you is "tyrannical"--that, sir, is ridiculous. 

Why, then, must religion only be dragged into the discussion if it's evolution? Why not have science class about the rare burning bushes of Egypt? Meteorologists could be forced to spend a whole semester purely on raining toads--the causes, the historical precedents and how to wear our hair to discourage God from doing it again (hint: Like Pat Robertson). The civics of slavery? Animal sacrifice as it pleases the Lord? We could even encourage kids to rat out teachers that go off-curriculum for thirty pieces of silver. Oh, wait. They're already doing that.

The very idea of teaching certain (ie. Judeo-Christian) religious ideas in public schools, in a nation pledged to honor religious freedom, is what's tyrannical. Wouldn't you howl if your kids had a 6-week unit on Satanism? Under whose authority could you keep out Pastafarianism? In a discussion with an OD a year or so ago, he asked me what I thought about "Under God" being in the Pledge of Allegiance. I asked him if he thought it'd be okay if it was "Under Buddha", or "Under Allah". He didn't like the idea very much, and still tried to argue the point of "Well, 'God' can be a generic term." If that's your aim, then first off, you'll have to make sure the passage is written "under god", not "under God", otherwise you'll offend followers of multitheistic religions, like Hindus, who have several hundred million gods. You see what a can of worms you open when you try to bring it into the public sphere?

Here, I'll invent a religion: To ignore all other religions. Other than that, there are no requirements, strictures, or guidelines to follow. Now, forcing any adherents of this new faith to learn religious teachings is specifically against my religion. And so now, the free exercise of this faith is being prohibited. To what end?




> "Why...why...it's SCIENCE class, for crying out loud" you may say. "Why should we debate such wide-ranging theories as creationism vs. evolution? No, WE THE PEOPLE have spoken: the only OFFICIAL PERSPECTIVE that we will allow in PUBLIC schools is "_Scientific Naturalism"._ All the while, most do not understand that what is being taught as objective fact has many, many, many unanswered questions and is riddled with near-fatal flaws. My opinion is that ignorance is begetting ignorance: because the general lack of critical thought, people are way to quick to defer to a bearded, tenured, middle-aged man with academic credentials to do academics.  If "science" has the temerity to claim to explain the origins of man and the universe, it ought to have the intellectual guts to debate all comers on a level playing field.


Please, please, please *please* provide me with ONE "near-fatal flaw". Please. You see, unlike religious thinkers, I find things that make me question my "beliefs" and what I think I know help me understand more of what I think and why I think so, and--gasp!--sometimes change my mind. I haven't seen a single bit of evidence to make me question evolution yet, so I'd invite anything and *everything* you can supply me with. Remember, science doesn't purport to know everything--that's _your_ "side"--it just gives us the best explanation of what everything is _so far_.

----------


## chip anderson

*"Congress Shall Make No Law...."*   Think how much better life would be if they had stopped there.


Chip

----------


## ksquared

The Ksquared post Rinselberg is responding to




> Originally Posted by *rinselberg*





> Well, ksquared, it's not too hard to identify some of the current and future research problems for Neo-Darwinian evolutionists - like this conversation we've just been having about the evolution of the human ear.
> 
> What I haven't been able to see, to date, is how these currently unsolved problems for the Darwinists move us _away_ from the still evolving theory of evolution, and _towards_ any of the theories of Intelligent (Biological) Design.


Im not sure what you mean here. ID isnt whats moving scientists away from the theory of macro-evolution (molecules to man). Its the evidence and a biased definition of science thats causing the drift. Even the Darwinists admit this. 

_The Blind Watchmaker -_ Dawkins " Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose". Two pages later, despite acknowledging "the intricate architecture and precision engineering" in human life and in each of the trillions of cells within the human body, Dawkins flatly denies that human life or any other life has been designed. Pretty strange for a man who believes that science is based on observation.

_The Wedge of Truth -_ Francis Crick, another ardent Darwinist agrees that there is the appearance of design. In fact the appearance of design is so clear he warns: "biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." 

_Billions and Billions of Demons -_ Richard Lewontin of Harvard University: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a natural explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary that we are forced by our _a priori adherence_ to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated...." ...but I digress. Ill leave the politics of the ID debate for another time.

Science is a search for causes*.* We have 2 choices; either the cause was intelligent and nonintelligent (natural). 

The Neo-Darwinist scientists will only consider one option. They claim that life arose from non-life (spontaneous generation) and new life forms arose from existing life forms (macro-evolution), all without any intelligent intervention. Natural nonintelligent laws must be the cause because they consider no other options. By redefining science to exclude an intelligent cause, it also allows them to say ID isnt science. The problem here is their argument is based on their biased definition of science. If your definition of science rules out intelligent causes beforehand, than you would never be able to consider ID as science. 

ID scientists are open to both natural and intelligent causes. They realize that by ruling out intelligent causes from science, you also have to rule out archaeology, cryptology, criminal and accident forensic investigations and even the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). They dont appose continued research into a natural explanation. They are simply observing that in the world of biology, the known natural explanations *fail* and that the empirically detectable evidence points to an intelligent designer. When they conclude that intelligence created the 1st cell or the human brain, or a molecular machine; their conclusions are based on empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent cause. They are following the evidence where it leads.

The answer to "what caused what" shouldnt depend on whether a person is an atheist or a theist, btw. Maybe some of the ID proponents are religiously motivated. So what. Does the religious motivation of some Darwinists make Darwinism false? The answer doesnt lie in the motivation; the answer lies in the quality of the evidence. Where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence support a natural cause or does it support design? The biological evidance is just one piece. When you take into consideration all of it; the fossil record, genetic limits, cyclical change, irreducible complexity, nonviability of transitional forms and molecular isolation; there is not only a lack of evidence for macro-evolution, theres positive evidence that it hasnt even occurred.

----------


## chm2023

> The Ksquared post Rinselberg is responding to
> 
> 
> The answer to "what caused what" shouldnt depend on whether a person is an atheist or a theist, btw. *Maybe some of the ID proponents are religiously motivated. So what.* Does the religious motivation of some Darwinists make Darwinism false? The answer doesnt lie in the motivation; the answer lies in the quality of the evidence. Where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence support a natural cause or does it support design? The biological evidance is just one piece. When you take into consideration all of it; the fossil record, genetic limits, cyclical change, irreducible complexity, nonviability of transitional forms and molecular isolation; there is not only a lack of evidence for macro-evolution, theres positive evidence that it hasnt even occurred.


So what?? Well the issue I have is ID proponents trying to bypass the traditional method whereby knowledge and theories become part of school cirriculum--peer review. When you have ID proponents--who in the case of the Dover Pa situation were virtually all "civilians" with no science background, petitioning individual school boards to include ID in science classes, you need to question motivation. You can conclude these are religious zeolots, or I guess you could accept that a bunch of plumbers and accountants and farmers all became wildly interested in evolution independent of any religious motivation.  At the same time.

----------


## rinselberg

I wish I knew more about some of the terminology that is being deployed by the ID (Intelligent Design) camp. Could someone - perhaps the author of that famously titled OptiBoard post _you should see the one that got away_ - elaborate on the distinction between "genetic limitation(s)" and "cyclical change(s)" --? ... "molecular isolation" --?




There's nowhere you can go to escape this controversy ...

Credit: http://www.troubletown.com



More than just a search for little green men

----------


## QDO1

The ID camp might be better off starting at a different point - where they are all unified in thier beliefs and arguments.  At the drop of the hat some discount the old testament, others believe it.  Some say days are years, others that days are days, some say we will never understand God...  They all seem to discount the blindingly obvious fossil records, and the subsequent dating of them.  Some just invent new terms like irriducible complexity... but then refuse to accept any of the obvious arguments against it.

The only thing so far that unifies the ID camp is the lack of a clear and coherent argument

----------


## drk

CHM, you (correctly) point the direction of the argument towards what policies a school district should take in devoping their curricula. I agree. That does not refute the validity of KK's point, however, nor does KK's address what a school district should do when there is an obvious plurality of opinion. I think you are for an orthodoxy on scientific thought, determined by "mainstream" scientists. I think that's a really healthy position for critical thinkers to take. (NOT)

KK, you're post was superb, as to the primary subject matter being discussed. You will, unfortunately, not convince naturalists of our point, because, as you so eloquently posted, the _a priori_ assumptions that people invariably make is a condition of their hearts, not their heads. No one is truly neutral and unbiased, and I know you know that.

QDO1: You may interpret as "incoherence" the positions of various I.D. supporters, but I think it speaks less to cohesiveness as a "movement" and more to the diversity of groups that comprise I.D. proponentry. That is, simply, more people don't buy evolution than you think.  You're an elitist scientist, though, and the unwashed's opinions don't phase you.

----------


## QDO1

> CHM, you (correctly) point the direction of the argument towards what policies a school district should take in devoping their curricula. I agree. That does not refute the validity of KK's point, however, nor does KK's address what a school district should do when there is an obvious plurality of opinion. I think you are for an orthodoxy on scientific thought, determined by "mainstream" scientists. I think that's a really healthy position for critical thinkers to take. (NOT)
> 
> KK, you're post was superb, as to the primary subject matter being discussed. You will, unfortunately, not convince naturalists of our point, because, as you so eloquently posted, the _a priori_ assumptions that people invariably make is a condition of their hearts, not their heads. No one is truly neutral and unbiased, and I know you know that.
> 
> QDO1: You may interpret as "incoherence" the positions of various I.D. supporters, but I think it speaks less to cohesiveness as a "movement" and more to the diversity of groups that comprise I.D. proponentry. That is, simply, more people don't buy evolution than you think. You're an elitist scientist, though, and the unwashed's opinions don't phase you.


Innocent M'laud...  I dont care how many other think about whatever, what I care about is the utter codswallop that these people want to teach to the young people, in the name of science  

I have stated right from the beginning - teach Darwinisim, Greggor Mendel, fossil records, geology, and the "propper maths" of probability in science class, and teach ID (if you care to) in Religious Education class, allong with all of the other belief systems - for example  Christianity, Bhuddisim, Paganisim, Hinduisim, witchcraft, allong with the other major philosophies and religions.  

I also think youngsters should be taught to think, not follow

That last statement says that I believe science is open to scrutiny, and so is religion.  Let youngsters decide for themselves what weighting they decide to put to each side of the coin

----------


## drk

Hey, King, how about this?

We stop classifying subject matter into headings and we just teach all subjects together, integrating all things into little kids' minds instead of making rather subjective divisions!

History, science, history of science
Religion, politics, politics of religion
Art, science, the aesthetic beauty of the natural world
Mathematics, science, applied mathematics

You see, there are truly no _real_ divisions. We just have a "construct" of division of studies that have a (perhaps unintentional) deeper message, don't we? "Those that name the classes have the power" so to speak. 

Surely you understand this. Those that set the agenda are in the better position, et cetera. Just by defining "science class" and what's in it, and "religion class" and what's in it, is making a statement, is it not? What if we put "Native American Studies" (God FORBID) in religion class? We'd have a meltdown in this country.  What if we taught about Sir Oliver Cromwell in "Modern Mythology"? Well, you'd be fit to be tied.

Who's kids would be "followers" in my system?

----------


## QDO1

> History, science, history of science
> Religion, politics, politics of religion
> Art, science, the aesthetic beauty of the natural world
> Mathematics, science, applied mathematics


Awkward one... some subjects do go hand in hand - mathematics and physics

Some subjects overlap - religion-philosophy etc.  or history and religion

BUT there is a divide.  History is about the facts of what happened in the past, but the application of  what we learn from history is more to do with philosophy and politics

There is a overlap between science and history, but only in the sense that history records the changing position of science, and documents the progress of learning and knowledge

by saying there is a common denominator - History in this case does not mean you should teach ther exploits of Napoleoen in science lessons.  in the same vein, that would be my same line of reasoning for not teaching religion in science class

by all means teach religion, and science, and "join them up" in history and philosophy class

by mixing up the subjects, children will loose focus on the harder aspects of the individual topics covererd

back to the main point - they can teach ID, when there is a semblance of a "theory" that stands up to mainstream scientific scrutiny... bottom line is that ID is a religious philosophy (or heavily religiously motivated), being passed off as a scientific theory

"houses built on the sand" and all that

----------


## spartus

> What if we taught about Sir Oliver Cromwell in "Modern Mythology"? Well, you'd be fit to be tied.


Yet you'd like your mythology taught in science class. Funny, that.

I also note with interest that you haven't replied at all to one little thing I mentioned above. I can repost it, in case you don't have one of those mice with the scrolly wheel. They're handy.

----------


## drk

Spartus,
This Bud's for you:
http://www.origins.org/pjohnson/pjohnson.html


http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea.../evolution.asp


http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Mic...&pstart=1&b=11

----------


## QDO1

> I also note with interest that you haven't replied at all to one little thing I mentioned above. I can repost it, in case you don't have one of those mice with the scrolly wheel. They're handy.


Now that was funny

----------


## spartus

> Now that was funny


:)

I still intend to reply to this. I've just been very, very busy.

----------


## billps

> Please explain to me how matter and energy upon the earth fails to obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.


What about a snowflake. Through losing energy (heat), randomly arranged atoms of water vapour become ice crystals with an ordered and wonderfully complex six sided symmetry - more ordered than they were previously in the water vapour state. What about a seed growing into a tree. What about an egg growing into a chicken. What about a little bundle of cells growing into a marvellously complex human being. Now that wasn't hard, was it? All of these processes violate your take on the Law of Thermodynamics because biological processes are not a closed system. Energy is put into them from the sun, into food and animals grow by eating that food and therefore become more ordered. Looks like ID is not so intelligent after all.

----------

