Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

[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.