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.
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.
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?
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
Pete: Regardless of what religious beliefs I may have, your example leads me to conclude logically that, intelligence is present in the evolutionary process.Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
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
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
Last edited by drk; 11-10-2005 at 12:33 PM.
I knew this thread would separate the science from the arguments.
Do you think todays lens designs are intelligent design or evolution?:) Chip
"Intelligent evolution."
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.
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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.
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
Nice, Pete,...the eye...
The earth is not a closed eco system, it has a constant energy stream from the sun, and is hit by meteorites
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
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
Last edited by QDO1; 11-10-2005 at 03:33 PM.
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.”
Last edited by ksquared; 11-10-2005 at 10:14 PM. Reason: generic clarity and a link
Debt Crisis 2011: All the ostensible nobility in the world notwithstanding, we have run out of other people's money to spend.
[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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks