Biological Design Argument?

[prodigalson2011]

There is an assumed “tendency” towards survival, in fact, a tendency towards continued improvement, which is why life has flourished and increased greatly in complexity over the past 3-4 billion years. Without the “presumed” tendency towards survival (I agree that it is unstated) why would random mutations continually tend towards betterment?

With the understanding that I’m not advocating a particular view either way here, only trying to present the Darwinian perspective as accurately as possible, the point is that those random mutations do not continually tend towards betterment. Those that do survive and reproduce more successfully; those that don’t don’t survive as long and gradually die out.

Random changes mean that even species that show some improvement could just as likely show deleterious changes and become, in your words, “phased out.”

The changes take place within individuals, not species.

Shouldn’t the life record of random mutations be a continual hit and miss, with some gains and just as many losses with a zero net gain? Why a continued series of gain upon gain, compexity added to complexity?

Not exactly. The gains will remain while any previous or future losses will die out. The gains would stick around because the efficiency of DNA replication is such that mutations are rare, so the “status quo” of a species is preserved for long periods of time.

Of course, that the laws of chemistry and biology and, ultimately, physics that would make this the case are so fortuitously conducive to such order, cohesion and progress remains unexplained.

It seems to me that a tendency “towards survival” is presumed as a kind of hidden premise in order to make the non-design “theory” credible. The onus is on the proponents to show random change could lead to inexorable improvement when they have really not supplied a reason for thinking that it would, except that things are rendered “more fit” to survive. It is not clear that random change would continue in that direction without some form of “guidance.”

I would agree, to the extent of my last comment. Assuming the truth of the Darwinian theory as well as monotheism, it remains the fact that an omniscient creator would have known from all eternity each and every twist and turn of the seemingly “random” process of evolution that would result from the universe he set in motion, so it seems to me the only disconnect between the theist and the atheist when it comes to Darwinism lies in their metaphysical premises. I suppose you could call it “theistic determinism”: humans are the result of evolution is the result of chemistry is the result of physics is the result of the creative act of God, which accounted for each step in the process from the beginning. What appears as “chance” within the framework of natural determinism is not so from the perspective of “theistic determinism.”

Being only a scientific hobbyist, I maintain a healthy agnosticism about it all, but I don’t see where it poses any problem in the strictly physical sense. I am, though, in full agreement with Blessed John Paul II that, when it comes to man, we face an “ontological leap” in terms of the intellectual soul.

 

[nmgauss]

I would say that Jesus is the perfect image of God.

We are like God in that we have spiritual souls with qualities such as rationality, and will, a sense of the beautiful and the ability to love. As you would know from scripture, we are dependent on our Creator and subject to the laws of creation and those that govern our freedom. We were made with free will so that we might choose love freely. We are all corruptible in that with Adam we have demonstrated how we can choose ourselves over Him. But we are redeemed through Jesus Christ. I am not going to argue any of this; if you want to know more I would refer you to the Catechism.

I asked a simple question for which a simple answer would be sufficient. Instead I get an essay. Again, I’ll ask that if “we created man in our image”, who is “we”, and did they create something whose image included some characteristics in addition to the one that is “in our image”. Again, what does “in our image” mean?

I’m talking about Adam, not Jesus. What does, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” mean? Who are “us” and who is “our”?

 

[tonyrey]

A true and substantiated assertion. Google “cdesign proponentsists” (sic) for the evidence substantiating the assertion.

A creationism textbook was reworked after Edwards v. Aguillard and the word “creationist” replaced by “design proponents”. Unfortunately, one of the replacements was sloppily done and the resulting “cdesign proponentsists” was left in one of the drafts.

ID is merely an attempt by creationists to get round the Edwards v Aguillard ruling.

The Catholic Church’s recognition of evolution refutes the claim that “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact.”

Correct, which is why the creationist strawmen of abiogenesis and evolution are completely wrong. Abiogenesis includes chemistry, and chemistry is not chance. Evolution includes natural selection, and natural selection is not chance.

It has been pointed out many times that natural selection presupposes** random** mutations and abiogenesis presupposes** fortuitous combinations of molecules, both of which are regarded by materialists as the source **of novelty, variety and development. The sole alternative to Design is non-Design, i.e. Chance, absence of purpose.

Belief in spiritual development is inconsistent with the belief that physical development is ultimately purposeless - unless of course spiritual development is also purposeless (in which case nirvana would not be a goal but an accident!). Or is it a goal that exists by Chance and for no reason?

 

[rossum]

It has been pointed out many times that natural selection presupposes** random** mutations

It has been pointed out incorrectly then. Natural selection needs variation on which to work. It does not matter what the source of that variation is. Recombination is not a mutation but part of the normal reproductive process, and recombination is one of the sources of variation. Darwin talks about variation in populations, and variation is all that is needed for his theory to work. Mutations are one of the sources of variation, but they are not the only source.

and abiogenesis presupposes** fortuitous **combinations of molecules,

Chemistry is not fortuitous. If I combine hydrogen and oxygen, is it “fortuitous” that the great bulk of the output is H[sub]2[/sub]O? Why not H[sub]1[/sub]O or H[sub]3[/sub]O?

rossum

 

[prodigalson2011]

Chemistry is not fortuitous. If I combine hydrogen and oxygen, is it “fortuitous” that the great bulk of the output is H[sub]2[/sub]O? Why not H[sub]1[/sub]O or H[sub]3[/sub]O?

rossum

That the laws of chemistry are just so is indeed fortuitous. By what logic is it necessary that the laws of nature should tend towards order at all, much less the complex chemistry of life? You seem to presume these things to be an inevitability.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The changes take place within individuals, not species.

The individual changes add up to changes to the species over time. However, the presumption is that moving from the individual changes to the improvements to the species will result in continued improvements to the millions of species that have not only survived but flourished by increasing diversity and sophistication. This is where the proposed non-design hypothesis is lacking substantive proof.

Not exactly. The gains will remain while any previous or future losses will die out. The gains would stick around because the efficiency of DNA replication is such that mutations are rare, so the “status quo” of a species is preserved for long periods of time.

I get that, but it seems to me that the gains would have to be just the right gains to fit the needs of the individual and, by extension, the species. This continual fitting of the gains to the needs would need to be multiplied millions or even billions of times in order to bring about continued improvement and sophistication. I am not clear that just the right changes would be that frequent within a random process. It could more easily have ended life at any time in the process when the “right” changes were not forthcoming to meet environmental pressures - four billion years is a long time for such tenuous processes to continue with ongoing success.

 

[rossum]

You seem to presume these things to be an inevitability.

Not inevitable, since we are not observing a random subset of possible universes. The anthropic principle places restrictions on the type of universe we can observe.

rossum

 

[nmgauss]

The individual changes add up to changes to the species over time. However, the presumption is that moving from the individual changes to the improvements to the species will result in continued improvements to the millions of species that have not only survived but flourished by increasing diversity and sophistication. This is where the proposed non-design hypothesis is lacking substantive proof.

I get that, but it seems to me that the gains would have to be just the right gains to fit the needs of the individual and, by extension, the species. This continual fitting of the gains to the needs would need to be multiplied millions or even billions of times in order to bring about continued improvement and sophistication. I am not clear that just the right changes would be that frequent within a random process. It could more easily have ended life at any time in the process when the “right” changes were not forthcoming to meet environmental pressures - four billion years is a long time for such tenuous processes to continue with ongoing success.

When do new species appear and why do they appear? To give an example, in southern California, various sumacs, Rhus laurina, Rhus ovata, and Rhus integrifolia are all found together in identical environments. Why would separate species develop in the same environment? The only explanation is random genetic drift where barriers to exchange of genetic information arise. This can occur when certain random variations have ifferences in seasonality of flowering. If plants don’t flower at the same time, no pollen can reach plants that are no longer in flower. Adaptation to different environments is not in process here.

Another example is the mule, which is sterile. This animal is artificially made by humans by purposely cross-breeding donkeys and horses. Why don’t wild horses and donkeys crossbreed naturally? Perhaps because they tend to live in separate parts of the world. Or perhaps the males protect their harems against unwanted intruders.

 

[nmgauss]

However, the presumption is that moving from the individual changes to the improvements to the species will result in continued improvements to the millions of species that have not only survived but flourished by increasing diversity and sophistication. This is where the proposed non-design hypothesis is lacking substantive proof.

Sometimes species can evolve into tenuous ecological niches. A good example is the Joshua Tree. In order for this species to reproduce, the Pronuba moth, the only moth with this behavior, needs to lay its eggs in the male part of the flower, and its larvae needs to carry pollen upward to the female parts of the flowers. If the moth goes extinct, so do the Joshua Trees. This is a very risky way to reproduce.

There are individual valleys in California which contain the only populations of certain species. In wetter times, these valleys were not isolated from adjacent valleys and there were no barriers to free exchange of genetic information. Now in drier times, the genetic pool in each valley is limited to that valley, allowing genetic drift to proceed in different directions valley by valley, hence the evolving of different species.

 

[Bradski]

I get that, but it seems to me that the gains would have to be just the right gains to fit the needs of the individual and, by extension, the species.

This is bordering on Lamarkism. The changes don’t occur to fit a need. You don’t get a longer neck because the best fruit is higher up. It’s just that if you happen to have a longer neck, then you get to eat the better fruit. You become a better fit.

This continual fitting of the gains to the needs would need to be multiplied millions or even billions of times in order to bring about continued improvement and sophistication.

An improvement (defining improvement as surviving longer than your neighbour to reproduce) needs just one single change, however small. Continual improvement is called…well, you get the idea.

 

[Aloysium]

I asked a simple question for which a simple answer would be sufficient. Instead I get an essay. Again, I’ll ask that if “we created man in our image”, who is “we”, and did they create something whose image included some characteristics in addition to the one that is “in our image”. Again, what does “in our image” mean?

I’m talking about Adam, not Jesus. What does, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” mean? Who are “us” and who is “our”?

“We” as I understand it refers to the Trinity. God created us as Adam and Eve, loving each other and God; that is our natural state reflecting the Trinity.
That’s it in a nut shell - no essay.

 

[Orangebookbag]

rossum

Why would everything be an illusion?

Sorry to point this out so late in the conversation, but this is a terrible question to ask a Buddhist :dts:

 

[ngill09]

“We” as I understand it refers to the Trinity. God created us as Adam and Eve, loving each other and God; that is our natural state reflecting the Trinity.
That’s it in a nut shell - no essay.

Why would three beings create two beings to reflect the relationship between them?

 

[nmgauss]

Why would three beings create two beings to reflect the relationship between them?

I think Trinitarians adhere to the idea that the Trinity is one deity in three different persons but of the same essential persona. This is similar to the ancient Greek stage dramas where different actors play the same persona just by wearing the same mask…

 

[nmgauss]

I think Trinitarians adhere to the idea that the Trinity is one deity in three different persons but of the same essential persona. This is similar to the ancient Greek stage dramas where different actors play the same persona just by wearing the same mask…

It is interesting to refer to the male and female as a single persona. If the Trinity (three persons but one persona) creates humans, one female and one male, but of the same persona, this amounts to one persona in three persons creating one persona in two persons.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Why would three beings create two beings to reflect the relationship between them?

Because those two beings come together to create a third being. That is why Christians believe sex is a symbol of the trinity. As our creed states, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

 

[tonyrey]

It has been pointed out incorrectly then. Natural selection needs variation on which to work. It does not matter what the source of that variation is. Recombination is not a mutation but part of the normal reproductive process, and recombination is one of the sources of variation. Darwin talks about variation in populations, and variation is all that is needed for his theory to work. Mutations are one of the sources of variation, but they are not the only source.

N.B:

Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. ** Without mutation, evolution could not occur…
**
In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped show that many mutations are random, not directed. In this experiment, they capitalized on the ease with which bacteria can be grown and maintained. Bacteria grow into isolated colonies on plates. These colonies can be reproduced from an original plate to new plates by “stamping” the original plate with a cloth and then stamping empty plates with the same cloth. Bacteria from each colony are picked up on the cloth and then deposited on the new plates by the cloth. Esther and Joshua hypothesized that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

Chemistry is not fortuitous. If I combine hydrogen and oxygen, is it “fortuitous” that the great bulk of the output is H[sub]2[/sub]O? Why not H[sub]1[/sub]O or H[sub]3[/sub]O?

If **you **combine elements it is certainly not a fortuitous combination.

The issue is not simple combinations of two elements but immensely complex combinations of at least 25 elements in an environment with fundamental physical constants limited to a very narrow range of values. There is **no physical or chemical explanation **of their occurrence in any universe.

Luke Barnes has given a very clear, highly entertaining and utterly devastating critique of Victor Stenger’s recent book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning. Here is a sample of his demolition work :
.

In Chapter 13 of his book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning Stenger argues against the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life using the results of a computer code named MonkeyGod which chooses values of certain parameters from a given probability density function and then calculates whether a universe with those parameters would support life…

Of these eight criteria, three are incorrect, two are irrelevant, and one is insufficient. Plenty more are missing. Most importantly, all manner of cherry-picked assumptions are lurking out of sight, and the whole exercise exemplies the cheap-bin binoculars fallacy.

This article can be read online - free of charge - by clicking on footnote 14 in the wikipedia article on fine tuning and using the Cornell University Library search facility. I don’t know why but direct access to it from here is forbidden…

[
](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/Luke Barnes has given a very clear, highly entertaining and utterly devastating critique of Victor Stenger’s recent book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning. Here is a sample of his demolition work : .In Chapter 13 of his book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning Stenger argues against the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life using the results of a computer code named MonkeyGod which chooses values of certain parameters from a given probability density function and then calculates whether a universe with those parameters would support life. Of these eight criteria, three are incorrect, two are irrelevant, and one is insufficient. Plenty more are missing. Most importantly, all manner of cherry-picked assumptions are lurking out of sight, and the whole exercise exemplies the cheap-bin binoculars fallacy.The article can be read online - free of charge:http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf)

 

[rossum]

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

Variation is essential. Mutations are one source of variation. They are an important source, but not the only one.

Luke Barnes has given a very clear, highly entertaining and utterly devastating critique of Victor Stenger’s recent book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.

If the universe is fine tuned for life, then abiogenesis and evolution will occur naturally as a direct result of the initial fine tuning. The arrow hits the target because that is where the Master Archer aimed. Hence all that science says about what happened after the Big Bang is correct. The Master Archer does not need to intervene once he has released the arrow.

If the universe is not fine tuned, then the archer needs to intervene while the arrow is in flight, because it was not aimed correctly at the start.

Is God a Master Archer, with perfect aim, or is He merely a journeyman who needs to correct His work after releasing the arrow?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Variation is essential. Mutations are one source of variation. They are an important source, but not the only one.

Do you disagree with the statements:

Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. ** Without mutation, evolution could not occur…**

?

To be precise, evolution could occur but to such limited extent life would be much simpler than it is now.

If the universe is fine tuned for life, then abiogenesis and evolution will occur naturally as a direct result of the initial fine tuning. The arrow hits the target because that is where the Master Archer aimed. Hence all that science says about what happened after the Big Bang is correct. The Master Archer does not need to intervene once he has released the arrow.

If the universe is not fine tuned, then the archer needs to intervene while the arrow is in flight, because it was not aimed correctly at the start.

Is God a Master Archer, with perfect aim, or is He merely a journeyman who needs to correct His work after releasing the arrow?

A false dilemma. Even with perfect aim the limitations of the laws of nature preclude constant success. Intervention is necessary to guide the process of development and overcome inevitable setbacks like the virtual destruction of all life on this planet.

 

[nmgauss]

Do you disagree with the statements:

?

To be precise, evolution could occur but to such limited extent life would be much simpler than it is now.

A false dilemma. Even with perfect aim the limitations of the laws of nature preclude constant success. Intervention is necessary to guide the process of development and overcome inevitable setbacks like the virtual destruction of all life on this planet.

Today, life on land in the Northern Hemisphere above the 50th parallel has few species. This contrasts with the incredible number of species found below the 25th parallel. Why is this so?