Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[minkymurph]

Your reply ignores the trust placed in people by the public. When a scientist or expert speaks, especially in public, odds are more will hear him than read a science book. Ignoring Mr. Dawkins or Sam Harris and others is not an option.

Peace,
Ed

Well, I didn’t intend the use of the word ‘ignore’ to be taken in a very literal sense.

I think you need to give people credit for a little more intelligence. People are not as easily swayed as some would have you believe. (One of the arguments I use when atheists tell me everyone who believes in God only does so because they have been indoctrinated)

Anyone I know who puts implicit trust in Richard Dawkins, (don’t know Sam Harris) does so because they want to, due to the fact that they are of the same mind and have an axe to grind with religion. I personally don’t enter into discussion with such people due to the fact they have a closed mind, and you cant reach a closed mind (which is what I meant to say in my last post, not can reach a closed mind). They are not interested in anything you have to say and no matter what you say, you will always be wrong.

Therefore, just as Jesus was silent before Herod, we can choose to ignore them by not entering into futile and fruitless debates with them. Just as you would ignore a naughty child throwing a tantrum because they can’t get their own way. That does not mean we stay silent on what they have to say.

In relation to your comment about the scientific world not speaking out, as far I know there are many scientists who believe in God who have written and extensively and frequently spoken publicly on the relationship between religion and science. So I’m not really sure what your referring to.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Science is getting quite close to solving the riddle, in my view. Here is an overview on abiogenesis research that I wrote (if that’s too technical, see also the link in the right hand corner on top to Szostak’s Scientific American article):

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

Phew - this is pretty hardcore! I suppose I should digest this more thoroughly before arguing the case more fully…

Still all seems something of a step back from a few years ago, when half the world was convinced the proposed abiogenesis was to be successfully replicated? And I often feel that as the gaps for God seem more readily to open as time goes on, at very least on the basis of probability?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Phew - this is pretty hardcore! I suppose I should digest this more thoroughly before arguing the case more fully…

Again, if that is too technical, try the link to the Scientific American article that I mentioned – even though it is less thorough.

Still all seems something of a step back from a few years ago, when half the world was convinced the proposed abiogenesis was to be successfully replicated?

I do not know which experiments you are talking about specifically, when you mention “half the world”. However, on the contrary, the last decade has seen tremendous success in getting closer to solving the puzzle. If you would have asked me 10 years ago about an origin of life by natural causes, I would have said, no way, this is ludicrous. Now I say it is almost a certainty.

Look at the list of references on the bottom of my article. Approximately 80 % are from 2003 or later – not by coincidence.

And I often feel that as the gaps for God seem more readily to open as time goes on, at very least on the basis of probability?

As far as the origin of life goes, you can forget the God of the gaps. It’s a loosing proposition.

 

[vz71]

An Intelligent Design is assuming the desires of the Designer.

rossum

Desperation.
You are truly out of your element with the theory. You may wish to read up on it further before posting such false statements.

 

[rossum]

Desperation.
You are truly out of your element with the theory.

Indeed I am. There is no theory of Intelligent Design yet. It does not yet have a tested way to detect design. Note that I said “tested” in there. Be prepared to show the relevant test results, I will be asking for them.

rossum

 

[Neildown]

I must contend for Creationism. The Scriptures can be interpreted either in literal or allegorical terms. As this is true, there is no shame in believing an all powerful God created our world within a short time-frame. Besides, if a Catholic were to assume that we evolved from apes, what was the biological arbiter that made God determine, “you are an ape and you are now a human - congratulations! You get an undying soul!.”

It is fairly clear from Scripture, accompanied by current biological information, that we were made separate from all other species. We were made, “from the scum of the earth.” True, someone can interpret that as a mention of abiogenesis, but not with the biological information we have.

For instance - the cytochrome C Amino Acid Sequence of a lamprey eel has a difference of only 15% compared to a horse, 18% compared to a pigeon, 18% compared to a turtle, and 12% compared to a carp [fish].

According to macroevolution, the eel would have come first, followed by the carp, then amphibians, then reptiles [the turtle], then birds and then horses. If this were so then why would the eel’s cytochrome C be more similar to a horse’s than the turtle’s or the pigeon’s? It may sound slightly petty to some, considering the small numbers, but the fact is that evolutionary scientists are quite willing to consider small numbers COUGH, DARWIN, COUGH] as well, so there is no reason to discard or bypass these. I’ll end my argument here for now.

 

[edwest2]

Your first paragraph makes sense. Science cannot answer how the ontological leap to man occurred. If there was a process, God guided it, but pre-humans? That doesn’t work for me.

Peace,
Ed

 

[vz71]

Indeed I am. There is no theory of Intelligent Design yet. It does not yet have a tested way to detect design. Note that I said “tested” in there. Be prepared to show the relevant test results, I will be asking for them.

rossum

I am more curious of this supposed assumption you claim was made:

An Intelligent Design is assuming the desires of the Designer.

Please explain it.

 

[rossum]

I am more curious of this supposed assumption you claim was made:

Please explain it.

I was criticised for assigning desires to God in my pool player analogy. Since ID attributes actions to the Designer, and intelligent actions are driven by desires, then the Designer must have desires: “We desire that bacteria have a flagellum”. I do assume that ID does not posit a Designer acting at random: “If I roll an even number then bacteria get a flagellum, otherwise not.”

I am still looking for a tested design detector from ID.

rossum

 

[leebowman]

“I am still looking for a tested design detector from ID.”

There is no empirical way, but by inference and statistically, there are many:

• IC, as any Behe fan or detractor knows
• NEC, or IC from a differing perspective
• Symmetries
• Synergies and co-dependent systems
• Repair mechanisms that take effect later in life (past repro years)

IC states that removal of ‘key’ parts (not any one part as originally stated), produces non-functionality. In the case of Behe’s clotting cascade, it’s ‘after the fork’ that counts, although the extrinsic pathway contains elements essential for clotting in certain organisms, and the intrinsic may contain elements either essential, or at least advantageous for non Puffer Fish species. Point being that yes, there are essential elements in most complex systems.

NEC, or non-evolvable –complexity are evolutionary pathways where certain intermediates offer no reproductive advantage, and thus provide no impetus to become fixed in a population. I also predict that there are those that may offer a repro advantage, and yet fail to become fixed in a population due to

• the progeny with the imbued trait may not survive to reproduce, or choose not to.
• sexually reproducing, but the gene may becoming recessive.
• the population involved being (of becoming) geographically isolated.

Symmetries are morphologies due to intentional design, rather than chance formation, such as teeth designs, finger and fingernail design, certain facial parts, and the male penile appendage, to name a few. The symmetry premise will require study and perhaps statistical modeling to verify or falsify. Question: Why the hairline in human primates? Why does it follow the path it takes? Why hair on the head at all? All are design inferences.

Co-dependent systems would only offer repro advantages, IF co-opted from prior functions. Co-option and exaptation have been overplayed as operatives, and I feel that proper studies will confirm that (a prediction).

Anyway, that’s a start.

 

[buffalo]

I must contend for Creationism. The Scriptures can be interpreted either in literal or allegorical terms. As this is true, there is no shame in believing an all powerful God created our world within a short time-frame. Besides, if a Catholic were to assume that we evolved from apes, what was the biological arbiter that made God determine, “you are an ape and you are now a human - congratulations! You get an undying soul!.”

It is fairly clear from Scripture, accompanied by current biological information, that we were made separate from all other species. We were made, “from the scum of the earth.” True, someone can interpret that as a mention of abiogenesis, but not with the biological information we have.

For instance - the cytochrome C Amino Acid Sequence of a lamprey eel has a difference of only 15% compared to a horse, 18% compared to a pigeon, 18% compared to a turtle, and 12% compared to a carp [fish].

According to macroevolution, the eel would have come first, followed by the carp, then amphibians, then reptiles [the turtle], then birds and then horses. If this were so then why would the eel’s cytochrome C be more similar to a horse’s than the turtle’s or the pigeon’s? It may sound slightly petty to some, considering the small numbers, but the fact is that evolutionary scientists are quite willing to consider small numbers COUGH, DARWIN, COUGH] as well, so there is no reason to discard or bypass these. I’ll end my argument here for now.

You might like IDvolution.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You are out of your element here Rossum. There is nothing clearer than DNA providing instruction, information on how to form a biological entity. Perhaps consider going through this simple slide show process. Click here to read it. :ballspin:

Of course DNA is a language and provides instruction. However, this language can arise by random mutation and cumulative natural selection.

The first thing you need is a relatively small random genetic molecule that can replicate itself, the first and perhaps most difficult step in the origin of life. But once that occurs – and given enough time, it probably is bound to occur *) – the road is clear from there.

The following principles apply:

a) Of course random typing of letters on a typewriter by a bunch of apes will never produce tanything that makes sense, let alone the works of Shakespeare, for example. But this problem is solved by cumulative natural selection, which “fixes” a letter one at a time once it is typed. For this, see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#Evolution

Paragraph about what Richard Dawkins says about non-random cumulative selection (he is certainly an insufferable atheist, but excellent when it comes to explaining evolution).

b) Increase of genetic information. The answer to this is simple. Most of it lies in the phenomenon of gene duplication.

Suppose you have gene A’ that encodes for protein A. The gene duplicates upon reproduction; this is a fairly uncontroversial event:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

Then you have two copies that code for protein A. However, one copy mutates into gene B’, encoding for protein B, while the other copy remains unchanged. What do we now have? A genome that encodes for protein A and B.

Is this an enrichment of information over the original genome that encoded for protein A only? You bet it is.

---

*) let’s say just once in a million years. Even with such a low chance (it may well be higher) it is statistically bound to occur, especially in relation to geological deep time. Once in a million years: howe relevant is it if life arose, say, 3.806 as opposed to 3.807 or perhaps 3.820 billion years ago?

 

[Al_Moritz]

“I am still looking for a tested design detector from ID.”

There is no empirical way, but by inference and statistically, there are many:

• IC, as any Behe fan or detractor knows
• NEC, or IC from a differing perspective
• Symmetries
• Synergies and co-dependent systems
• Repair mechanisms that take effect later in life (past repro years)

IC states that removal of ‘key’ parts (not any one part as originally stated), produces non-functionality. In the case of Behe’s clotting cascade, it’s ‘after the fork’ that counts, although the extrinsic pathway contains elements essential for clotting in certain organisms, and the intrinsic may contain elements either essential, or at least advantageous for non Puffer Fish species. Point being that yes, there are essential elements in most complex systems.

As for “irreducible complexity” (IC), here is a good article that counters the argument:

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

The stone bridge example should speak for itself.

Al

 

[edwest2]

Of course DNA is a language and provides instruction. However, this language can arise by random mutation and cumulative natural selection.

The first thing you need is a relatively small random genetic molecule that can replicate itself, the first and perhaps most difficult step in the origin of life. But once that occurs – and given enough time, it probably is bound to occur *) – the road is clear from there.

The following principles apply:

a) Of course random typing of letters on a typewriter by a bunch of apes will never produce tanything that makes sense, let alone the works of Shakespeare, for example. But this problem is solved by cumulative natural selection, which “fixes” a letter one at a time once it is typed. For this, see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#Evolution

Paragraph about what Richard Dawkins says about non-random cumulative selection (he is certainly an insufferable atheist, but excellent when it comes to explaining evolution).

b) Increase of genetic information. The answer to this is simple. Most of it lies in the phenomenon of gene duplication.

Suppose you have gene A’ that encodes for protein A. The gene duplicates upon reproduction; this is a fairly uncontroversial event:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

Then you have two copies that code for protein A. However, one copy mutates into gene B’, encoding for protein B, while the other copy remains unchanged. What do we now have? A genome that encodes for protein A and B.

Is this an enrichment of information over the original genome that encoded for protein A only? You bet it is.

---

*) let’s say just once in a million years. Even with such a low chance (it may well be higher) it is statistically bound to occur, especially in relation to geological deep time. Once in a million years: howe relevant is it if life arose, say, 3.806 as opposed to 3.807 or perhaps 3.820 billion years ago?

The math is just not there. Currently, it is set at 10 to the superscript -164.

It is one thing to make an eye and quite another to build an optic nerve and then to have the information carried by the optic nerve interpreted in a useful fashion by the brain.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

The math is just not there. Currently, it is set at 10 to the superscript -164.

(I suppose you talk about evolution.) Only if cumulative natural selection is not understood. Ed, I strongly suggest you inform yourself in earnest, instead of listening to all the ID people.

 

[edwest2]

It has no goal or direction. It is unconscious and not building anything for any particular purpose. I think the Intelligent Design people have important things to say.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

It has no goal or direction. It is unconscious and not building anything for any particular purpose.

Precisely. And it still works. Really, may I politely suggest that, instead of using your time to make your views known in discussion, you first study the relevant topics in earnest? It takes time, yes, but I am glad I did (only after having wasted a lot of my time defending the ID position before actually informing myself).

I think the Intelligent Design people have important things to say.

I used to think so too, not anymore.

 

[leebowman]

“The stone bridge example should speak for itself.”

Hi Al,

The stone bridge analogy has some relevance, in particular if Behe’s premise is taken as stated. And in particular, the mouse trap can be shown to work with fewer parts, and to have other functions. In defense of Behe, I’d say that the mousetrap works as a simple example, but in bio systems, there is much more going on.

For one, evolution couldn’t function without embryogenesis, at least at the taxonomic level (not earlier). Further, evolution as observable, is a set of adaptive processes (more than one), with (as I analyze the data) two primary functions. One, to enhance survival, ergo adapt to changing environments. And two, for diversity.

But back to the stone bridge analogy. It is also analogous to scaffolding, as others have stated. Generally, I agree with Luskin’s view (link coming). But the actually reality remains that there are no summary analogies such as the above that can support or discredit evolution as stated (revised body plans).

evolutionnews.org/2011/03/behes_critics_scaffolding_fall044531.html

In sum, mechanisms such as scaffolding or exaptation are viable mechanisms (in some instances), and have actually been shown to be operatives (also speculated as components of proposed evolutionary processes), I feel that they are both statistically inadequate to explain most of what we see in nature.

By the way, me stating that is not verification, but to make cases for and against would require more space (and time) than is available here.

 

[buffalo]

Of course DNA is a language and provides instruction. However, this language can arise by random mutation and cumulative natural selection.

The first thing you need is a relatively small random genetic molecule that can replicate itself, the first and perhaps most difficult step in the origin of life. But once that occurs – and given enough time, it probably is bound to occur *) – the road is clear from there.

The following principles apply:

a) Of course random typing of letters on a typewriter by a bunch of apes will never produce tanything that makes sense, let alone the works of Shakespeare, for example. But this problem is solved by cumulative natural selection, which “fixes” a letter one at a time once it is typed. For this, see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#Evolution

Paragraph about what Richard Dawkins says about non-random cumulative selection (he is certainly an insufferable atheist, but excellent when it comes to explaining evolution).

b) Increase of genetic information. The answer to this is simple. Most of it lies in the phenomenon of gene duplication.

Suppose you have gene A’ that encodes for protein A. The gene duplicates upon reproduction; this is a fairly uncontroversial event:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

Then you have two copies that code for protein A. However, one copy mutates into gene B’, encoding for protein B, while the other copy remains unchanged. What do we now have? A genome that encodes for protein A and B.

Is this an enrichment of information over the original genome that encoded for protein A only? You bet it is.

---

*) let’s say just once in a million years. Even with such a low chance (it may well be higher) it is statistically bound to occur, especially in relation to geological deep time. Once in a million years: howe relevant is it if life arose, say, 3.806 as opposed to 3.807 or perhaps 3.820 billion years ago?

Time to play The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge again.

 

[rossum]

“I am still looking for a tested design detector from ID.”

There is no empirical way, but by inference and statistically, there are many:

• IC, as any Behe fan or detractor knows

IC has been tested and has failed the test. IC systems can evolve. See Behe and Snoke (2004). Yes, it is the same Behe.

• NEC, or IC from a differing perspective

Reference for the testing of NEC as a design detector please. As I indicate below, you need to study neutral theory.

• Symmetries

Fails even a simple test. Snowflakes are symmetrical yet snowflakes are not designed. Crystals can be symmetrical yet crystals are not designed. Meteorite impact craters are symmetrical yet impact craters are not designed.

• Synergies and co-dependent systems

References to the testing please. How do you show that symbiosis cannot evolve?

• Repair mechanisms that take effect later in life (past repro years)

I might accept this is you showed that a different set of repair mechanisms came into operation. Mere continuation of the existing repair mechanisms is insufficient. Again I will need a reference to the tests.

NEC, or non-evolvable –complexity are evolutionary pathways where certain intermediates offer no reproductive advantage, and thus provide no impetus to become fixed in a population.

You really need to read up on genetic drift and neutral theory. Purely by random statistical fluctuation some neutral traits can spread and even become fixed. This looks like a non-starter to me.

Symmetries are morphologies due to intentional design, rather than chance formation, such as teeth designs, …

Are you saying that the shape of teeth is not subject to normal evolutionary processes? If so then this is a complete loser for you.

Co-dependent systems would only offer repro advantages, IF co-opted from prior functions. Co-option and exaptation have been overplayed as operatives, and I feel that proper studies will confirm that (a prediction).

I read that as “It sure looks designed to me. We haven’t tested it yet though.”

Anyway, that’s a start.

That is my point. All ID has is ‘a start’. It hasn’t even got as far as a tested design detector yet.

rossum