Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Are you related to Techno by any chance?

Who/what is Techno?

He’s a guy that asks questions like: Why don’t trees have arms and legs. Thought you might have been related…

 

[mhmtas63]

Are you related to Techno by any chance?

A cell cannot be formed by itself. There is no an intelligence in nature to do that. Neither power nor energy. Let’s assume a very initial cell. How it both could be an animal and a tree or a plant? What decided that? There are uncountless blind points in evolution thought. In faith? There is one and that is God is eternal which we could not comprehend. But every thing points God. First human was a prophet. And first man declared that there is a creator of that world. And many thousands after him supported that by miracles and revelation. Logic say me … There is nothing without a master… from quarks to stars.

 

[rossum]

Immunity system could have many improvement and that is not evolution.

You do not get to define what is, and what is not, evolution. Evolution has an agreed scientific definition:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

Source: Evolution 101.

Changes in the human immune system are one of those changes in allele frequency that the definition refers to.

Your own personal definition is not relevant here, any more than my own personal definition of Catholicism would be relevant.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

So I take it you’re not actually going to deal with the physical issues involved in making human child birth relatively more risky than in other primates.

Setting aside the pelvic shape for one moment, perhaps it would not have been painful for several other reasons, one of which could be the pelvic nerves were less sensitive during childbirth.

But pain is only part of the problem. I doubt giving birth is pleasant for any mammal. It’s the higher risk of infant and maternal mortality that the bipedal restrictions on the width of the pelvis (and hence the birth canal), along with the much larger head of humans as compared to other primates that’s the problem. Intelligence has been highly enough selected (due to the obvious advantages) that an increased risk of death and injury from dangerous births is, shall we say, worth it. That’s the nature of evolution. It builds on existing features. It can’t rejig an entire part of the body or organ system in a few generations. By and large, the human body plan is the same as all mammals, indeed all tetrapods, so as ancestral populations became more selected for intelligence, requiring ever larger brains, it meant our ancestors were born more and more prematurely, because bipedalism and big brains are both extremely important to genus Homo.

 

[niceatheist]

Bradskii:

Are you related to Techno by any chance?

A cell cannot be formed by itself. There is no an intelligence in nature to do that. Neither power nor energy. Let’s assume a very initial cell. How it both could be an animal and a tree or a plant? What decided that? There are uncountless blind points in evolution thought. In faith? There is one and that is God is eternal which we could not comprehend. But every thing points God. First human was a prophet. And first man declared that there is a creator of that world. And many thousands after him supported that by miracles and revelation. Logic say me … There is nothing without a master… from quarks to stars.

In reality there are two major divisions of life; eukaryotes and prokaryotes (well, some taxonomists think there a three; eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea), along with a whole lot of different kinds of viruses (which we can debate whether they are living or not).

Plants and animals are, taxonomically, very closely related. The cells themselves are structured much the same. all eukaryotes can be recognized by internal membranes around organelles, whereas prokaryotes do not.

Molecular biology is probably the second hardest area of research in biology (behind organic chemistry), but there’s been a lot of work done researching when the kingdoms of life began splitting off, and the kind of “fossils” those evolutionary steps left in the genomes of organisms. In fact, molecular biology is the second strand in mapping back evolutionary processes; hence the notion of the twin-nested hierarchy; which is taking morphology (either of existing species, or the fossils of ancient species) and then overlapping that with the genetic data.

For instance, the development of tetrapods as diverse as lizards, fish and mammals are governed by a very similar set of HOX genes. In a lot of ways, these HOX genes, which seem to signal what happens during cell differentiation in a developing fetus. Changes in these HOX genes over time are what have created the various novelties found among tetrapods, but if you really look at the tetrapod body plan, it’s actually fairly highly conserved, because going too far off script, so to speak, is likely to lead to an organism that, even if it survives in the womb (which major failures in development often don’t), it’s not likely to be viable.

 

[mhmtas63]

Immunity system could have many improvement and that is not evolution.

The part of evolution(changing) I reject is the evolution between species(“large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations”). There is no such thing. There is no intermediary forms. There is no fossiles which support that. With modification a new species do not consist. Immune system or others system could accord or adjust something according to new conditions. But that systems do not transform into another. That is not evolution(which you mean generating new species).

As I mentioned a cell cannot be consist by itself. Let allow all scientists gather and work for years. Will they be able to invent an alive cell by combining oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, hydrojen and other required atoms one by one? Is that possible? If it is not how it could be by itself with random conditions and unconscious power and blind and dead energy and destructive other parts of nature? And that cell(just an assumption) do not transform into another species. Aaaaa…it is not proved. Just a thought(theory)!

How many cells got formed by random chances? One? If it was one so how could thousands species emerged from that unique cell! If you could change a mouse to a cat. If there were more so why do not new ones occure? There are more suitable conditions now!

 

[edwest211]

Communion and Stewardship:

1. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.

 

[lucius2]

It is not self-refuting when you respect the awesomeness and incomprehensibly of God’s purpose of designing. If there is no God, then and only then is this reasoning sensibly true. The purpose of ID is not a mathematical, philosophical or scientific exercise but an attempt to demonstrate through math and/or science generally, the unlikelihood of His creation coming about by chance. It has a practical purpose to witness to unbelievers and to strengthen believers in their faith that He is there and has been all along.

 

[buffalo]

But pain is only part of the problem. I doubt giving birth is pleasant for any mammal. It’s the higher risk of infant and maternal mortality that the bipedal restrictions on the width of the pelvis (and hence the birth canal), along with the much larger head of humans as compared to other primates that’s the problem. Intelligence has been highly enough selected (due to the obvious advantages) that an increased risk of death and injury from dangerous births is, shall we say, worth it. That’s the nature of evolution. It builds on existing features. It can’t rejig an entire part of the body or organ system in a few generations. By and large, the human body plan is the same as all mammals, indeed all tetrapods, so as ancestral populations became more selected for intelligence, requiring ever larger brains, it meant our ancestors were born more and more prematurely, because bipedalism and big brains are both extremely important to genus Homo.

What about those with bigger heads yet?

So much story telling.

Common design is a better explanation.

 

[o_mlly]

Intelligence has been highly enough selected (due to the obvious advantages) that an increased risk of death and injury from dangerous births is, shall we say, worth it. … That’s the nature of evolution. It builds on existing features.

But doesn’t common sense tells us that the bigger heads (assuming big heads correlate to higher intelligence) who die in child birth or do not reach puberty never get an evolutionary chance to reproduce and demonstrate the advantages of that higher intelligence? Evolution cannot build on improvements that never reproduce.

I’m a hat size 11.

 

[lucius2]

The spirit comment was theology yes but the egg and sperm working together as a sort of “intelligent design” is an observation that is very much science and basic process of biology. A flower moving towards the light to get more sun is intelligence, but not necessarily if intelligence Is redefined, but needless to say the flower moved on its own accord because it wanted and could receive better sunlight for photosynthesis and not randomly. Therefore flowers are intelligent. For another point there, since sperm do somewhat more complex movements than the flower, sperm are intelligent as well, not to mention there intelligent intricacy is beyond intelligent, even genius from a reproducible perspective as well as a theoretical one! Maybe we should begin to call the ID (theory?) Intricate design.

 

[buffalo]

But doesn’t common sense tells us that the bigger heads (assuming big heads correlate to higher intelligence)

No. It does not/

 

[edwest211]

Bigger brains are smarter, but not by much

Using a large dataset and controlling for a variety of factors, including sex, age, height, socioeconomic status, and genetic ancestry, scientists found that people with larger brains rated higher on measures of intelligence and educational attainment. Size was far from everything, however...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[rossum]

There is no such thing. There is no intermediary forms.

First, there need not be any intermediary forms. A single mutation can result in a new species. See The marbled crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae) represents an independent new species for one example.

Second, your sources are lying to you, we have many intermediate forms, Tiktaalik for example. Why do you reject Tiktaalik as an intermediary form between fish and amphibians? Why do you reject Archaeopteryx as an intermediary form between earlier dinosaurs and birds?

                    Feathers Flight   Bony Tail  Teeth
                    -------- ------   ---------  ------
Dinosaurs              No       No      Yes        Yes  :  Stegosaurus
Feathered Dinos       Yes       No      Yes        Yes  :  Jinfengopteryx
Archaeopteryx         Yes      Yes      Yes        Yes  :  Archaeopteryx
Early Birds           Yes      Yes       No        Yes  :  Ichthyornis
Modern Birds          Yes      Yes       No         No  :  Corvidae

Please tells us why such an obvious intermediate form is not intermediate.

 

[buffalo]

Tiktaalik for example. Why do you reject Tiktaalik as an intermediary form between fish and amphibians?

Because it came way before so it could not be an intermediary as evidenced by the dating of the tracks found in Poland.

 

[buffalo]

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution .

For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same,” he told AFP.

The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin

idvolution.blogspot.com

 

[rossum]

Because it came way before so it could not be an intermediary as evidenced by the dating of the tracks found in Poland.

You are using the wrong definition of intermediary. We know that Europeans exist today. Does that mean the no Americans can be descended from Europeans because Europeans still exist?

The earlier species does not immediately disappear when the daughter species evolves.

If you prefer, then the Polish species can be the intermediate. Does that make you happier?

Hint: there can be more then one intermediate. Noah, Abraham, and David were all intermediate between Adam and Jesus. Similarly with species; there can be more then one intermediate.

 

[buffalo]

You are using the wrong definition of intermediary. We know that Europeans exist today. Does that mean the no Americans can be descended from Europeans because Europeans still exist?

Uh no. The first one was dated well before the intermediary was purported to be.

 

[lucius2]

Exactly, I think it would be advantageous if we could breathe underwater like aquaman or mermaids, but we don’t have those traits no matter how many of us drown! But the head has to be selected to be just right until another positive adaptation allows for bigger heads, right?

 

[o_mlly]

No. It does not/

What does not – makes common sense or the truth of the assumption?