Intelligent Design

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Case open, since I do have numbers. It is a very preliminary number, but it is the best I have at the moment. So far there is been one observed result. That observation shows that life originated. The probability on currently available results is 100%. That number may well change as further results come in.

Sophomoric logic. Of course abiogenesis happened. That’s 100% certain. But that it happened by chance is what we are talking about. Stop changing the terms of the question!

Higher than the mathematical likelihood of the ID designer existing by chance. The designer must be more complex that whatever he/she/it/they designed. Was the designer itself designed? If not then what mechanism do you propose for the origin of your postulated designer?

Again, you are switching the terms of the issue. We are not talking the cosmological argument. We are talking the teleological argument. Stop confusing the two.

If someone so atheistic as Richard Dawkins can see the possibility that life on this planet was designed, then he is making a huge concession to begin with … one that you obviously have no interest in conceding because it tears you apart to think there just might be an Intelligent Designer behind everything that science, with all its mighty muscle, cannot find.

The Richard Dawkins concession below:

youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

 

[rossum]

When I see a car, I know it to be designed.
I have no idea how, or when, nor do I have any idea how most of it works (OK, I have a general knowledge but nothing specific).
I have no idea when it was built, how it was built, or why.

However I know that if I wanted to show beyond reasonable doubt that a car was designed I could go and talk to people who design cars. I could visit their websites. I could visit the factories where those designs are turned into actual cars.

What I do not know does not negate the design that is there.
Nor does my lack of knowledge indicate that there was no designer.

But you have means available to determine whether or not design is actually present, or if it is just a false positive, like seeing a face in the clouds.

How do you distinguish real design from a face in the clouds that looks as if it is designed but actually isn’t?

rossum

 

[vz71]

However I know that if I wanted to show beyond reasonable doubt that a car was designed I could go and talk to people who design cars. I could visit their websites. I could visit the factories where those designs are turned into actual cars.

You have placed yourself into a problem.
You have made design contingent upon being able to see the build in process.
As is the case with most items that are built, there are no factories and no other man witnesses the deed.
Does this mean that a hand made flute is not designed because we cannot show the build process?
Your definition for design is flawed.

 

[buffalo]

However I know that if I wanted to show beyond reasonable doubt that a car was designed I could go and talk to people who design cars. I could visit their websites. I could visit the factories where those designs are turned into actual cars.

But you have means available to determine whether or not design is actually present, or if it is just a false positive, like seeing a face in the clouds.

How do you distinguish real design from a face in the clouds that looks as if it is designed but actually isn’t?

rossum

If you see rocks arranged on the beach that spell out Intelligent Design you can bet that they were not random. The message was designed to communicate something. To someone who doesn’t know English it may mean nothing. Those who do understand the key. So there is a sender, a receiver and a key.

We see this same thing in the language of DNA. It is designed and comes from a mind.

 

[rossum]

Look closely at the animals around you.
We can see the cells and how they work, we can see the cell replications going on, we can see many of the tools used to keep the animal functioning. We can see the tools that made the animal what it is.

Look closely at the organisms around you. We can see that organisms breed new organisms. We can see that offspring are not identical to their parents. We can see that over time the genetic makeup of populations change, for example populations of insects can become genetically immune to DDT. We can see that the genetic makeup of populations change over time.

We can look at the fossil record and see that the majority of modern animals are descended from earlier precursors. We can use DNA to cross-check what we have deduced from the appearance of modern animals and from fossils.

We know that any organism that fails to reproduce does not have any descendants. All of us are descended from billions of generations of successful reproducers. Not one of our billions of ancestors failed to reproduce. Not one failure, only winners. Billions of generations of gold medals. That is a very strong filter for eliminating organisms that do not work. Only a few make it through, and those few are the cream of the crop. That puts a very strong constraint on what we see in any modern organism. What looks like design is actually ruthless selection for success in reproduction. All failures are eliminated, only winners get to pass their genes to the next generation.

It is the results of that long process, making ‘design choices’ as to what works and what doesn’t that gives the appearance of design in modern organisms. Natural selection is picking out the most successful options and spreading them. That is why things appear to be designed and why I am continually pressing for evidence beyond “It sure looks designed to me”. You still have nothing I see.

I agree that it might appear to be intelligently designed, but appearances in this case are deceptive.

If we define design to be a choice between alternatives, then random mutation and natural selection is a design process, but not an intelligent design process. Random mutations introduce variations into a population – those are the alternatives. Natural selection blindly chooses the most successful reproducers among the various alternatives. That is why evolved organisms can appear designed. In a way they are designed, just not intelligently designed.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Look closely at the organisms around you. We can see that organisms breed new organisms. We can see that offspring are not identical to their parents. We can see that over time the genetic makeup of populations change, for example populations of insects can become genetically immune to DDT. We can see that the genetic makeup of populations change over time.

We can look at the fossil record and see that the majority of modern animals are descended from earlier precursors. We can use DNA to cross-check what we have deduced from the appearance of modern animals and from fossils.

We know that any organism that fails to reproduce does not have any descendants. All of us are descended from billions of generations of successful reproducers. Not one of our billions of ancestors failed to reproduce. Not one failure, only winners. Billions of generations of gold medals. That is a very strong filter for eliminating organisms that do not work. Only a few make it through, and those few are the cream of the crop. That puts a very strong constraint on what we see in any modern organism. What looks like design is actually ruthless selection for success in reproduction. All failures are eliminated, only winners get to pass their genes to the next generation.

It is the results of that long process, making ‘design choices’ as to what works and what doesn’t that gives the appearance of design in modern organisms. Natural selection is picking out the most successful options and spreading them. That is why things appear to be designed and why I am continually pressing for evidence beyond “It sure looks designed to me”. You still have nothing I see.

I agree that it might appear to be intelligently designed, but appearances in this case are deceptive.

If we define design to be a choice between alternatives, then random mutation and natural selection is a design process, but not an intelligent design process. Random mutations introduce variations into a population – those are the alternatives. Natural selection blindly chooses the most successful reproducers among the various alternatives. That is why evolved organisms can appear designed. In a way they are designed, just not intelligently designed.

rossum

I like this as a design principle - By design they get to pass their genes to the next generation.

You and most scientists look at this absent original intent. If Adam had not sinned the corruption would not have taken its effect on life. Random mutations are not designed. They are failures of the copy procedure due to this corruption. Designed adaptive capability is what allows life to prevail against this corruption.

I see this whole process as being designed.

 

[rossum]

Sophomoric logic. Of course abiogenesis happened. That’s 100% certain. But that it happened by chance is what we are talking about. Stop changing the terms of the question!

Finger in the ears logic. I have told you before that I do not say that things happened by chance. Chemistry is not a chance process. The chemistry that happened in the Miller Urey experiment was not chance. The chemistry that happened in the Powner experiment was not chance.

Abiogenesis has amino acids from the Miller Urey experiment, ID has no amino acids because it has no experiment showing its designer making amino acids.

Abiogenesis has pyrimidines from the Powner experiment, ID has no pyrimidines because it has no experiment showing its designer making pyrimidines.

The chances of making a life, given amino acids and pyrimidines, are far higher than the chances of making life without either amino acids or pyrimidines. Abiogenesis wins and ID loses because ID does not have the experimental backup.

Where are the ID experiments showing the ID designer making amino acids? Where are the experiments showing the ID designer making pyrimidines?

Yet again the complete failure of the ID side to show any equivalent experimental support is very very noticeable.

rossum

 

[vz71]

Just a side question…

Why do we still have red-haired people in the world?
Shouldn’t this recessive trait have been bred away long ago?

I am told that natural selection/evolution would dictate that traits that are disadvantageous eventually are bred out.

It would seem to me that extra sensitivity to UV light would be a distinct disadvantage.

Yet the trait is still in the population…about 1% of us have red hair and a sensitivity to UV light.

 

[vz71]

Abiogenesis has amino acids from the Miller Urey experiment, ID has no amino acids because it has no experiment showing its designer making amino acids.

Abiogenesis has pyrimidines from the Powner experiment, ID has no pyrimidines because it has no experiment showing its designer making pyrimidines.

The chances of making a life, given amino acids and pyrimidines, are far higher than the chances of making life without either amino acids or pyrimidines. Abiogenesis wins and ID loses because ID does not have the experimental backup.

Where are the ID experiments showing the ID designer making amino acids? Where are the experiments showing the ID designer making pyrimidines?

Yet again the complete failure of the ID side to show any equivalent experimental support is very very noticeable.

rossum

My brother in law has all the pieces to a dodge charger in his garage.
The chances it will ever get built are the same now as when he had only 1 of the pieces.

 

[rossum]

You have placed yourself into a problem.
You have made design contingent upon being able to see the build in process.
As is the case with most items that are built, there are no factories and no other man witnesses the deed.
Does this mean that a hand made flute is not designed because we cannot show the build process?
Your definition for design is flawed.

I was not defining design, I was answering a specific question about cars, and my answer was specific to that particular question. My answer was not general and should not be taken as general.

If asked the sum of 2 and 2, I will answer 2 + 2 = 4. That is a specific answer , not a general answer. Do not quote me as saying 3 + 3 = 4 because I answered 4 to the first question.

If you want a general answer then ask a general question.

rossum

 

[rossum]

My brother in law has all the pieces to a dodge charger in his garage.
The chances it will ever get built are the same now as when he had only 1 of the pieces.

So, the ID designer is your brother?

rossum

 

[vz71]

So, the ID designer is your brother?

rossum

For all of our sakes…I hope not.

:bigyikes:

 

[rossum]

Just a side question…

Why do we still have red-haired people in the world?
Shouldn’t this recessive trait have been bred away long ago?

I am told that natural selection/evolution would dictate that traits that are disadvantageous eventually are bred out.

It would seem to me that extra sensitivity to UV light would be a distinct disadvantage.

Yet the trait is still in the population…about 1% of us have red hair and a sensitivity to UV light.

Natural selection works on reproductive advantage. The process is a bit like compound interest. As a simple example, take a stable population; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% reproductive advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population.

This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population.

Now, if red haired women can attract more men, and red haired men can attract more women, then the red-hair genes will tend to persist in the population. Having red hair makes someone unusual so they get more noticed. As long as that beneficial effect outweighs the deleterious effect of UV sensitivity then the gene will persist. It is noticeable the the genes for red hair tend to be more common in cooler and wetter climates. If you’ve ever been to Ireland, you’ll know why it is the Emerald Isle – the grass is very well watered.

Think of a Peacock’s tail. That is a huge disadvantage, but if it attracts more mates then it is a reproductive advantage.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Natural selection works on reproductive advantage. The process is a bit like compound interest. As a simple example, take a stable population; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% reproductive advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population.

This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population.

Now, if red haired women can attract more men, and red haired men can attract more women, then the red-hair genes will tend to persist in the population. Having red hair makes someone unusual so they get more noticed. As long as that beneficial effect outweighs the deleterious effect of UV sensitivity then the gene will persist. It is noticeable the the genes for red hair tend to be more common in cooler and wetter climates. If you’ve ever been to Ireland, you’ll know why it is the Emerald Isle – the grass is very well watered.

Think of a Peacock’s tail. That is a huge disadvantage, but if it attracts more mates then it is a reproductive advantage.

rossum

It is time once again to play - The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge

and I am pretty sure this does not take in account DNA fighting through several iterations against mutations. (but I can check if needed)

 

[kbachler]

Yes - if they say SOS.

Sorry but no. Worth an examination? Yes. Worth a definite conclusion, no. (Sorry to those who saw Jesus in their toast this morning.)

 

[vz71]

Now, if red haired women can attract more men, and red haired men can attract more women, then the red-hair genes will tend to persist in the population. Having red hair makes someone unusual so they get more noticed. As long as that beneficial effect outweighs the deleterious effect of UV sensitivity then the gene will persist. It is noticeable the the genes for red hair tend to be more common in cooler and wetter climates. If you’ve ever been to Ireland, you’ll know why it is the Emerald Isle – the grass is very well watered.

Think of a Peacock’s tail. That is a huge disadvantage, but if it attracts more mates then it is a reproductive advantage.

rossum

Indeed.
Survival of the sexiest.

But then we have to ask ourselves why it is holding at 1%?
Why aren’t we getting mor redheads?

The natural selection/evolution theory tells me that a trait is either coming or going.
This one is not.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7735484:

Even my extremely conservative Catholic college, Franciscan University of Steubenville, offers an upper level biology class called “evolution”, which is evidence that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that even the biology department here treats evolution as an extremely well proven fact.

Do they also teach there is no God behind the Creation?

My biggest issue being the belief that it is proven fact.
It simply is not.

This is what the course description says:

BIO 321
EVOLUTION is designed to provide a contemporary examination of the study of evolution from a biological perspective. The course will deal with the various meanings of the term evolution, the various methods by which evolution is studied, and the conclusions about evolution that can be drawn from the evidence at hand. This course will give students a thorough understanding of the latest biological theories of evolution and equip them with the ability to intelligently discuss this controversial topic. (Spring term odd numbered years)
Prerequisites: 2 Biology courses

It can be found here.

Note that it says, “From a biological perspective,” and it does not mention anything about a conscious intelligence controlling it. It does seem to be worded in a diplomatic way to not overly obset the creationists who support the university. I could ask some of the biology professors here to be more specific on their stance on this non-existent debate among biologists.

Who in this forum has argued that evolution is false? I haven’t.

Unless I’m mistaken (I’ve only skimmed the thread), people here are arguing that the diversification of life in its present form cannot be fully accounted for by the natural and unconsciously directed process of evolution.

My biggest issue being the belief that it is proven fact.
It simply is not.

I don’t prefer to use argument from authority, but since I’m about to go to class, I’ll just say that 99+ percent of biologists believe it as a proven fact. If you’re not sure why that is, there are many good books on why evolution is a proven fact.

 

[kbachler]

Again, it would be helpful if you would learn to use the quote function, as others on this forum seem to be able to do.

kbachler

kbachler:

From a quantum mechanics perspective, 100% of them. In fact, if this weren’t the case, there would arguably be no free will, and Christianity would therefore be meaningless.

Wrong. Free will is not governed by quantum mechanics.

Sorry, another straw man. I did not say that free will is governed by quantum mechanics. In fact, if it were, I suppose there is a question of whether or not it would be free will, right?

What I said is that quantum mechanics allows for free will, because there is “randomness” (stochastic processes and events) implicit to the universe. If there were not, all events would be pre-determined and there would be no free will.

kbachler:

100%, since it happened.
Yes, abiogenesis happened. But why is it 100% likely that it happened by chance?

It didn’t happen by pure chance. There are laws and rules to physics, and chemistry and populations and natural selection. It is likely that there are mutations that happen by pure chance, but the selection of those traits over time is not a pure chance event.

What are the odds that you posted to the forum earlier today?

100% - because it happened.

Where’s your proof? You haven’t got any. Nobody does. That’s not science. That’s philosophy, and atheist philosophy to boot.

There is significant proof of evolution that is widely available. I’m not going to post it all as a response to this post.

It happened, so one can argue that the probability is 100%, as shown above.

Now, if you want to ask “What is the likelihood that it would happen again under different circumstances?” that is a different, and more interesting, question.

What I find sad are the “so-called” Catholics, Fundamentalists, Christians, who they instant that it becomes clear that they have a lack of knowledge about a topic, and have been out-argued - are faced with the choice of learning, growing, and seeing the true wonder of God’s creation - or they could insult the person(s) in the other side of the discussion.

Here we see the true colors - the insults start above with “atheist” and continue below, by questioning my Christian credentials, rather than focusing on the facts and reason.

How long have you been a Catholic? Have you been properly catechized. If you had been you would not have pulled that ***** about free will being subject to quantum mechanics.
The soul is a spirit, not a package of atoms!

I’ve been a Catholic for almost exactly 20 years. Yes, I’ve been properly catechized. You didn’t understand the free will argument. The fact that you didn’t, and as a response chose to lash out rather than ask questions is your issue for confession, not mine.

Did you even know that Werner Heisenberg, who did some of the most important work about the role of probability (chance) in quantum mechanics, was awarded the Romano Guardini Prize? At his acceptance of it on 24 March 1973, Heisenberg gave a speech before the Catholic Academy of Bavaria in which he discussed the relationship between science and religion? He once said “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

From what I can see, the Church is supportive of Quantum Mechanics, although I haven’t seen anything that I would regard as an official position.

All this said - please, take it down a notch.

 

[vz71]

I don’t prefer to use argument from authority, but since I’m about to go to class, I’ll just say that 99+ percent of biologists believe it as a proven fact. If you’re not sure why that is, there are many good books on why evolution is a proven fact.

They may.
Or they may more acurately speak of the theory of evolution.
Just as the course material you posted does.

Theory is not proven fact.

 

[kbachler]

They may.
Or they may more acurately speak of the theory of evolution.
Just as the course material you posted does.

Theory is not proven fact.

This shows a misunderstanding of the word “theory”

In the sense that you are using it, compared to scientists, keep in mind that NOTHING is EVER a proven fact. That’s not how knowledge works.

EVERYTHING is a belief. We build arguments for the belief, and at some point we consider the belief, as stated, with its constraints, to be true - a fact.

Within this context, yes, evolution is a proven fact.