Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[rossum]

OK - but I’m confused about why you identified the 2 forms of ID as you did then.

Because ID1 is purely in the theological/philosophical realm and is accepted by every adherent of an Abrahamic religion. ID2 is a specific political position common in the USA but rare outside it because of the specific provisions of the US Constitution that do not apply elsewhere.

So you agree that it is at least partly scientific?

Dembski claims that it is partly scientific. My position is that it might possibly be scientific in future, but currently is not.

And evolution is not also a cultural thing? (I think it is).

It has become so. For evolution the science dominates the culture. For ID2 the culture dominates the science, as Dembski said.

I just want to clarify this…are you saying that it does not meet the standards of being a theory, or that the research, math, analysis, etc. itself is not science?

It is a hypothesis, not a theory. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is not science, as with last Thursdayism.

The universe is designed. ID agrees with you wholeheartedly.

I am arguing from within the Abrahamic point of view.

There may be some instances where the finger of God was directly involved, but certainly ID does not say that God’s finger is involved in every stone dropping off a cliff. If you could find such an example on the Discovery.org web site I will drop my objection.

They do insist that God twiddles with DNA; DNA follows the laws of the universe just as much as a falling stone. They are looking for God’s finger pushing DNA rather than pushing a stone.

Dark matter & dark energy?

Their effects have been observed.

Black holes?

These have been directly observed.

Multi-verses?

An indirectly falsifiable hypothesis. Multiverses are consequences of a falsifiable hypothesis about the nature of quantum mechcanics. If that hypothesis is falsified then the mulitverses are falsified with it.

These are all generally accepted as “science” but there is no way to falsify them.

They can all be falsified. They are all science.

I haven’t thought about the philosophy of science to know if the “must be falsifiable” thing is a new requirement invented just for this occasion.

No, it is not. As I showed, Darwin was aware of it. Look at Karl Popper for a more modern interpretation of falsifiability in science.

All we are expecting ID to do is to describe something that cannot have been designed. Darwin did it, why hasn’t ID done it?

rossum

 

[ricmat]

As I see it there are two versions of intelligent design:

• ID1 - The universe is designed by a creator.
• ID2 - The universe is designed by a creator and we can scientifically detect this design in living organisms.

Because ID1 is purely in the theological/philosophical realm and is accepted by every adherent of an Abrahamic religion. ID2 is a specific political position common in the USA but rare outside it because of the specific provisions of the US Constitution that do not apply elsewhere.

I agree with your ID1 comment.

With regard to ID2, it can certainly be taken in a purely scientific light with no overtones of the US Constitution. The “detection of design” may be a widespread problem to solve even on simpler things than the universe, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be investigated.

Dembski claims that it is partly scientific. My position is that it might possibly be scientific in future, but currently is not.

OK

It has become so. For evolution the science dominates the culture. For ID2 the culture dominates the science, as Dembski said.

So you (Rossum) are not capable of talking about ID2 without getting involved in non-scientific culture? It seems to me that a good scientist could do that with no difficulty. And that there would not be an attempt to avoid talking about it because it has cultural overtones.

It is a hypothesis, not a theory. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is not science, as with last Thursdayism.

And like dark matter, dark energy, black holes?

I am arguing from within the Abrahamic point of view.

Do you think the universe happened “randomly”, or that it came about because of God’s design?

They do insist that God twiddles with DNA; DNA follows the laws of the universe just as much as a falling stone. They are looking for God’s finger pushing DNA rather than pushing a stone.

Hey, at least with God helping out here and there, the basic process of evolution at least has a chance of being realistic over 4 billion years. DNA is the key, I will agree with that. And to show bacteria evolving slightly new traits hardly makes the case for a 4 billion year long process from single cells (or muck) to humans.

Their effects have been observed.

Effects of something have been observed.

These have been directly observed.

The effects of something have been observed.

I’m starting to see a pattern here. Assume that the observed effects are the result of your hypothesis. Without proving it in any other way. Is that how evolution does things?

An indirectly falsifiable hypothesis. Multiverses are consequences of a falsifiable hypothesis about the nature of quantum mechcanics. If that hypothesis is falsified then the mulitverses are falsified with it.

Multiverses are a mathematical model, an abstraction which may or may not represent reality. As to quantum mechanics, Feynman (I think), nobel prize winner for quantum physics, said that anyone who says they understand quantum physics are lying (or some such thing).

No, it is not. As I showed, Darwin was aware of it. Look at Karl Popper for a more modern interpretation of falsifiability in science.

All we are expecting ID to do is to describe something that cannot have been designed. Darwin did it, why hasn’t ID done it?

Perhaps more time is needed. I don’t know. Why didn’t Newton or Einstein publish their theories 10 years earlier than they actually did. Isn’t it sad to believe that until they actually published a definition of falsifiability, that they actually weren’t doing science? How depressing.

 

[liquidpele]

If you follow the scientific method, and your results neither prove nor disprove the existence of the red unicorns, then yes, it was science.

If it follows the scientific method, regardless of outcome, it is a candidate for science class.

It is what we call “psudo-science”, and it’s ridiculous. Did I also mention that a hypothesis should be able to predict things? It’s not really useful as an explanation of it has no use beyond being a story explaining something.

You appear not to understand my comment about “extrapolation.”

If you flip an unbiased coin once and it comes up heads, that doesn’t mean that you can extrapolate that it will come up heads 100,000,000 times in a row, and thus support your theory.

A problem of scale is at work here. Is that not obvious?

Oh God… you seriously never took a statistics class did you? Seriously, watch this… I don’t have time to type up a class on statistics or evolution basics.

youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Evolutionists tell us all the time, on this forum, that evolution has been proven. So I ask for proof.

Perhaps they should learn more about science.

Yes, they should. Or perhaps they were just being lazy in their terminology. Evolution is supported by thousands of individual experiments across the globe. Just like every time you drop an object and it falls it re-supports the theory of gravity, evolution is re-affirmed all the time. While not “proven” in the strict sense of the word, it’s pretty well accepted due to the mountain of evidence. Not that it’s infallible… ground breaking discoveries happen now and then that completely make us re-think our theories. If ID was to do this, it would likely be accepted after peer review concluded that the evidence was correct, but it would also have to explain all the current evidence as well.

 

[liquidpele]

Excellent, thank you! Let’s take three of them to start with. Please will you define the self, free will and the right to life and explain how they originated.

Considering that these are among the most formidable difficulties in the non-Design explanation such a gap weakens your position considerably.

No opinion is irrelevant on a matter of such importance. After all, it shapes our whole attitude to others, ourselves and everything that exists.

Weakens my position in your eyes, but not mine

Lets see…

The self. The self is the ability to think about our thoughts. Science knows very little about this, but watching a child grow and become more self aware, to me, shows how we are not “born” with such a function… it is grown. In fact, most of our “learning” is neuron disconnects… a child is born with trillions more neuron connections than an adult, and as the brain interacts with the environment, it disconnects more than it builds to then sculpt what it should be. A nice documentary I saw recently about child prodogy and a poor girl that was keep in a room and never spoken to until she was 13 shows a drastic difference in how we are raised and how that effects our brains.

wimp.com/childsymphonies/

Also, keep in mind that a lot of our decision making and mental connections are physical… we see this when people have very specific brain injury… great talk by a neurologist about that here… absolutely fascinating stuff.

ted.com/index.php/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html

Another incredible video is about a neurologist having a stroke, and describing what she went though… absolutely incredible…

ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

In short, I can’t define it, but I see that it appears to be physical… kind of like a state machine that’s more complicated that anything I could ever build (I’m computer engineer, so that’s how I think of it).

Free will is our ability to think about what we are thinking about in my eyes… we can basically override our instincts… but other animals can do this too. When you train dolphins to jump through a hoop, for instance, you have to get them to overcome their fear of swimming through such things (looks like a mouth to them or something).

This is really in the area of psychology though… and the results are not encouraging… with all the different cognitive biases we have…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

I remember in a class I had, I read an essay on how there is even a theory that our conciousness is not even really conciousness… our brains are just really good at “faking” it by learning stuff and reproducing “choices” that we’ve seen in the past… very interesting, although just an idea. Don’t know the study anymore… searched for it a while back but couldn’t find it.

The right to life, I think I answered more in the other thread! To summarize though, basically, I think this is a human definition, because we don’t like death (evolutionary tendency, death=bad), and we like to personify things… so we don’t like death for other things either. Animals hardly have the moral issues we have when killing other species or even their own… although some humans, I must say, don’t act much better. I like the idea, but only because I think it’s a higher order social idea that, like others, allow us to evolve beyond our genetics by keeping ideas evolving within our society.

I hope that explains why I think the way I do.

 

[ricmat]

It is what we call “psudo-science”, and it’s ridiculous. Did I also mention that a hypothesis should be able to predict things? It’s not really useful as an explanation of it has no use beyond being a story explaining something.

No. If it follows the scientific method, it’s science. Pseudo-science does not.

Oh God… you seriously never took a statistics class did you? Seriously, watch this… I don’t have time to type up a class on statistics or evolution basics.

No need to invoke God here.

Yes, I have a statistics background. And engineering. And physics. Thank you.

 

[liquidpele]

Yes, I have a statistics background. And engineering. And physics. Thank you.

Did you fail out? Just kidding Just curious, what school and degree? I went to GA Tech myself.

It’s nothing like throwing 10,000 pennies in a row and getting head each time. Learn about the theory before you make claims trying to refute it.

It’s more like 1,000,000 people having 10,000 dice each. Each person picks a few dice (say 50) to throw, but not the same ones each. Some combinations make the person loose, others win, and when they win, they split into 100 more people.

 

[ricmat]

Did you fail out? Just kidding Just curious, what school and degree? I went to GA Tech myself.

It’s nothing like throwing 10,000 pennies in a row and getting head each time. Learn about the theory before you make claims trying to refute it.

It’s more like 1,000,000 people having 10,000 dice each. Each person picks a few dice (say 50) to throw, but not the same ones each. Some combinations make the person loose, others win, and when they win, they split into 100 more people.

I probably understand “how evolution is supposed to work” better than you do, but I’m not going to argue that point. As I posted previously, I think evolution can and does accomplish minor changes, via random mutations. In extremely large populations with very small time frames between generations (e.g. bacteria). But the time scale doesn’t convince me that simple to complex life can be done in a couple billion years. Ditto for the first self replicating DNA. Ditto for the totally integrated cell.

Mutations which actually perform a “good” function, or are part of a good function are very rare. The vast majority of mutations screw something up that’s already in-place as being something necessary for survival. Like computer code that works. The chances of random mutations (including additions) to computer code actually making the code work better are…well, lets say very rare. Even if you had a billion computers set to do nothing but randomly mutate code, it would take trillions of years for them to come up with any improvements.

 

[greylorn]

That was an excellent analysis and I agree with your conclusion. ID theory only opens the door to the issue by proving the presence of Intelligence and Design in the universe. But the follow-up to this proof has been neglected.

We talked about this a little on another thread. With bits and pieces of evidence, we can put together a picture of who the designer is. Thus far, we agreed that the designer possesses creative intelligence, immense power and a supreme ability for order, coordinating symmetry and “genius” arrangements as understood by mathematics.

Is this one designer or many? There’s a book on this topic which argues for one designer given the parallels in design, concept and function found in the cosmos down to the microbiological level. From electrons and the atom to solar systems.

Personally, I don’t think that physical nature can “surround” the Creator sufficiently to offer an accurate description.

But I’m interested in your explanation if you’d like to offer it.

It is probably unsuitable for this forum, as being off-topic. However, you’ll find it, (at least the main components) within the website we’ve discussed, complete with supporting arguments and information. The website is not complete, but you’ll get a gist of the ideas. .

 

[rossum]

With regard to ID2, it can certainly be taken in a purely scientific light with no overtones of the US Constitution. The “detection of design” may be a widespread problem to solve even on simpler things than the universe, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be investigated.

As I have said, science has no problem with the detection of design in general. Both Forensic Science and Archaeology do it all the time. ID2 is attempting to detect design in living organisms. So far it has not come up with any objective way to do so. Behe’s IC was an interesting failure - IC systems can and do evolve. Dembski’s CSI has problems with an objective definition of what is, and what is not, a specification and also with ascertaining the difference between newly generated CSI and copied CSI. This last is a major problem because evolution can be viewed as a process which copies information from the environment into genomes.

Do you think the universe happened “randomly”, or that it came about because of God’s design?

Neither. The Buddha said that the question of the origin of the universe is not relevant to the religious path. For that question I look to cosmology for an answer. Cosmology is still working on it; we know that the Big Bang happened, the question now is what, if anything, came before the Big Bang.

Hey, at least with God helping out here and there, the basic process of evolution at least has a chance of being realistic over 4 billion years. DNA is the key, I will agree with that. And to show bacteria evolving slightly new traits hardly makes the case for a 4 billion year long process from single cells (or muck) to humans.

One of the mistakes that ID2 supporters often make is to imagine that by disproving evolution they can prove ID2. This is wrong. The default position of science is “we don’t know”. If evolution was disproved tomorrow - somebody found a Cambrian rabbit - then science would revert to “we don’t know”. It would then be up to ID2 proponents to provide whatever positive evidence they have for scientific scrutiny.

Assume that the observed effects are the result of your hypothesis.

Not quite. Observe the effects and propose a hypothesis to explain the observed effects - this is the origin of the dark matter hypothesis. Further propose either a prediction from the hypothesis or an alternative way to faslify the hypothesis. Check the prediction and/or falsification with an experiment or further observation. Repeat many times. If the hypothesis has passed all the falsification tests and made accurate predictions then, and only then, does it get promoted to a theory.

Note that a testable prediction is a way to falsify a hypothesis. Einstein predicted that light would be bent by the sun; his theory got a major boost when such bending was observed. It could have been falsified but it was not.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

*(Please will you define the self, free will and the right to life and explain how they originated…

• Considering that these are among the most formidable difficulties in the non-Design explanation such a gap weakens your position considerably.)
  Weakens my position in your eyes, but not mine.

Not just mine but every impartial observer. An explanation which fails to account for three of the most important aspects of reality is mortally wounded…

The self. The self is the ability to think about our thoughts.

What has the ability to think about our thoughts? The brain? If so, its neurological activity is caused by physical events and not by “you”. In fact, I’m sorry to say this - according to your explanation, you don’t exist! (Be consoled: neither does anyone else - in your view - because the self is not an entity but merely an ability - presumably physical because you reject anything non-physical. Unfortunately by denying the self you also deny self-control - which includes, of course, control of one’s thoughts.

Also, keep in mind that **a lot **of our decision making and mental connections are physical…

Why not all?

In short, I can’t define it, but I see that it appears to be physical… kind of like a state machine that’s more complicated that anything I could ever build (I’m computer engineer, so that’s how I think of it).

How would you verify or falsify your hypothesis that we are just machines?

Free will is our ability to think about what we are thinking about in my eyes… we can basically override our instincts… but other animals can do this too.

How can thinking override our instincts? What puts abstract thoughts into action?

I remember in a class I had, I read an essay on how there is even a theory that our consciousness is not even really consciousness… our brains are just really good at “faking” it by learning stuff and reproducing “choices” that we’ve seen in the past… very interesting, although just an idea.

You seem to be left with nothing but a physical machine that produces false descriptions of itself.

The right to life, I think I answered more in the other thread! To summarize though, basically, I think this is a human definition, because we don’t like death (evolutionary tendency, death=bad), and we like to personify things… so we don’t like death for other things either.

In other words, the right to life is no more than a human idea we can ignore whenever we choose - provided we’re careful not to be caught. A good recipe for murder…

I like the idea, but only because I think it’s a higher order social idea that, like others, allow us to evolve beyond our genetics by keeping ideas evolving within our society.

So it’s useful from a social point of view but there’s no need for intelligent people like us to accept it… Hitler had the same idea but he found it didn’t work!

I hope that explains why I think the way I do.

Perfectly. You think you have no control over your thoughts and it doesn’t really matter if you kill people! I’m not surprised you reject Design!!!

 

[liquidpele]

I probably understand “how evolution is supposed to work” better than you do, but I’m not going to argue that point. As I posted previously, I think evolution can and does accomplish minor changes, via random mutations. In extremely large populations with very small time frames between generations (e.g. bacteria). But the time scale doesn’t convince me that simple to complex life can be done in a couple billion years. Ditto for the first self replicating DNA. Ditto for the totally integrated cell.

Mutations which actually perform a “good” function, or are part of a good function are very rare. The vast majority of mutations screw something up that’s already in-place as being something necessary for survival. Like computer code that works. The chances of random mutations (including additions) to computer code actually making the code work better are…well, lets say very rare. Even if you had a billion computers set to do nothing but randomly mutate code, it would take trillions of years for them to come up with any improvements.

You don’t think a “couple billion years” is a long enough time?

Just for fun…

Lets say that somehow the first self-replicating proteins started here in earth, and spread throughout the oceans of the time. Lets say you can have 10,000 of them on the head of a pin… so in the ocean…a surface area of about 361 million square kilometers… so that’s about 361 billion pin heads… then lets go down in depth for, say, just 1 meter even though most protoplankton can survive for several meters, so that’s about 3.6x10^21 organisms. Now, lets say each reproduced about once every hour, although some small organisms today are much faster than that… So in just 1 thousand years, you have 8.76x10^10 replications per organism… multiple the two and you get about 3.15x10^28 chances for mutation… in just a thousand years… by just one organism… Imagine after it broken into 10,000 species… they are all doing that… your grasp of “not enough time” seems silly to me given how big these numbers are. Sorry if my math was a bit off, it was a rough estimate and I was trying to use the stupid windows calculator.

With higher order organisms, you have lower numbers and thus slower rates, but as we see in genetic diseases, we have a predisposition to mutate because of the success that the mutations gave species in the past, and you also have more environmental variables that effect how we evolve, especially competition and disease, which can speed up the process.

Okay, to shift tracks, how would you explain the fact that all species appear to exist in a tree like structure, exactly what we would expect from evolution, as described in this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc

As far as I’m aware, all evidence points to the fact that species evolve… Darwin, a Christian, came to his theory not because he wanted to, but because it was the only explanation he could conceive of give what he had seen in the Galapagos islands and elsewhere. Perhaps you have evidence to suggest such things are wrong besides just claiming that you don’t think the math works and that you studied engineering and so you know what you’re talking about?

 

[liquidpele]

Not just mine but every impartial observer. An explanation which fails to account for three of the most important aspects of reality is mortally wounded…

What has the ability to think about our thoughts? The brain? If so, its neurological activity is caused by physical events and not by “you”. In fact, I’m sorry to say this - according to your explanation, you don’t exist! (Be consoled: neither does anyone else - in your view - because the self is not an entity but merely an ability - presumably physical because you reject anything non-physical. Unfortunately by denying the self you also deny self-control - which includes, of course, control of one’s thoughts.
Why not all?

That is one way to look at it. Can you come up with an idea that isn’t inspired by something you’ve seen before? No one can. We are limited to our experiences. That’s why I love to learn and broaden what I know in every subject that interests me… I find it liberating.

How would you verify or falsify your hypothesis that we are just machines?

That is just an assumption on my part… I have not studies such things, but it’s easy for me to think of them this way. How would I falsify it? By showing that the brain doesn’t have states, but instead moves smoothly between ideas and functions. Perhaps I like the state machine idea because I’m ADD, so I can only concentrate on one thing at a time…

How can thinking override our instincts? What puts abstract thoughts into action?

Ha! I have no idea… I think when we crack that, we’ll be able to build real AI!

You seem to be left with nothing but a physical machine that produces false descriptions of itself.

But what a wondrous machine we are! If we build a robot that can think and be self aware one day… is he not actually possible because he’s a machine?

In other words, the right to life is no more than a human idea we can ignore whenever we choose - provided we’re careful not to be caught. A good recipe for murder… So it’s useful from a social point of view but there’s no need for intelligent people like us to accept it… Hitler had the same idea but he found it didn’t work!

It’s no more than a human idea… but ignoring it has consequences. Murder happens all the time… what did you think was the cause? The Devil? Hitler tore apart his entire society and committed suicide… you think that was progress? Like I said… consequences.

Perfectly. You think you have no control over your thoughts and it doesn’t really matter if you kill people! I’m not surprised you reject Design!!!

… do you know how many people are being killed in the world just today? I think it does matter… but the fact that such an idea is ignored by so many is a pretty big indication that not all humans see the right to life as a right. In short, I don’t see the world as a wonderful little Christian paradise that God shines sunlight down on and we all dance around in a circle. I see it as a place that we are trying, building, discovering, fighting, crying, laughing, and believing… trying to build a place that is good for us to live and that we are happy with.

 

[ricmat]

You don’t think a “couple billion years” is a long enough time?

No. It’s actually a short time. 10^18 seconds since the big bang.

Just for fun…

Lets say that somehow the first self-replicating proteins started here in earth, and spread throughout the oceans of the time. Lets say you can have 10,000 of them on the head of a pin… so in the ocean…a surface area of about 361 million square kilometers… so that’s about 361 billion pin heads… then lets go down in depth for, say, just 1 meter even though most protoplankton can survive for several meters, so that’s about 3.6x10^21 organisms. Now, lets say each reproduced about once every hour, although some small organisms today are much faster than that… So in just 1 thousand years, you have 8.76x10^10 replications per organism… multiple the two and you get about 3.15x10^28 chances for mutation… in just a thousand years… by just one organism… Imagine after it broken into 10,000 species… they are all doing that… your grasp of “not enough time” seems silly to me given how big these numbers are. Sorry if my math was a bit off, it was a rough estimate and I was trying to use the stupid windows calculator.

And so after all that, you still have protoplankton.

The VAST majority of mutations are harmful, and are not anywhere on the path to higher forms of life. Most of the mutations are deadly, or at a minimum a regression - oops, there goes the eyes. Oops - there goes the kidney. Oops - there goes the instinct to run away when I see a tiger coming. Oops - there goes the ability of my skin to convert sunlight to vitamin D. etc.

With higher order organisms, you have lower numbers and thus slower rates, but as we see in genetic diseases, we have a predisposition to mutate because of the success that the mutations gave species in the past, and you also have more environmental variables that effect how we evolve, especially competition and disease, which can speed up the process.

Funny. I thought DNA had built-in features to PREVENT mutations. Which makes sense, because the vast majority of mutations are harmful (even deadly) to the existing species.

You are correct about higher organisms and lower numbers. This is a HUGE problem for your analysis, because you no longer have 10^10 organisms reproducing every hour. You have maybe a few thousand or million reproducing every 20 years.

Okay, to shift tracks, how would you explain the fact that all species appear to exist in a tree like structure, exactly what we would expect from evolution, as described in this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc

As far as I’m aware, all evidence points to the fact that species evolve… Darwin, a Christian, came to his theory not because he wanted to, but because it was the only explanation he could conceive of give what he had seen in the Galapagos islands and elsewhere.

You’re not paying attention. I’ve stated many times that I think species evolve. Each of us is different than our parents. It’s the time scale I don’t believe - unless evolution had some help (which I envision as a divine selective breeder for lack of a better analogy).

BTW - the tree of life thing was originally based on gross physical characteristics. As DNA evidence becomes more available, it seems that there are some real problems with that tree of life idea. Google it. But then, perhaps you don’t read things that you might disagree with.

Perhaps you have evidence to suggest such things are wrong besides just claiming that you don’t think the math works and that you studied engineering and so you know what you’re talking about?

You’re the one who brought up credentials, not me.

I understand evolution pretty well - it’s what I was taught, and have generally believed for a long time. I also understand a lot of the counter arguments. The TOE is not perfect, and has a lot of problems. I also have a lot of experience managing technical teams and I recognize smoke and mirrors when I see it. Evolution relies a lot on smoke and mirrors at this point. Again, I think evolution via random (and non-random) mutation can accomplish a lot. It’s the time frame I can’t reconcile.

Science needs to keep an open mind that it might be wrong, or not totally correct. I see none of that on the pro-evolution side of the evolution debate. For the most part, the evolutionists are dogmatic “Darwin-bible thumpers” who know that they are correct and get really snitty when they can’t make someone agree with them. You are relatively new to these forums, but those of us who have been around here for a while know what I’m talking about here.

I’m not so much interested in the details of evolution - if it is correct as written or not - because there will be no “evolution test” to get into heaven. My interest is merely a casual interest. I am interested in how belief in evolution seems to cause swelled pride in many who posters (I’m not speaking of you here). And I’m interested in why they think it is so important to get me (& others) to believe them.

 

[liquidpele]

No. It’s actually a short time. 10^18 seconds since the big bang.

And so after all that, you still have protoplankton.

The VAST majority of mutations are harmful, and are not anywhere on the path to higher forms of life. Most of the mutations are deadly, or at a minimum a regression - oops, there goes the eyes. Oops - there goes the kidney. Oops - there goes the instinct to run away when I see a tiger coming. Oops - there goes the ability of my skin to convert sunlight to vitamin D. etc.

Funny. I thought DNA had built-in features to PREVENT mutations. Which makes sense, because the vast majority of mutations are harmful (even deadly) to the existing species.

You are correct about higher organisms and lower numbers. This is a HUGE problem for your analysis, because you no longer have 10^10 organisms reproducing every hour. You have maybe a few thousand or million reproducing every 20 years.

You’re not paying attention. I’ve stated many times that I think species evolve. Each of us is different than our parents. It’s the time scale I don’t believe - unless evolution had some help (which I envision as a divine selective breeder for lack of a better analogy).

BTW - the tree of life thing was originally based on gross physical characteristics. As DNA evidence becomes more available, it seems that there are some real problems with that tree of life idea. Google it. But then, perhaps you don’t read things that you might disagree with.

You’re the one who brought up credentials, not me.

I understand evolution pretty well - it’s what I was taught, and have generally believed for a long time. I also understand a lot of the counter arguments. The TOE is not perfect, and has a lot of problems. I also have a lot of experience managing technical teams and I recognize smoke and mirrors when I see it. Evolution relies a lot on smoke and mirrors at this point. Again, I think evolution via random (and non-random) mutation can accomplish a lot. It’s the time frame I can’t reconcile.

Science needs to keep an open mind that it might be wrong, or not totally correct. I see none of that on the pro-evolution side of the evolution debate. For the most part, the evolutionists are dogmatic “Darwin-bible thumpers” who know that they are correct and get really snitty when they can’t make someone agree with them. You are relatively new to these forums, but those of us who have been around here for a while know what I’m talking about here.

I’m not so much interested in the details of evolution - if it is correct as written or not - because there will be no “evolution test” to get into heaven. My interest is merely a casual interest. I am interested in how belief in evolution seems to cause swelled pride in many who posters (I’m not speaking of you here). And I’m interested in why they think it is so important to get me (& others) to believe them.

DNA does have protection against mutations… but it’s not perfect by a long shot. Just look at how common cancer is. Basically, we mutate enough that we can evolve, but not enough that we all just die.

You say a few billion years is not a long time, just because you can think of a bigger number??

Higher order animals don’t reproduce every 20 years… fruit flies go through entire generations within days for instance. Most smaller animals reproduce several times a year… but yes, as the animal gets larger, you see less and less evolution, but it doesn’t stop. In fact, we literally witnessed it with the dessert banana - random mutation turning a plantain into the desert banana we now eat (which is sterile, but like you said, all mutations aren’t good ones).

Actually, **you **brought up the credentials, not me. I simply then asked what school because I was curious, and offered mine up since I didn’t want to seem like I would ask but not tell. I wasn’t trying to measure up schools, it was just a curiosity… especially if you went to a rival football school

The DNA issues with the tree of life show that there was not one single first organism as was first thought… the basic tree structure stays intact though.

You’re right that science needs to not be close minded… but science accepts evidence, not an opinion that the time is too short for stuff to happen.

Your interest being casual is fair enough, especially if you don’t deal with it on a day to day basis. I agree there will probably not be an “evolution” test when you die People think it’s important because it is something that defines the world we live in on a massive scale… it would be like people denying that gravity exists to us. Honestly, I don’t care much if people choose to not believe it though, but I do have a problem with pushing non-science into a science class.

 

[ricmat]

Oh God… you seriously never took a statistics class did you? Seriously, watch this… I don’t have time to type up a class on statistics or evolution basics.

Actually, **you **brought up the credentials, not me. I simply then asked what school because I was curious, and offered mine up since I didn’t want to seem like I would ask but not tell. I wasn’t trying to measure up schools, it was just a curiosity… especially if you went to a rival football school

Actually, you brought it up. See the first post.

In general, in these forums we don’t give out information that could lead people to personally identify us. My username and college would probably be enough to track me down. But I will say that it wasn’t an SEC school. I did have an uncle that went there a long time ago (GT).

 

[ricmat]

OK - a change of pace here, some humor (I hope) sort of related to “evolution” and religion too.

This picture was on americanpapist.com:

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20090531/i/r199851147.jpg?x=400&y=282&q=85&sig=xzW.c_1PpZrp93fLm8414A--

**“Robot Transformers 3: Vatican Infiltrator.”

**(Well, OK, I got a chuckle out of it.)

 

[liquidpele]

Actually, you brought it up. See the first post.

In general, in these forums we don’t give out information that could lead people to personally identify us. My username and college would probably be enough to track me down. But I will say that it wasn’t an SEC school. I did have an uncle that went there a long time ago (GT).

Did I? Oh well, then my bad

I suppose that makes sense, I don’t mind giving out basic info though… I figure trying to stay 100% anonymous is impossible…

Your uncle sounds like a cool guy

 

[tonyrey]

ID proponents generally assume that the designer is necessarily the omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity. The evidence in favor of design does not support such a conclusion.

Why do you believe that?

 

[greylorn]

greylorn:

ID proponents generally assume that the designer is necessarily the omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity. The evidence in favor of design does not support such a conclusion.

Why do you believe that?

To which of my two assertions does your question apply?

 

[Michaelo]

reggieM

dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php

I decided not to further investigate this site because it isn’t intended to support ID as evidenced by its FAQ:

1. By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signers endorsing alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?

No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the statement as written…

evolutionnews.org/2007/01/journal_of_molecular_biology_a.html

Dr. Axe:

I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails “severe sequence constraints”. The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.

So essentially he believes that the improbability of evolution accounting for functional enzymes adds to the case for ID. What’s the connection?

discovery.org/a/2640

Irreducible complexity is a common theme amongst these articles that allegedly indicates ID, but as I’ve said before, discrediting evolution does not automatically bolster the legitimacy of ID. The IC and improbability arguments are merely critical in nature; they do not offer the positive evidence necessary for substantiating ID.

Dembski’s specified complexity, another concept commonly invoked by these articles, involves a filter intended to detect design:

1. If an event E has high probability, accept regularity as an explanation; otherwise move to the next step.
2. If the chance hypothesis assigns E a high probability or E is not specified, then accept chance; otherwise move down the list.
   3. Having eliminated regularity and chance, accept design.

But this third step operates on the same logical fallacy as that relied upon by the IC and improbability arguments, that is, by discovering the inadequacies of an explanation (in this case regularity or chance) another one (design) may be automatically accepted.