A simple case for intelligent design

[tas8831]

I have been on forums for years and before that, the old news groups.

Sounds like my basic experience - started in the mid-to-late 1990s. The stories I could tell...

Had a creationist once ask me what my credentials were such that I could dare counter the great Jon Wells (or whoever the favorite creationist of the time was) , I explained my background and current status and he accused me of trying to 'appeal to authority' - my own!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sounds like my basic experience - started in the mid-to-late 1990s. The stories I could tell...

Had a creationist once ask me what my credentials were such that I could dare counter the great Jon Wells (or whoever the favorite creationist of the time was) , I explained my background and current status and he accused me of trying to 'appeal to authority' - my own!

When you are talking to creationists do you ever envision the image of a fish flopping around on a beach, trying desperately to find some way to hit water? Sometimes that is replaced by a memory of my teen years and trying to find a way out of a questioning by my parents. Any way out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sounds like my basic experience - started in the mid-to-late 1990s. The stories I could tell...

Had a creationist once ask me what my credentials were such that I could dare counter the great Jon Wells (or whoever the favorite creationist of the time was) , I explained my background and current status and he accused me of trying to 'appeal to authority' - my own!

I used to post on an agriculture news group that had a core of retired scientists and a couple of farmers. One guy claimed to be a British farmer and his knowledge forever notched up my view of farmers in general. There were plenty of random fundamentalists too, but there were always roaming trolls that were looking to stir up trouble and flame wars just for their own sake too. I like the freedom that some of those news groups and early forums offered, but there is some value in structure that I would not trade away. Twenty years of pretty much the same no matter where you go, but at least here there is some constraint that filters out the larger chunks of detritus.

 

[ecco]

People who don't accept evolution, if you look at most of their posts, they don't just understand and or are asking why.
...
Creationist need the why answered and a hope of explanation to understand. If not, they don't move on to evolution.

I respectfully disagree. If you dig a little deeper than their words regarding evolution, you quickly see that they are religious fundamentalists.

Evolution contradicts Genesis. No one can believe both.

Although these people make pseudo-scientific arguments against evolution the real reason for disbelief in evolution is conflict with Genesis. Their "scientific" arguments are just repeated cut and pastes from Creo websites and Creo authors. They couple these together with personal incredulity: It's just too complex to have occurred naturally; The odds against it happening are just too great.

Only occasionally will they admit to their true reasons, a belief that GodDidIt.

 

[ecco]

By all means just keep hand waving them off and calling them stupid. That's for sure educating them.

I don't think you have actually seen many people use the word "stupid" to define Creos.
Deeply indoctrinated? Yes.
Willfully ignorant? Yes.

All the "education" in the world will not impact the mind of one who is willfully ignorant because they have been deeply indoctrinated.

 

[ecco]

Example what were the odds of Earth being formed and able to support life billions of years ago?

A more realistic example is:
Given that there are 100,000,000,000 planets in our galaxy, what are the odds that at least one would be able to support life?

 

[tas8831]

**I’m asking us to try to spitball some statistical probabilities and numbers. For example, I have about 30 proteins that clot blood when I’m injured. I’m trying to fathom how my ancestors/ancestor species didn’t bleed out when they were injured, and the odds of having 30 proteins that work together, and the odds of having evolved a lymphatic and nervous and a dozen other systems that trigger clotting, so that I don’t bleed to death and also don’t form unneeded clots and die from an embolism.

Why do you assume that 1. your ancestor did not have those 30 proteins and 2. why you think that only that combination of proteins is engaged in hemostasis.

This gedanken is an adjunct to evolution theory, that puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent,

This is false.

saying that everything in nature was invented by it - everything:

**…sexual and asexual reproduction, eye-hand coordination, balance, navigation systems, tongues, blood, antennae, waste removal systems, swallowing, joints, lubrication, pumps, valves, autofocus, image stabilization, sensors, camouflage, traps, ceramic teeth [?], light (bioluminescence), ears, tears, eyes, hands, fingernails, cartilage, bones, spinal columns, spinal cords, muscles, ligaments, tendons, livers, kidneys, thyroid glands, lungs, stomachs, vocal cords, saliva, skin, fat, lymph, body plans, growth from egg to adult, nurturing babies, aging, breathing, heartbeat, hair, hibernation, bee dancing, insect queens, spiderwebs, feathers, seashells, scales, fins, tails, legs, feet, claws, wings, beaver dams, termite mounds, bird nests, coloration, markings, decision making, speech center of the brain, visual center of the brain, hearing center of the brain, language comprehension center of the brain, sensory center of the brain, memory, creative center of the brain, object-naming center of the brain, emotional center of the brain, movement centers of the brain, center of the brain for smelling, immune systems, circulatory systems, digestive systems, endocrine systems, regulatory systems, genes, gene regulatory networks, proteins, ribosomes that assemble proteins, receptors for proteins on cells, apoptosis, hormones, neurotransmitters, circadian clocks, jet propulsion, etc. Everything in nature - according to evolution theory. Just to be clear. – source: Debunking Evolution - Scientific evidence against evolution - Clash between theory and reality

Wow, coool - why not just link to Gray's anatomy and wonder how all of that arose all at once via random chance, or some other hackneyed nonsense?
How did Yahweh poof all of that out of dust all at once? Why expect from others that you never even try to present for your own side?

 

[ecco]

Better yet I'm asking the staff to get involved because of your false accusations you are making about me are breaking the rules set for this forum.

Mommy! Mommy! Billy won't play fair.

 

[ecco]

It's not "statistically unlikely" that if we give 100 monkeys typewriters for a year, that they will produce a copy of a Shakespearean sonnet?!

I was referring to this part of your comment.

...it is possible for monkeys to type Shakespeare,​

It is impossible for monkeys to type Shakespeare. Again, do the math.

 

[ecco]

What are the odds that the entire universe has existed forever?
If the universe has existed forever--longer than 15B years--what are the odds that forever is even longer than you think, before the creation of Earth?

Exactly my point! Your God did nothing for all but 6 days of eternity/forever. I sometimes think YHWH is really just a young son of GOD. One day GOD walks into YHWH's room and says in a loud booming voice (because that's the way GODs talk):

GET UP YOU LAZY RUNT! IT'S BEEN FOREVER AND YOU'VE DONE NOTHING!
​

To which YHWH meekly replies:

OK Pops, I'll get right on it.
​

Six days later:

(Yawn) Now I gotta get some rest.​

 

[ecco]

**I’m asking us to try to spitball some statistical probabilities and numbers. For example
...
Is my incredulity reasonable, reasoned?

This post is an excellent example of what is being discussed in the side arguments. The poster copies/pastes stuff from creo websites posing pseudo-scientific anti-evolution "arguments". He then adds a few of his own "incredulous" comments.

It's very obvious from a few of his other posts that his real reason for disbelieving evolution is his fundamentalist religious beliefs.

He's been on this forum for over six years.

Does anyone really believe he wants to learn?
Does anyone really believe he is teachable?

 

[ecco]

I've kinda lost my enthusiasm for it.

And yet, you soldier on...

It has a proto-wing....a limb that is less than a fully-developed wing, exactly what you asked to see.

 

[Jose Fly]

I always come away from discussions about science with those that have opposition to some aspect of science, with the notion that they are seeking a response that boils a 1000 years of human knowledge and thought into a couple of pithy sentences that explains everything. Failing that, than someone with a background or knowledge of science really knows nothing and is just espousing a religious view.

Not that a scientist cannot be wrong or is not subject to the same frailties as anyone, but that the creationist/theist should be able to learn and understand everything about science or at least a topic within science and because that does not happen, their religious beliefs are correct. It is not even a quality of the answer, being better or worse, but the idea that it is something they can learn in a minute and understand as if they had practice for decades. A sort of "fast food" mentality to learning. Not that I expect the average person to know everything coming in, but you would think they would review it a little if their intent is to discuss it openly.

There is an apparent imbalance in the dynamic that is used against those skilled in the art.

One trait common among fundamentalists is black/white, all or none thinking. We see this in action when a creationist (especially one here in particular) demands to see evidence, is given it, scans through it to find words like "most likely", then declares that it's therefore all speculation and is no different than blind religious faith. IOW, it's "unless you absolutely know everything, you know nothing and it's all belief".

It's entertaining to watch though.

 

[Jose Fly]

And yet, you soldier on...

Yup, sometimes it's just too easy.

This time around it's a creationist challenging us "Show me X", so I showed him exactly what he demanded. Now we all get to watch his response. Will he now acknowledge that X exists? Probably not, unless it's to suddenly declare that X is no longer important. The more stereotypical response is to say that it doesn't count because it's not Y. I'm expecting something like "How does that prove common ancestry".

 

[tas8831]

One trait common among fundamentalists is black/white, all or none thinking. We see this in action when a creationist (especially one here in particular) demands to see evidence, is given it, scans through it to find words like "most likely", then declares that it's therefore all speculation and is no different than blind religious faith. IOW, it's "unless you absolutely know everything, you know nothing and it's all belief".

It's entertaining to watch though.

Entertaining at first... But when it becomes their 'argument of choice', it can get frustrating...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because at any point in time only 'fully formed' species are selected for. The point is that those species change over time, always being 'fully formed'.

The analogy is languages. Latin slowly changed into French. At each point in time, the language was 'fully formed'. At each point in time, people understood both the previous generation and the following one and would have considered both to be speaking the same language. Nonetheless, the language changed over time.

We see words and cognates that show Latin changing to French over time--we have evidence for that--so why no evidence for morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved?

A wing is at a DNA information level far more complex than the words of a human language, all the words of such a language!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, have you considered looking at the clotting mechanisms of animals that don't have 30 proteins? Doing a bit of comparative physiology with clotting proteins and how they are related might be a good way to proceed, don't you think?

Here's a simple investigation:
The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood clotting

I'm curious, as to your estimate on the minimum number of proteins, neurotransmitters, systems to recognize bleeding is occurring, pathways to release clotting proteins, etc. Even if one protein only is needed... how long would it take to evolve? Because my point is one generation isn't fast enough to stop wounded creature from bleeding to death.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What I can't figure out is why you expect to find "half-formed" creatures, and what that is, exactly.

One gap I see includes morphological innovations, such as wings, (two wings or more!) which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved. Or how a study showed that evolutionists have determined a cecal appendix evolved independently, at least 32 separate times, in mammals. What happens to statistical odds when they are raised to the 32nd power?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The fact that we can divide the fossil record into species at all is an artefact of the patchiness of the record itself (because fossilisation is rare). If the record were complete, it would be impossible, as there would be a continuum between each current species and its ancestors. We'd have the same situation as with ring species, spread over time, for every single species and its ancestors.

Every single creature that ever lived was in a "fully formed species" at the time.

I understand, but have you considered the odds of every creature passing recessive genes down, until new species pop into existence?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Typing monkeys are totally irrelevant to evolution because of natural selection. Natural selection is like having monkeys typing but when a letter is in the correct place to produce the sonnet, it is kept, and every incorrect letter is discarded.

It's ridiculous to suggest that complex life could arise by pure chance (in the sense of typing monkeys: just waiting for everything to come together at once). Natural selection isn't just chance, it filters changes according to their utility in the environment and discards changes that are not useful in the environment.

A study concluded that the cecal appendix evolved independently at least 32 separate times in mammals. What happens to statistical odds raised to the 32nd power? And what filters reduce these odds?

* The filter to store unneeded gut bacteria in the appendix until needed
* The filter to build the appendix as a rarefied storage unit
* The filter to have the enzymes and other catalysts to release the bacteria, etc. times about 30 other things we can think of from a medical/endocrine/biology perspective, raised to the 32nd power for 32 independent evolutionary changes