A simple case for intelligent design

[exchemist]

1) Easily done. For most amphibians, oxygen diffuses through the skin as well as being available through gills (in young) and lungs (in adults). There is already more than one respiratory system in place.

2-9) Seldom required.

In fact, during the transition, most of these systems stay the same. For example, the eggs of amphibians are still laid in water, no caring is done for the young, similar strategies for finding food are used, no new circulatory system is required, the ambulatory system is based on the lobed fins of the ancestor fish, etc.

In going back to the water (say, with whales), there is a transitional stage (like with penguins, otters, sea lions, etc) where the species is both land-based and water-based.

In fact, on another thread there was an interesting discussion of the relationship between the fish swim bladder and lungs. There is a more or less complete spectrum in fish, from those with no swim bladder, through those with a swim bladder isolated from the gut, through those with a swim bladder than can be pressurised or depressurised via the gut to those in which it can serve as a lung. Furthermore, the blood supply to the swim bladder is arranged to facilitate transport of gases in both directions, to enable it to be filed and emptied according to the depth at which the fish swims. So all the bits and pieces are already in place.

So the notion that a new respiratory system was needed is a myth.

Once again, the more you know, the less remarkable these changes turn out to be.

 

[gnostic]

The ID argument is that the complexity of life is analogous to the complexity of pyramids or cars, (called specified complexity) pyramids cars and life have many parts (many components) organiced in a very specific order and pattern, and there are many possible configurations allowed by the laws of nature, but only 1 (or few) combinations would produce something that you would call a pyramid a car or a living thing.


So the question is, which of the premises do you think is wrong

1 that the complexity of life is analogous to the complexity on a pyramid or a car

2 that this type of complexity indicates intelligent design?

You keep talking of “complexity” in ID, but you keep ignoring one of the major factor within ID - the DESIGNER.

Without Designer, there is no Intelligent Design.

But the Designer is like God, ghosts and fairies, there are no verifiable evidences for their existence.

Until you can actually verify and test the Designer, then anything you say about the intelligent design is utterly pseudoscience nonsense, mere speculation and wishful thinking.

 

[tas8831]

And to this date, Behe still have not provided any methodology of testing his Irreducible Complexity.

The people at Discovery Institute, including Behe, have no integrity.

And let us not forget that Behe actually declared that it was not up to him to test his assertions.

 

[Jose Fly]

Some would argue that these are the main mechanism behind the evolutionary history if earth...... All I am saying is that this statement is controversial perhaps they are the main mechanisms or perhaps there are some other mechanism that play a more important role.

And again, the fact that evolutionary biologists are debating the various mechanisms behind evolution is hardly a revelation. So I'm still at a loss as to what your point is, unless it's just to note the obvious.

 

[tas8831]

Oy... Did I mention that this is tedious?

You are the one who is making this tedious, ou are the one who is focusing on irrelevant stuff.

Right - by explaining things to you that you asked about, and wondering why you then misrepresented me. Got it.

All my fault.

Just provide evidence that shows that worm-like to human evolution is plausible via the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection, whether if this process requires billions of mutations or not is irrelevant, just show your evidence.

I did - remember those abstracts? Now, it did not address the worm thing directly, but that mutation occurs and that the patterns of these mutations can be used to reconstruct phylogenies of, for example, Primates, why should we conclude that this does not work for the worm thing?

Ok - your turn. Lets see your evidence that a human made the original human.

About showing evidence for my position, well I can show with a high degree of confidence that specified complexity can only come from a mind and that life is specified and complex. Would that count as evidence for my position? If not why not? What would you accept as evidence for ID?

How on earth can you show that? All you - or any ID advocate, even the professional ones - can possibly do is present a human contrivance and use that as an analogy/extrapolation. IOW, all the ID camp can possibly argue is that Humans designed humans (and every other living thing).

What do I mean by specified complexity? Since my previous definition was misleading I will change the words and try to provide a better definition.

If something has many parts, the parts are organized in an objective pattern that would allow a function, and if there are many different configurations allowed by the laws of nature, where only a minority of such possible configurations would produce something functional.

So by this definition cars are specified and complex because:

- A car has many parts

- The parts are organized in such a way that would allow the car to have a function

- There are many possible configurations in which this parts can exist, for example it is physically possible to have the wheels inside the car, but only few configurations would produce a functional car.


Is the definition clear? If not please feel free to ask for clarification.

Crystal clear - humans make cars, cars are complex and specified prior to their construction by humans, therefore, if we see a car we know that a human made it.

What 'complex' biological structure was specified prior to its production, and what is the evidence that this were so?

The game Dembski and his pals used was to work backwards - declaring something to possess CSI, then declaring it to have been designed. But the only 'mind' we know of that specifies in advance is the human mind, and human activity re: specification leaves evidence (plans, machinery, failed attempts, etc.).

So, to borrow the argument technique of some creationists on this forum, show me the eye with no orbit or the half-empty skull (failed attempts), or the lab wherein a puffer fish was designed and made, or the plans used to make a penguin (plans, machinery).

So the argument is that life is specified and complex (analogous to a car) and that specified complexity can only come from a mind …………so if I show that these 2 statements are probably true, would you accept ID?

The P1 is only applicable to humans, and P2 is a mere assertion with no context or rationale (other than its tautological nature).

All you can show is that humans make things with CSI, and you will have to identify the location of this "mind" - but I think Phineas Gage will put the kibosh on all that...

So weird that you totally abandoned your whole eye- duplications thing.

Is this your way of retracting and apologizing? If so, it sort of sucks.

 

[tas8831]

Once again, the more you know, the less remarkable these changes turn out to be.

Exactly.

A few years ago, an evolution researcher gave a talk about the 'deep roots' of extant Primate (human) traits to one of my classes. He actually used a few creationist talking points (without saying so), such as 'how could the human shoulder joint have evolved from an ape-like one in only a few million years...', that sort of thing, but then pointed out that the human shoulder joint is a primate shoulder joint, is a mammalian shoulder joint, etc., and that our shoulder joint is only different from a cow's by degrees, not kinds. IOW, all of our physical traits are just slightly modified traits that our shared ancestors possessed.

It is truly fantastic to believe that the human shoulder joint arose from nothing.

But to understand that it is just a modified monkey shoulder joint sort of takes the luster off of it, I suppose (for some, anyway), and makes it less 'fantastic.'

 

[viole]

Yes that is exactly my point, you know that pyramids where designed because you saw a pattern that could have not been produced by any known natural process nor chance (say wind and erosion)


You can infer design even if you don’t know the exact mechanism used by the Egyptians, there are objective ways to detect design………agree?

Do you think those castles, that ants colonies do, are designed?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leroy]

You keep talking of “complexity” in ID, but you keep ignoring one of the major factor within ID - the DESIGNER.

Without Designer, there is no Intelligent Design.

But the Designer is like God, ghosts and fairies, there are no verifiable evidences for their existence.

Until you can actually verify and test the Designer, then anything you say about the intelligent design is utterly pseudoscience nonsense, mere speculation and wishful thinking.

Well given that you claim to be an agnostic that means that at least you grant that the existence of God is at least possible.

The argument would go as follows.

- We know (at least with a high degree of confidence) that nature (nor chance) cant create specified complexity (cars, pyramids, life etc.)

- God (if he exists) could create specified complexity

- God might exist, (the existence of God is possible)


Therefore on the bases of those 3 points, it seems that God is the most viable explanation for the origin of life.


As an analogy we can use this: I am an agnostic with regards of the existence of intelligent Aliens, this means that I grant that the existence of aliens is possible (I don’t affirm that the existence of aliens is impossible) . So if we ever find something that looks like a pyramid in another planet, I would argue that design is the best explanation even if there is not previous evidence for Aliens, … why? Because based on what we know pyramids can’t be created naturally and the existence of Aliens is at least possible, hence Aliens would seem to be the best explanation for the origin of the pyramids.


We can start our conversation by you indicating exactly your main point of disagreement.


My argument makes 3 claims

1 Life has a complexity analogous to pyramids or cars (specified complexity)

2 specified complexity can only come from a mind

3 the existence of an intelligent designer is at least possible

Which of these 3 claims do you find controversial so that I can justify it.



I there anything in the argument that you don’t understand, so that I can provide a more detailed explanation?

 

[leroy]

Do you think those castles, that ants colonies do, are designed?

Ciao

- viole

No and I would also argue that the complexity of those castles is not analogous to the complexity of cars or pyramids (or life).ants under given circumstances are “forced” by the laws of nature to create such patterns…….there is nothing in the laws of nature that forces rocks to cut themselves in to cubic blocks and organize themselves one un top of the other.

 

[Bear Wild]

I am just stablish the point that there are alternatives to evolution by random mutatios and natural selection. Do you grant this point?



Can you show that to be true? Not only there is a lack of evidence, but even in principle a system like natural genetic engineering can not evolve by random mutatios and natural selection. These system has long term benefits, while natural selection can only select for immediate benefits.

You also have to deal with an aparentemente Paradox concepto te ningún thecrepar mechanism, this mechanism that prevents ( repairs) the mayority of random mutations .

So did a mechanism that prevents random mutations evolved by a proces of random mutations?

And why was this repair mechanism selected by natural selection? Is preventing mutations good for the organism? ......is the overall effect of random mutations negative?

The genetic code for living things did start with random mutations finally creating more and more complex genetic combination which were selected for by natural selection. Yes as the genetic code became more complex and developed self regulating proteins and splicing proteins. As these genetic regulatory proteins formed as a result of mutations they developed mechanisms to cut, splice, copy, polymerize and change/regulate the structure of internal DNA molecules. They and transport DNA from one cell to another, or acquire DNA from other genetic information in the environment. There is also some evidence that these regulatory proteins can develop totally novel sequences by polymerizing DNA without at template. This is all exciting and can explain a much faster process to create genetic variation but it still does not replace random mutations and natural selection as the process of evolution - only adding to the possibilities. There is no conscious effort by the cell to create new genetic combinations, only the interactions within the organism and in reaction to the environment. Thus these are still only natural processes not driven by any design other than to be selected for by natural selection because the increase the survival and reproductive capacity of the organism.

 

[viole]

I am just stablish the point that there are alternatives to evolution by random mutatios and natural selection. Do you grant this point?

If I may, yes. There are also alternative to gravitation to explain planetary orbits. Everything has an alternative. It is, for instance, logically possible that planets are carried around by invisible angels in their core.

Your turn: evolution by natural selection could account for all complexity of life we observe today. Do you grant this point?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No and I would also argue that the complexity of those castles is not analogous to the complexity of cars or pyramids (or life).ants under given circumstances are “forced” by the laws of nature to create such patterns…….there is nothing in the laws of nature that forces rocks to cut themselves in to cubic blocks and organize themselves one un top of the other.

You are begging the question. You assume that the complexity of life we observe is not possibly the result of a law of nature.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leroy]

If I may, yes. There are also alternative to gravitation to explain planetary orbits. Everything has an alternative. It is, for instance, logically possible that planets are carried around by invisible angels in their core.

Your turn: evolution by natural selection caould account for all complexity of life we observe today. Do you grant this point?

Ciao

- viole

Your analogy on gravity is wrong, the alternatives for evolution by random mutations and natural selection have been proposed by scientists and have passed the peer review process.

 

[leroy]

You are begging the question. You assume that the complexity of life we observe is not possibly the result of a law of nature.

Ciao

- viole

Is not an arbitrary assumption, there are good positive reasons to think that the laws of nature cant create life

 

[leroy]

The genetic code for living things did start with random mutations finally creating more and more complex genetic combination which were selected for by natural selection. Yes as the genetic code became more complex and developed self regulating proteins and splicing proteins. As these genetic regulatory proteins formed as a result of mutations they developed mechanisms to cut, splice, copy, polymerize and change/regulate the structure of internal DNA molecules. They and transport DNA from one cell to another, or acquire DNA from other genetic information in the environment. There is also some evidence that these regulatory proteins can develop totally novel sequences by polymerizing DNA without at template. This is all exciting and can explain a much faster process to create genetic variation but it still does not replace random mutations and natural selection as the process of evolution - only adding to the possibilities. There is no conscious effort by the cell to create new genetic combinations, only the interactions within the organism and in reaction to the environment. Thus these are still only natural processes not driven by any design other than to be selected for by natural selection because the increase the survival and reproductive capacity of the organism.

sure, can you show that these mechanisms can originated by random mutations and natural selection?

 

[Jose Fly]

Your analogy on gravity is wrong, the alternatives for evolution by random mutations and natural selection have been proposed by scientists and have passed the peer review process.

FYI, they're not "alternatives"; they're additional mechanisms.

 

[viole]

Your analogy on gravity is wrong, the alternatives for evolution by random mutations and natural selection have been proposed by scientists and have passed the peer review process.

You asked for alternatives. And yes, that is also an alternative. I do not give it any credence, but, like the angels, it could be.

But I missed an answer to my counter challenge: evolution by natural selection could account for the complexity of life as we observe today. Do you grant this point?

Yes, or no.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

sure, can you show that these mechanisms can originated by random mutations and natural selection?

Um, Leroy....you're not even keeping up with your own talking points.

You've been pointing out that evolutionary biologists have identified evolutionary mechanisms beyond just mutation and natural selection, and no one here disputes that. But now you're challenging someone to explain not only where the mechanisms came from, but you're limiting those explanations to just mutation and selection? Even though we've agreed that there are additional mechanisms?

Are you okay?

 

[viole]

Is not an arbitrary assumption, there are good positive reasons to think that the laws of nature cant create life

Which are?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

Is not an arbitrary assumption, there are good positive reasons to think that the laws of nature cant create life

Please specify those reasons.