A simple case for intelligent design

[exchemist]

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.'

Not being a biologist, I have experienced several instances recently of finding out that evolutionary change is less remarkable than it previously seemed. Another good one I found out (on this forum) is that the multiple evolutions of the eye (in molluscs, arthropods and vertebrates) all make use of a common gene system (pax 6) that seems to be very ancient. So suddenly this apparently remarkable instance of convergent evolution becomes easier to understand.

One has the feeling that there must be many more such discoveries to be made, which will render a lot of apparently surprising things a lot less surprising.

This is the story of science since the Renaissance of course: the previously inexplicable becoming obvious, as a result of learning more. Creationists fear this, because they have built their religious faith on the Sands of Goddidit and when the tide of science comes in, it may be washed away. Oddly enough, Cardinal Newman pointed out the folly of this, over a century ago, when Darwin was all the rage!

 

[Bear Wild]

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

We see mutations in organisms with simple dna or rna genetic codes that change the organism. HIV mutated selected for a less virulent form, the influenza virus mutates thus enough variation to start new reinfection, and there have been other examples of mutations in viruses. When you get to even bacteria the genetic code is more complicated and then you see the other control and modification mechanisms that extend just beyond mutations as a cause for variation in a species.
The article you presented and other articles about the same mechanisms all conclude that these are natural processes although complex and there is no though process going on in the cell itself to make changes but there is communication between cells in multicellular organisms. Despite these more advanced mechanisms for increased variation there are still random mutations that occur and those that increase the ability to live and reproduce are selected for by natural selection.
Early in the development of life it would have been random mutations and slower change at first until the regulatory protein came into being and could speed up the process of change but it all comes down to variation in species with natural selection driving the direction of change. No intelligent unseen being changing the genetic codes in organism for a specific design.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

Your article you presented helped support evolution through natural means. Do you have another article that might support you position or do they all support evolution as an increase in variation through the genetic code with natural selection driving the direction by natural means and no forces or interference from outside of the natural world?

 

[leroy]

Your article you presented helped support evolution through natural means. Do you have another article that might support you position or do they all support evolution as an increase in variation through the genetic code with natural selection driving the direction by natural means and no forces or interference from outside of the natural world?

The article shows that that there are alternatives to evolution by random mutations and natural selection.....agree yes or no.


Granted the article does not support inteligent design

 

[leroy]

We see mutations in organisms with simple dna or rna genetic codes that change the organism. HIV mutated selected for a less virulent form, the influenza virus mutates thus enough variation to start new reinfection, and there have been other examples of mutations in viruses. When you get to even bacteria the genetic code is more complicated and then you see the other control and modification mechanisms that extend just beyond mutations as a cause for variation in a species.
The article you presented and other articles about the same mechanisms all conclude that these are natural processes although complex and there is no though process going on in the cell itself to make changes but there is communication between cells in multicellular organisms. Despite these more advanced mechanisms for increased variation there are still random mutations that occur and those that increase the ability to live and reproduce are selected for by natural selection.
Early in the development of life it would have been random mutations and slower change at first until the regulatory protein came into being and could speed up the process of change but it all comes down to variation in species with natural selection driving the direction of change. No intelligent unseen being changing the genetic codes in organism for a specific design.

Well provide your evidence, how do you know that these complex mechanisms evolved by natural selection and random mutations?

 

[leroy]

Please specify those reasons.

Which are?

Ciao

- viole

Direct observation and statistical thermodynamics

-Nobody has ever seen life being created naturally.

- statistically, life from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy

How do you know that cars and pyramids can't be created naturally ?

 

[exchemist]

Direct observation and statistical thermodynamics

-Nobody has ever seen life being created naturally.

- statistically, life from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy

How do you know that cars and pyramids can't be created naturally ?

For any interested readers (Leroy will ignore it), the thermodynamic argument he gives here is bilge.

The development of life does indeed imply the creation of a high degree of order, which in turn implies lower entropy in the living structure than in the chemical components from which it is made. But we see this process of order creation whenever any individual organism grows from an egg. A single ordered cell becomes an organism with perhaps millions of equally ordered cells. Yet no creationist ever claims that the development of an embryo violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

The reason the process doesn't violate it is fairly obvious. The metabolic processes that support the growth of any organism lead to an entropy increase in the environment of the organism. The 2nd Law does not say entropy cannot decrease, only that there will always be a net increase in any closed system. A living organism, taking in food and oxygen and releasing CO2, water, heat and waste products is not a closed system. So it is perfectly possible for order to increase (and for entropy to decrease) within the organism, if entropy increases around it - which it does.

As far as evolution goes, if a mutation occurs that leads to an increase in the organism's complexity, and thus to a higher degree of order than in the previous generation, the change is minuscule compared to the growth process from egg to adult I have outlined above. It is obvious that the metabolic processes of the mutated organism are ample to provide enough entropy increase in the environment to compensate for the tiny amount of extra order generated within it as it grows.

The thermodynamic argument is thus utterly bogus - and in fact I have not come across it for some years. Leroy appears to be trapped in a bit of timewarp, I think. Most of the less stupid creationists seem to have realised this argument does not fly and to have dropped it.

 

[leroy]

For any interested readers (Leroy will ignore it), the thermodynamic argument he gives here is bilge.

The development of life does indeed imply the creation of a high degree of order, which in turn implies lower entropy in the living structure than in the chemical components from which it is made. But we see this process of order creation whenever any individual organism grows from an egg. A single ordered cell becomes an organism with perhaps millions of equally ordered cells. Yet no creationist ever claims that the development of an embryo violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

The reason the process doesn't violate it is fairly obvious. The metabolic processes that support the growth of any organism lead to an entropy increase in the environment of the organism. The 2nd Law does not say entropy cannot decrease, only that there will always be a net increase in any closed system. A living organism, taking in food and oxygen and releasing CO2, water, heat and waste products is not a closed system. So it is perfectly possible for order to increase (and for entropy to decrease) within the organism, if entropy increases around it - which it does.

As far as evolution goes, if a mutation occurs that leads to an increase in the organism's complexity, and thus to a higher degree of order than in the previous generation, the change is minuscule compared to the growth process from egg to adult I have outlined above. It is obvious that the metabolic processes of the mutated organism are ample to provide enough entropy increase in the environment to compensate for the tiny amount of extra order generated within it as it grows.

The thermodynamic argument is thus utterly bogus - and in fact I have not come across it for some years. Leroy appears to be trapped in a bit of timewarp, I think. Most of the less stupid creationists seem to have realised this argument does not fly and to have dropped it.

Just 3 things

1 The primordial soup* had higher entropy than the first living thing.... Agree?

2 about the egg, there is a guiding mechanism that forces low entropy from high entropy. As far as we know there is not a guiding mechanism that organize amino acids in a soup (high entropy), in order to from life (low entropy)

3 From the point of view of statistical thermodynamics, whether if the system is open or close is irrelevant . you won’t get an airplane from a junk yard because of statistical thermodynamics, this is true regardless if the junk yard gets energy from outside sources or not.

If you disagree with any of these 3 points please let me know and I will support it with data.

You believe that live came in to existence naturally right? And you also believe that there is no room for reasonable doubt right? Which means that you most have strong and testable evidence for your claim.

So show that your assertion is true, show that life had a natural origin, provide your testable evidence and teach us “ID SUPORTERS” a lesson on how science is really done.

 

[Bear Wild]

The article shows that that there are alternatives to evolution by random mutations and natural selection.....agree yes or no.


Granted the article does not support inteligent design

Yes there are other ways of incorporating or changing the genetic code beyond the random mutation but still governed by natural selection. These changes do not exclude the random mutations which are still important and in early formation of the genetic code the formation of the other mechanisms would have been by random mutations initially. As the regulatory proteins became more complex with advantages to increasing variation and the ability to reproduce then these genetic changes could create additional ways to increase the complexity of the genetic code. Yes there are other ways than just the random mutations but natural selection is still the directing force. The article is against intelligent design. Which article to you have that supports intelligent design.

 

[leroy]

Your article you presented helped support evolution through natural means. Do you have another article that might support you position or do they all support evolution as an increase in variation through the genetic code with natural selection driving the direction by natural means and no forces or interference from outside of the natural world?

Why don’t you answer with a simple yes or a simple no?. do you agree that there are alternative and viable mechanism for evolution by random mutations and natural selection? Yes or no?

Is evolution by natural selection and random mutations controversial…. Yes or no?

Which mechanism do you think is more likely to account for the majority of mayor evolutionary steps, random mutations or “guided mutations” (guided as in natural genetic engeneering)

No I don’t have an article that directly supports a supernatural origin of complexity.

And so far you haven’t shown that these complex mechanisms like NGE evolved by random mutations, you are just asserting that it happened.

 

[leroy]

Yes there are other ways of incorporating or changing the genetic code beyond the random mutation but still governed by natural selection. These changes do not exclude the random mutations which are still important and in early formation of the genetic code the formation of the other mechanisms would have been by random mutations initially. As the regulatory proteins became more complex with advantages to increasing variation and the ability to reproduce then these genetic changes could create additional ways to increase the complexity of the genetic code. Yes there are other ways than just the random mutations but natural selection is still the directing force. The article is against intelligent design. Which article to you have that supports intelligent design.

And other articles (like those written by kimura) say that genetic drift plays a more important role than natural selection. I don’t buy this stuff, but some scientists do…..making evolution by “natural selection” controversial.

The only point that I am making is that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection may or may not be the main mechanism that accounts for the complexity of life. There is a controversy and diffeeent opinion in the scientific community. Agree? Yes or no?

 

[Bear Wild]

Why don’t you answer with a simple yes or a simple no?. do you agree that there are alternative and viable mechanism for evolution by random mutations and natural selection? Yes or no?

Is evolution by natural selection and random mutations controversial…. Yes or no?

Which mechanism do you think is more likely to account for the majority of mayor evolutionary steps, random mutations or “guided mutations” (guided as in natural genetic engeneering)

No I don’t have an article that directly supports a supernatural origin of complexity.

And so far you haven’t shown that these complex mechanisms like NGE evolved by random mutations, you are just asserting that it happened.

We have examples of random mutations in viruses that do not have these mechanisms that change the virus. There is no other explanation for the development of the genetic code and how it continues to change. So evolution by random mutations is not controversial at all. It is a part of the cause of variation with more options developing later in evolution.

Guided by what? The best supported evidence is guided by the environment. Natural processes again. Having two genetic options for different resources as found in certain bacteria gave those bacteria and advantage under the pressure of natural selection. The author did not refute random mutation as important.

So prove that random mutation occur and change the genetic code and proof that other ways that the genetic code can be changed are still influenced by the environment. All proves natural selection as the directing force. Evolution works. Do you have any better evidence than that article or are you finally starting to understand how the natural world works and how evolution created the life in our world today?

 

[Bear Wild]

Just 3 things

1 The primordial soup* had higher entropy than the first living thing.... Agree?

2 about the egg, there is a guiding mechanism that forces low entropy from high entropy. As far as we know there is not a guiding mechanism that organize amino acids in a soup (high entropy), in order to from life (low entropy)

3 From the point of view of statistical thermodynamics, whether if the system is open or close is irrelevant . you won’t get an airplane from a junk yard because of statistical thermodynamics, this is true regardless if the junk yard gets energy from outside sources or not.

If you disagree with any of these 3 points please let me know and I will support it with data.

You believe that live came in to existence naturally right? And you also believe that there is no room for reasonable doubt right? Which means that you most have strong and testable evidence for your claim.

So show that your assertion is true, show that life had a natural origin, provide your testable evidence and teach us “ID SUPORTERS” a lesson on how science is really done.

You have found the proof yourself and everyone else has given more than adequate proof. Of course if you are never going to accept any proof then just say I will never believe in evolution no matter what proof is available.

 

[leroy]

You have found the proof yourself and everyone else has given more than adequate proof. Of course if you are never going to accept any proof then just say I will never believe in evolution no matter what proof is available.

It is funny because you are responding to a quote that is not about evolution

 

[leroy]

We have examples of random mutations in viruses that do not have these mechanisms that change the virus.

But you don't have examples of random mutations creating self engineering systems

.

So evolution by random mutations is not controversial at all.

You keep repeating that lie dispite the fact that I provided examples of alternative mechanisms . Amazing​

It is a part of the cause of variation with more options developing later in evolution

.

Later ? How do you know it?

 

[exchemist]

Just 3 things

1 The primordial soup* had higher entropy than the first living thing.... Agree?

2 about the egg, there is a guiding mechanism that forces low entropy from high entropy. As far as we know there is not a guiding mechanism that organize amino acids in a soup (high entropy), in order to from life (low entropy)

3 From the point of view of statistical thermodynamics, whether if the system is open or close is irrelevant . you won’t get an airplane from a junk yard because of statistical thermodynamics, this is true regardless if the junk yard gets energy from outside sources or not.

If you disagree with any of these 3 points please let me know and I will support it with data.

You believe that live came in to existence naturally right? And you also believe that there is no room for reasonable doubt right? Which means that you most have strong and testable evidence for your claim.

So show that your assertion is true, show that life had a natural origin, provide your testable evidence and teach us “ID SUPORTERS” a lesson on how science is really done.

OK, the tutorial on chemical thermodynamics needs to continue, evidently.

First, the thermodynamic analysis in my post 767 applies equally well to abiogenesis. Yes it is true that the first organism would be expected to have had a lower entropy than the component molecules that make it up. But no chemist is silly enough to think it suddenly "poofed" into existence, fully formed, from inorganic starting materials. Like an evolving organism, its complexity would have been only slightly greater than some not-quite-living-yet precursor, with entropy only minutely different from it. Since in any abiogenesis scenario there are chemical reactions going on, involving exchange of chemicals and energy with the surrounding environment, there are ample opportunities for the entropy of the environment to increase enough to offset the accretion of order, by tiny degrees, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, within successive versions of proto-organisms.

Second, if ID Thermodynamics (IDTD) argues that a change from inorganic chemicals in solution to a more ordered structure is thermodynamically impossible, it means that IDTD predicts that a stalactite cannot form! But, er, they do. How? Well, gradually, drip by drip, by tiny reductions in the entropy of the crystals of CaCO3 as they come out of solution, over thousands of years.

Third, there is nothing in thermodynamics that says different rules apply if there is a "guiding mechanism", to "force" lower entropy from higher. "Force" how? The power of thermodynamics (normal science-based thermodynamics, that is) is its universal applicability.

Fourth, the dismissal of the distinction between "open" and closed" systems is scientifically illiterate. Anyone doing this shows they have no clue about thermodynamics.

Fifth, if it were really thermodynamically impossible for life to have come from non-life, do IDers honestly suppose that all the chemists and biochemists working in the field of abiogenesis would not have realised this elementary fact? Logically, there are only two possibilities: either the IDers' thermodynamic analysis is defective, or there is a worldwide conspiracy to hush up the truth. Which of these is it?

I will not respond to the attempt to divert the discussion onto my supposed beliefs or that tired old non-analogy about aeroplanes and junkyards. I am interested in sorting out the chemical thermodynamics here.

 

[leroy]

OK, the tutorial on chemical thermodynamics needs to continue, evidently.

First, the thermodynamic analysis in my post 767 applies equally well to abiogenesis. Yes it is true that the first organism would be expected to have had a lower entropy than the component molecules that make it up. But no chemist is silly enough to think it suddenly "poofed" into existence, fully formed, from inorganic starting materials. Like an evolving organism, its complexity would have been only slightly greater than some not-quite-living-yet precursor, with entropy only minutely different from it. Since in any abiogenesis scenario there are chemical reactions going on, involving exchange of chemicals and energy with the surrounding environment, there are ample opportunities for the entropy of the environment to increase enough to offset the accretion of order, by tiny degrees, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, within successive versions of proto-organisms.

Second, if ID Thermodynamics (IDTD) argues that a change from inorganic chemicals in solution to a more ordered structure is thermodynamically impossible, it means that IDTD predicts that a stalactite cannot form! But, er, they do. How? Well, gradually, drip by drip, by tiny reductions in the entropy of the crystals of CaCO3 as they come out of solution, over thousands of years.

Third, there is nothing in thermodynamics that says different rules apply if there is a "guiding mechanism", to "force" lower entropy from higher. "Force" how? The power of thermodynamics (normal science-based thermodynamics, that is) is its universal applicability.

Fourth, the dismissal of the distinction between "open" and closed" systems is scientifically illiterate. Anyone doing this shows they have no clue about thermodynamics.

Fifth, if it were really thermodynamically impossible for life to have come from non-life, do IDers honestly suppose that all the chemists and biochemists working in the field of abiogenesis would not have realised this elementary fact? Logically, there are only two possibilities: either the IDers' thermodynamic analysis is defective, or there is a worldwide conspiracy to hush up the truth. Which of these is it?

I will not respond to the attempt to divert the discussion onto my supposed beliefs or that tired old non-analogy about aeroplanes and junkyards. I am interested in sorting out the chemical thermodynamics here.

First : but every single observation and test shows that desintegración. (disorder is the dominant trend. I you start with a long chain of amino acids they will trend to desintegrarse rather than becoming more complex .

Second nobody is saying that order can not come from disorder, but you need a mechanism as in the example of stalactite. There is no mechanism that would organice aminoácidos in to complex self replicating molecules, in the same way there is no mechanism that would organize junk in to an airplane.

Third , all I am saying is that you need more than "just energy" to overcome statistical thermodynamics. Agree?

So

Ok so let's assume that already have amino acids in a small little pond, we have all types and ratios that you might find convinient, you also have all the sugars and catalists that you would find convinient.

Then what happens? Why did amino acids "descided" to organize themselves in the order and pattern required to make a self replicating protein? There is no natural mechanism that would "force " that pattern, and statistically it could have not happened by chance.

 

[tas8831]

Billiards? Nothing?

Really?

well then please explain the anatomy of a dolphin to us all, and how it has a:
1) New respiratory system while old works
2) New reproductive system
3) New mating system
4) New caring for young system
5) New prey for food
6) New circulatory system
7) New ambulatory system
8) New endocrine system

compared to that of terrestrial mammals.

Since you seem to think you know.

 

[tas8831]

For any interested readers (Leroy will ignore it), the thermodynamic argument he gives here is bilge.

The development of life does indeed imply the creation of a high degree of order, which in turn implies lower entropy in the living structure than in the chemical components from which it is made. But we see this process of order creation whenever any individual organism grows from an egg. A single ordered cell becomes an organism with perhaps millions of equally ordered cells. Yet no creationist ever claims that the development of an embryo violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

The reason the process doesn't violate it is fairly obvious. The metabolic processes that support the growth of any organism lead to an entropy increase in the environment of the organism. The 2nd Law does not say entropy cannot decrease, only that there will always be a net increase in any closed system. A living organism, taking in food and oxygen and releasing CO2, water, heat and waste products is not a closed system. So it is perfectly possible for order to increase (and for entropy to decrease) within the organism, if entropy increases around it - which it does.

As far as evolution goes, if a mutation occurs that leads to an increase in the organism's complexity, and thus to a higher degree of order than in the previous generation, the change is minuscule compared to the growth process from egg to adult I have outlined above. It is obvious that the metabolic processes of the mutated organism are ample to provide enough entropy increase in the environment to compensate for the tiny amount of extra order generated within it as it grows.

The thermodynamic argument is thus utterly bogus - and in fact I have not come across it for some years. Leroy appears to be trapped in a bit of timewarp, I think. Most of the less stupid creationists seem to have realised this argument does not fly and to have dropped it.

All excellent points - I would note that I have seen creationists that accept these facts to dismiss them as being 'allowed' by the Designer, or that only via 'a mind' can the 2LoT be 'violated.'

 

[tas8831]

2 about the egg, there is a guiding mechanism that forces low entropy from high entropy.

There it is! The 'out'!