A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

Changes occur slowly in existing systems. For example we can observe the change in the position of the nostrils to a blow hole in the fossil record. Why do you think that slow gradual change cannot answer this problem?

And your claim that traits must be in place is simply false. It is a lie told to you be creationists and you eat it up. Many of them do know better. You do not, but you don't have a very good excuse. You really should try to learn what you are arguing against.

Such change is invisible in fossil systems. The analogy is a short book and a long book by two different authors and saying one book evolved to another.

 

[dfnj]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)

ID is pure BS. All "intelligent design" is purely subjective and in the eye of the beholder. I experience so much pain from my body I would argue there's nothing intelligent about my design. I've had 2 doctors say to me, "you just have bad genes". Life is tough. It's all a test of faith. My motto about life is, "It's all good!"

There is nothing objective in claiming intelligent design. It seems to me the more plausible mechanism is millions of years of evolution with tons of mistakes. The pattern of genes that continues to procreate is the set that has the most advantageous results from the environment.

What I don't understand is why theists even give a hoot about ID. It seems to me an omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. If you have faith in an omnipotent God you don't need ID. The real question is why the theist arguing for ID have such a complete lack or weak level of faith in God?

 

[exchemist]

I ask again for proof that the transition/change/speciation is presently occurring.

There is no proof in science. You should know that by now.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, look, what this means is that any animal you care to name is merely the current product of a continuous process of adaptation which can be expected to continue in the future, just as it has in the past. Admittedly there is evidence that the change process goes faster at some times (i.e. when there is greater evolutionary pressure) than at others, but in principle it never stops - hence the comment that everything is transitional.

Again, I offer you every species on Earth today--show the adaptations that are currently allowing speciation between families or kinds.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your question doesn't make sense.

Show from any present species how they are speciating to change families or kinds.

 

[exchemist]

Again, I offer you every species on Earth today--show the adaptations that are currently allowing speciation between families or kinds.

First, can I take it that you now understand is what meant when people say all extant species are transitional? In other words, can I check first that you have understood my explanation of your last question, before we move onto your next?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You do not know how much of the bible is primarily myth vs partly myth. It is very difficult to tell how much myth with actual events. I pointed this out in the case of the example of the myths from Native Americans. It does not stop those following that tradition from accepting the myth as important to their beliefs. It does not matter how much is actual fact vs myth since it is the message the words are telling you that matters giving a direction for your belief. Actually much of human history is distorted by varying degrees by those who write it from their own viewpoint. Myth is important in teaching the beliefs of that faith and that is what matters.

I'm not arguing that other religions contain a mix of truth and myths. I'm asking how you know which parts of the Bible, which says literally thousands of times, "This is God's Word to you/man", is myth for verse X and fact for verse Y. Do you simply come to the Bible and assume anything regarding origins or the supernatural is myth?

 

[Polymath257]

You are goalpost shifting again--the change in families or kinds has to do with full land to sea or vice versa. This is alarming:

Then you are asking the wrong questions or misunderstanding how evolution works. My examples are exactly on target for how evolution happens.

"And that transition really isn't difficult, is it? A land animal can learn to swim. That allows it to catch some fish. That makes it so that adaptation to water is encouraged. That means some will have webbed feet or other simple water adaptations. The physiology does have to change much, especially at first."

It is VERY difficult, for example:

*reproduction undersea or on land

Again, possible to do gradually. We have animals that stay in the sea most of their lives and give birth on land. Why is that NOT a transitional stage?

*prey that walk instead of swim

The same mouths can catch fish as catch insects. Once again, there is an extensive period where *both* are going on. See sea lions.

*mating
*respiratory/circulatory

Again, we have actual examples alive today that show how these transitions can occur gradually.

Do you not understand "gradual changes over time" don't explain adaptations like moving from the sea, where the temperature changes one degree in 24 hours, to land, where the temperature can change 50 degrees overnight, involve multiple systems?

No, I do not see why that is a problem. We see actual animals today that show how these transitions can happen. To go from water to land, we have fish that have lungs, amphibians that can breath through their skin, etc. For land to water, we have examples of mammals that live in both water and on land.

The same for change in families where lower moves to higher complexity. The circulatory and respiratory systems have to evolve simultaneously, unless the animal has two of each system!

Why do you think that is required? The same circulatory system carries food and oxygen during the transition, where the animals are both water dwelling and land dwelling. Same for the respiratory system. Sea lions don't need a different respiratory system. Nor do whales.

 

[dfnj]

Oh, how interesting! ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL. Please list all new transitions we can see now, among the millions of extant modern species:

This video should help you understand new transitions:

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do creationists in comparing animals with man-made or manufactured machines?

The comparisons leads to faulty thinking...unrealistic expectations...and worse still, dishonest tactics. Although, I shouldn’t be surprise.

If you want to talk to talk about design, engineering and construction or manufacturing of man-made thing, then start a new and different thread.

If you want to talk about nature and the mechanisms of nature, then don’t compare with constructed objects, like cars, computers, bridges or architecture.

It certainly doesn’t help you understand any better of nature.

What people design and create are not alive. For another these designers, engineers, technicians and testers that you have brought up, are not invisible beings, because you can talk to them, touch them, see them, they may live at certain certain addresses, have parents, may or may not be married themselves, and may have or may not children, etc.

Perhaps, I should rephrase the first sentence of the above paragraph. Humans can create life. The normal way people create life, is through reproduction, having babies, but that’s not what ID believers are talking about, is it?

ID adherents preferred the unrealistic and supernatural “Designer”, which evangelist Christians called “God”.

The Intelligent Design that some people believed in, the so-called “Designer” is not visible, said to have designed and created everything, including the universe or life, is most likely not real, like illusions or your personal delusions, just like your belief in your god.

Humans and the Designer are not the same things, because to date, not one single ID follower have showed that the Designer existed in this reality.

Perhaps it does exist in your imagination, fantasy or delusion, but that’s really beside the point. The “Designer” from the ID concept isn’t real.

But getting back to my point, you cannot make human designers and engineers as being the same thing as your deluded ID Designer.

I agree, organic life barely compares with machines, since it is much more highly complex:

1) How did DNA randomly involve to become a language?
2) Why is life the only thing in this universe that tends toward complexity, rather than entropy?
3) Why is it a need for you to constantly assault my character, as with "...worse still, dishonest tactics. Although, I shouldn’t be surprise."?

 

[dfnj]

Christians will hate this adaptation:

"The deep sea can get pretty lonely and dark, so this deep sea lizardfish developed both male and female reproductive organs in order to boost its numbers. Because of this, it can mate with any other of its kind."

 

[Polymath257]

I agree, organic life barely compares with machines, since it is much more highly complex:

1) How did DNA randomly involve to become a language?

It isn't a language.

2) Why is life the only thing in this universe that tends toward complexity, rather than entropy?

Not true. Many situations decrease entropy locally. Turbulence is incredibly complex.

3) Why is it a need for you to constantly assault my character, as with "...worse still, dishonest tactics. Although, I shouldn’t be surprise."?

Well, dishonest tactics should be called out.

 

[dfnj]

I agree, organic life barely compares with machines, since it is much more highly complex:

1) How did DNA randomly involve to become a language?
2) Why is life the only thing in this universe that tends toward complexity, rather than entropy?
3) Why is it a need for you to constantly assault my character, as with "...worse still, dishonest tactics. Although, I shouldn’t be surprise."?

1. During cellular development, you have billions and billions of bubbles over millions and millions of years. At some point patterns develop and evolve into life. It's lottery math. If you buy enough lottery tickets eventually you are going to win. No matter how small the probability may be, given enough attempts at playing the game, at some point you will win.

2. Life would not function without entropy. It's pressing against the edge of entropy that allows life to function. Life is feedback loop of a biological process heading towards entropy that reinvents its initial condition. Life creates a hill for a ball to roll down a hill and then takes the energy to recreate the ball at the top of the hill. Life is semantically a self-referential process.

3. It's not an attack on your character but your unwillingness to accept every possible explanation of the data or facts. There may be more than one explanation to the same experiences.

 

[exchemist]

You are goalpost shifting again--the change in families or kinds has to do with full land to sea or vice versa. This is alarming:

"And that transition really isn't difficult, is it? A land animal can learn to swim. That allows it to catch some fish. That makes it so that adaptation to water is encouraged. That means some will have webbed feet or other simple water adaptations. The physiology does have to change much, especially at first."

It is VERY difficult, for example:

*reproduction undersea or on land
*prey that walk instead of swim
*mating
*respiratory/circulatory

Do you not understand "gradual changes over time" don't explain adaptations like moving from the sea, where the temperature changes one degree in 24 hours, to land, where the temperature can change 50 degrees overnight, involve multiple systems?

The same for change in families where lower moves to higher complexity. The circulatory and respiratory systems have to evolve simultaneously, unless the animal has two of each system!

Why do you persist in trying to introduce migration from the sea to the land into an example about otters? The point of the otter example is to show how migration from land-dwelling to aquatic can be a gradual continuum. I hope you see this point by now. An otter is equally happy to eat voles, frogs or fish and can catch them all. It is air-breathing but is an excellent swimmer and diver and has webbed feet to help it. The stoat and mink, its cousins, are also not bad swimmers but prefer to catch rabbits on the whole.

Now if you can accept that there is no reason for the otter to starve during its evolution from some proto-stoat, we can if you like move on to the separate issue of the evolution of tetrapods from fish. But let's close out the otter example before jumping to a new topic. You don't want to be accused of Gish Galloping, I'm sure.

 

[exchemist]

I agree, organic life barely compares with machines, since it is much more highly complex:

1) How did DNA randomly involve to become a language?
2) Why is life the only thing in this universe that tends toward complexity, rather than entropy?
3) Why is it a need for you to constantly assault my character, as with "...worse still, dishonest tactics. Although, I shouldn’t be surprise."?

Regarding your (2), have you ever thought about what happens when a crystal forms? Its entropy decreases. There is no rule that entropy never decreases. This a myth, propagated by creationists who either do not understand thermodynamics or deliberately lie about it to their flocks, who do not understand it either.

Chemical processes (including biochemical processes) occur when there is a decrease in what is called the "free energy" of the reactants as they change into products. The free energy is a combination of 3 main factors: the internal energy due to chemical bonding, the entropy change of the process and the temperature. We went over this on this thread recently with one of your co-creationists. See post 781.

Crystals and other highly ordered states form, in spite of a decrease of entropy, if the energy released by forming more and/or stronger bonds is enough to outweigh this. The influence of entropy is a function of temperature, stronger at higher temperatures. This is why crystals tend to dissolve on heating, why ice melts, etc. But these processes are reversible: if the temperature drops, the crystals can re-form. Even though their entropy reduces.

What is true is that in an isolated system (one that does not exchange matter or energy with the outside world), entropy can only increase. But living cells and test tubes with crystals in are not isolated systems.

So your creationist sources are deliberately mixing up two different things and telling you lies.

This, you see, is why people with some science training get so exasperated with creationists. Not only do they not bother to learn any science, they are actively fed falsehoods, by soi-disant Christians who then have the cheek to claim some sort of moral high ground, based on their knowledge of the bible.

 

[gnostic]

I agree, organic life barely compares with machines, since it is much more highly complex:

1) How did DNA randomly involve to become a language?
2) Why is life the only thing in this universe that tends toward complexity, rather than entropy?
3) Why is it a need for you to constantly assault my character, as with "...worse still, dishonest tactics. Although, I shouldn’t be surprise."?

BB, whether life or DNA is “simple” or “complex” is not the issue.

The issue is when you assume complexity = designed, and followed by designed = “DESIGNER”.

It is this type of rationalizing, which involved false equivocation, circular reasoning, wishful thinking, baseless (baseless as in “no evidences”) speculation.

It is exactly this type of assumptions and rationalization that I find intellectually dishonest.

And the problem is that you do it frequently.

You have shown you are using the same dishonest tactics as those people at the Discovery Institute and at AiG.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Show from any present species how they are speciating to change families or kinds.

Google: Mudskipper

Mudskipper Robot Helps Show How Vertebrates Evolved to Walk on Land
Mudskipper genomes provide insights into the terrestrial adaptation of amphibious fishes

 

[Subduction Zone]

I ask again for proof that the transition/change/speciation is presently occurring.

And you language tells us that you have no understanding of the sciences at all. There is no "proof" in science. There is only evidence. You are constantly telling us that you do not even have a high school level of scientific literacy. You need to learn the basics of science first. Once you learn the basics of science you may be able to understand how life is the product of evolution. Until then you are only wasting everyone's time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Such change is invisible in fossil systems. The analogy is a short book and a long book by two different authors and saying one book evolved to another.

Wrong again, you are looking at the wrong fossils. That sort of change can easily be seen in certain beds, such as chalks, where there is a constant deposition of microfossils.

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm not arguing that other religions contain a mix of truth and myths. I'm asking how you know which parts of the Bible, which says literally thousands of times, "This is God's Word to you/man", is myth for verse X and fact for verse Y. Do you simply come to the Bible and assume anything regarding origins or the supernatural is myth?

I presented another creation story along with its mythology to make it easier for you to see how myth is often a mixture of fact and actual events. In the case of the Iroquois (actual name Haudenosaunee) The great peace maker (Dekanawida) comes to Hiawatha to form a peace between the warring tribes with the help of Jigonhasasee and created a peace and a confederacy between the tribes. This confederacy created the first democracy known in North America and because of Jigonhasasee an Iroquois woman the chiefs would be selected by the women of the confederacy. This confederacy became the model for the democracy established in the formation United States of America. Even the three branches of the government was modeled of the Iroquois confederacy.
Did a great peace maker talk to Hiawatha, was there an actual Hiawatha and Jigonhasasee and did the process including burring the weapons under the great tree of peace actually occur? Does it matter how much is factual and how much is myth? To those people of the Haudenosaunee it is the myth that matters and which they believe no matter what the factual details were. It is the myth that teaches them what is important and resulted in their government. A government which created the model to create the government of the United States.
If the bible is mostly myth created to teach the important lessons for the followers of the Jewish faith, what difference does it matter how much is absolute fact or myth. Does it change what you should believe? Would you stop believing if it is a mixture of myth and historic facts?
Whether there was an ark or not for instance does not change what is important to the followers of that faith.