Holes in Darwin's Theory?

[Reverend Rick]

Describe three holes in Darwin's theory.

The thing that begs the most discussion is the genetic code in DNA. There is evidence of intelligence there.

The odds of these codes strands just being haphazard and by chance is a big leap of faith.

 

[Revoltingest]

What are the odds?

 

[secret2]

The thing that begs the most discussion is the genetic code in DNA. There is evidence of intelligence there.

How so?

The odds of these codes strands just being haphazard and by chance is a big leap of faith.

That's right, that's why no one is arguing that.

 

[Falvlun]

Describe three holes in Darwin's theory.

The link just takes us to the question. When I clicked on a further link, the answer given was:
1. the firstThe law of thermodynamics
2. The second Law of thermodynamics
3.No missing link has been found

Is that what you are referring to? If so, I think that would need to be expanded upon.

The thing that begs the most discussion is the genetic code in DNA. There is evidence of intelligence there.

What does "evidence of intelligence" look like?

Remember, that proof that evolution is incorrect (should it be found) is not evidence that intelligent design is correct.

The odds of these codes strands just being haphazard and by chance is a big leap of faith.

Are you talking about the actual nucleotide structure, or are you talking about genes?

Also, remember, evolution does not posit that this occurred haphazardly or by chance. Evolution occurs through natural selection. In other words, there are natural pressures that "guide" the process.

 

[LuisDantas]

Describe three holes in Darwin's theory.

The thing that begs the most discussion is the genetic code in DNA. There is evidence of intelligence there.

The odds of these codes strands just being haphazard and by chance is a big leap of faith.

I will be surprised if there are any holes left. So many people would be all too happy to bring them to light if they existed...

About the genetic code and DNA, I take it that you mean something along the lines that the very existence of self-replicating DNA seems counter-intuitive unless it was specifically built on purpose?

I can see how it may look that way. And I suppose that there is no way to tell that it wasn't so.

I very much doubt it, though, and I certainly see no reason why we should assume so. It is in the nature of chaotic systems to raise stable patterns, after all.

 

[desideraht]

We claim that there are signs of intelligence in DNA, yet DNA is where our intelligence comes from... Can you not see the discrepancy in said logic? The human brain glorifies patterns—likely because making note of patterns has aided our survival in some manner—so we glorify it like there must be an "intelligence" behind it. And, of course, an intelligence comparable to our own. I find it absurd and arrogant.

Saying that evolution and the result of it is haphazard is a demonstration of your lack of understanding of evolution. Nothing about it is haphazard. Think of molecules as Lego blocks. They are shaped a certain way and fit together. Hydrogen in particular, is incredibly "sticky". It is also the most abundant known element in our universe. It is with understanding that premise that we conceptualise the abundance of life on this planet being comprised of molecules containing the "sticky" element. While DNA is an incredible structure, understand that it took millions of years to develop, perhaps even billions. It is as soon as the Earth was sustainable for any type of life that this began to develop. After that, it really was a matter of algorithms—that is, of course, mathematics being a human understanding of truth and a representation of it, rather than being the truth itself. Understand that ancient DNA—in the form of bacterium and viruses—is just a smaller version of animals we see today. Extinction, and survival, has always been the Order of things—it just simply started on a vastly smaller scale. Viruses, which are currently not accepted as forms of life, do appear to be the precursors to life, as they are simpler versions of it on a microscopic level.

You have to have a very firm grasp on chemistry and biology before it is reasonable to try to question evolution. Many scientists have tried to disprove the theory when true science is not a matter of disproving things via negative example. The point is to raise contrary theories which you can prove/illustrate as a counterexample. But if your motivation is simply to prove another theory wrong, then you are not thinking like a scientist.

 

[Reverend Rick]

But if your motivation is simply to prove another theory wrong, then you are not thinking like a scientist.

I'm just asking questions about the holes in Darwins theory.

Are there any valid points?

I would think to not question any theory would be unscientific and more like treating science like a religion.

Would not intelligent design be possible? If not, why not?

 

[desideraht]

Asking questions is good.

Personally, I haven't ever heard about any "holes" that I found convincing. And it is good to question a theory—when you have legitimate, rational reasons for doing so. Faith or emotion-driven questioning leads to a dead-ended argument.

I do not believe intelligent design is plausible. As an agnostic atheist, I cannot declare it impossible, for I feel whether or not a deity/God/Creator exists is unknowable/unattainable knowledge. It cannot be proven or disproven. It is with that basis that I feel one cannot "prove" Creationism. And one cannot "disprove" it as one cannot "prove a negative". One could suggest God "guided" evolution and no one would be able to prove otherwise. However, the scientific community will not accept this idea unless there is solid evidence of such an event. The scientific community is convinced that if something is unprovable, it cannot be accepted as a scientific theory. I find this criteria to be acceptable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Would not intelligent design be possible? If not, why not?

Of course it would be possible. How could anyone ever claim otherwise?

How likely it is, however, is something else entirely. The available evidence does not at all suggest that life forms were designed, but instead that they were mutated and selected without an intent.

As someone (Mark Twain? Richard Dawkins?) said, it is odd that the Lion and the Gazelle were supposedly meant to be, yet have no choice but to attempt to make life difficult for each other. Yet I can see how it can be unsettling to suddenly see the heightened freedom of humans as something of an unstable, accidental circunstance. Sometimes I wonder if it is that what mainly motivates what we call Creationism.

All the same, it is clear to me that to the extent that one can speculate about a purpose sustaining the existence of humanity, it did not go out of its way to make it wise, responsible or even simply safe. The specifics of humanity are simply way too imperfect for claims of Intelligent Design to be at all impressive. I'm reminded of that every time I think of anencephally or of the trials and tribulations of single mothers.



As for the origin of life itself, that is a slightly more difficult matter. I don't see how it can ever be definitely stated one way of the other. What would constitute enough evidence? Nothing that I can conceive of being realistically attainable. Even if we had sophisticated time travel capabilities it would be quite the challenge.

That said, I personally have little or no doubt that life arose spontaneously from chemical reactions. DNA itself all but screams that it "just happened", so to speak. It certainly had slightly more unstable precursors, but its mechanisms and structures are impressive mostly for their ability to survive and reproduce despite its own "rough-cut" nature.

Key to it all are the impressive properties of organic (carbon) compounds, which raise so many possibilities that life might well have been impossible without them.

Now, if someone says that the properties of carbon-based chemicals were meant to be so that life would be possible, and that he or she sees that as evidence of an Intelligent Designer, I would still disagree. But I would do so very respectfully indeed. For all I know they might well be right.

Edited to add: However, that is hardly ever a matter discussed when one talks about Darwin's Theory or Biological Evolution, mainly because it is in fact fairly distant from those. It is best described as a natural, logical extrapolation of same, but a distant and speculative one.

 

[Reverend Rick]

When I say intelligent design, that does not nessessarily mean "God".

For all we know, our whole universe is inside a test tube in some labratory.

What raises questions for me is where the balance comes in. Trees make oxigen and we exhale carbon dioxide. Stuff like that.

 

[Falvlun]

Would not intelligent design be possible? If not, why not?

It is possible that the only reason we don't float away right now is because God is willing our feet to stick to the ground. Intelligent gravity and all that.

The question of whether something is possible, therefore, is not particularly useful. Determining whether something is probable, or best supported by the evidence, is much more applicable.

 

[desideraht]

I did read about a recent study that suggests the universe could be a computer simulation. It made no sense to me because that "computer" would have to exist in the universe as well. And "multiple universes" also doesn't make sense to me. All that there is, is, whether we can see it or not.

Balance in our universe is in contained systems. We achieve balance here on Earth but within the Cosmos there is Chaos. Order is seen in the forms of stars and planets, Chaos in the form of matter which is spread out. Order is when matter meets and creates structure. Chaos is when it is ripped apart. That "balance" you describe is known as equilibrium—it simply means a system is self-containing.

Again, even if we;re in a "test-tube", that "test-tube" is also in the universe. All that is, an ever will be, is in our universe. I think some people have trouble conceptualising that, and think the universe exists as far as we can see, so anything outside of our knowledge must be "outside" of the universe. No, it is all part of it, we're just ignorant to it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Of course it would be possible. How could anyone ever claim otherwise?

How likely it is, however, is something else entirely. The available evidence does not at all suggest that life forms were designed, but instead that they were mutated and selected without an intent.

As someone (Mark Twain? Richard Dawkins?) said, it is odd that the Lion and the Gazelle were supposedly meant to be, yet have no choice but to attempt to make life difficult for each other. Yet I can see how it can be unsettling to suddenly see the heightened freedom of humans as something of an unstable, accidental circunstance. Sometimes I wonder if it is that what mainly motivates what we call Creationism.

All the same, it is clear to me that to the extent that one can speculate about a purpose sustaining the existence of humanity, it did not go out of its way to make it wise, responsible or even simply safe. The specifics of humanity are simply way too imperfect for claims of Intelligent Design to be at all impressive. I'm reminded of that every time I think of anencephally or of the trials and tribulations of single mothers.

It makes sense to me that slow Lions and gazelles DNA did not reproduce. Thus the balance was established.

You also raise the question that when we don't allow single mothers and their children to starve are we allowing our species to evolve into weaklings?

What would happen if slow gazelles and lions reproduced?

Nature is cruel for sure, but survival of the fittest did improve the species.

While it is humanitarian to allow our weak to reproduce, will we be reversing nature and will there be consequences?

 

[Falvlun]

It makes sense to me that slow Lions and gazelles DNA did not reproduce. Thus the balance was established.

You also raise the question that when we don't allow single mothers and their children to starve are we allowing our species to evolve into weaklings?

What would happen if slow gazelles and lions reproduced?

Nature is cruel for sure, but survival of the fittest did improve the species.

While it is humanitarian to allow our weak to reproduce, will we be reversing nature and will there be consequences?

I've thought about this too, but I think we need to not get stuck into thinking that physical strength is the only sort of strength for a species.

Obviously, humans aren't physically superior to many animals. And yet we have handily dominated the world, due to our intellect. So, a better, but still too simplistic, version of the problem is that we shouldn't let dumb people reproduce.

But humans are also highly social organisms. We do better in groups. So, things that emphasize group cohesion could also be beneficial to our species. Hence, it's could be considered advantageous to help the dumb, weaklings among us.

But, to be honest, I think humans are at the point that unless there's something to change the game, like environmental catastrophe or population of new worlds, I think our evolutionary change will likely be put in stasis. Minor things, like skin color and features might become more homogeneous as the world globalizes, but I don't see any structural changes occurring while we are comfortable in our niche.

EDIT:
Realized I needed to emphasize something: What drives evolution-- natural selection-- isn't about making bigger, badder, more complex organisms. It's ultimate "goal" isn't to make something that we'd consider a super-human. It's about making an organism that better fits its environment, that fills an ecological niche that has yet to be exploited. This is why some species haven't really changed in millennials, or have actually become less complex (according to our categorizations) over the years.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I believe the cure for cancer and other afflictions may be possible by changing our DNA codes some how some way. If other words, weeding out bad stuff before we are ever born.

Living in a rural area, when I go to Walmart, I see some families that makes me suspect they might come from the shallow end of the gene pool. Every time I think like that I feel guilty, but there is some validity to my thoughts as well.

I feel sorry for some of these folks, it is almost like their brain is not hitting on all cylinders.

 

[desideraht]

I like these questions. You're exploring the edges of Eugenics. Should we kill the weak or at least not allow them to reproduce? Should we select mates which will create the strongest species? Great questions. I do think in a perfect world, persons under a certain level of intelligence would not be allowed to reproduce. In just a few generations we would see drastic improvements in our society as a whole. Unfortunately, people feel entitled to their rights to be baby cannons, and the truth of it is that we would have to greatly violate one's body domain (by forcing them into infertility) to prevent them from reproducing. There is no humane or peaceful way to regulate reproduction.

 

[LuisDantas]

When I say intelligent design, that does not nessessarily mean "God".

For all we know, our whole universe is inside a test tube in some laboratory.

Also conceivable, as is that we might be somehow created by aliens. I just don't see much in the way of evidence for those hypothesis.

What raises questions for me is where the balance comes in. Trees make oxigen and we exhale carbon dioxide. Stuff like that.

In a quantitative sense, the balance is self-correcting. If you mean however how the situation established itself in the first place, with a certain kind of need being matched by those of other beings, then it seems to me that it is indeed a matter of luck of the draw. Certain patterns simply happened to thrive in the environment that they found out to some degree or another, and those more properly sustained lasted better and longer.

It makes sense to me that slow Lions and gazelles DNA did not reproduce. Thus the balance was established.

A dynamic sort of balance, yes. Several factors may upset it and force it into newer, now more stable patterns. For instance, often enough the population of gazelles and comparable prey will diminish to the point that lions and other predators will starve. That leads to auto-correcting by way of diminishing populations of predators, but sometimes alternate strategies may prove promising, leading to (say) more efficient use of eaten food instead.

You also raise the question that when we don't allow single mothers and their children to starve are we allowing our species to evolve into weaklings?

No, not at all! What I meant is that if there is an Intelligent Creator, he does not seem to have made a point of making humans particularly fit to healthy survival. There are way too many "design flaws", including those that make single mothers so darned easy an occurrence.

What would happen if slow gazelles and lions reproduced?

They do, just not as often and succesfully as faster ones. In every generation there is some variation in speed for individuals.

Natural selection will usually favor the faster ones, but there are always exceptions, and a sufficiently strong change in the environment may well make speed less of an advantage or even a disadvantage.

For instance, let's guess what happens if a third species is introduced, one that has an even more intense metabolism than lions and is therefore faster and more powerful than either lions or gazelles, but also more dependent on frequent meals (it hungers faster, perhaps as a consequence of his speed). Say that it also has very poor senses except for fast moving targets (many lizards do). If I am guessing the results correctly, it might weed out the fast lions and gazelles fairly quickly, while the slower ones would perhaps survive and be favored in the next generations of both lions and gazelles.

Nature is cruel for sure, but survival of the fittest did improve the species.

I don't think that is quite clear. What is meant by improvement here?

Natural selection and survival of the fittest sure did a lot to build a wild variety of species. If that is an improvement, than certainly there was much improvement. But I find that a bit of a misuse of the word, personally. Improvement in relation to what?

While it is humanitarian to allow our weak to reproduce, will we be reversing nature and will there be consequences?

Everything has consequences, including inaction.

The question you are asking here is essentially whether we will favor physical self-reliance over humanitarian and social responsibility.

And my answer is an emphatic no. Nature is rather unwise, literally mindless even, and it is our responsibility to assist it, in this case by keeping our population levels manageable (although it may be way too late for that), addressing our social issues, and taking responsibility for our present and future.

Far as natural selection goes, it never even had the capability for improving humanity in any meaningful sense. All it could and can ever do is improve our odds of surviving in some form and reproducing in order to ensure a further generation. We have far since reached the point where that is Just Not Enough.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe the cure for cancer and other afflictions may be possible by changing our DNA codes some how some way. If other words, weeding out bad stuff before we are ever born.

To some extent, perhaps. But I personally feel that we must instead reconsider that we even consider bad stuff, and make some peace with our own mortality.

We should aim higher, beyond mere longevity and physical capability. Our bodies are simply not capable of living forever, and we better accept that and make the best of it. Meat bodies can only be well-kept and refurbished to a certain degree, and there is so much more to humans than just that!

Our true greater potential is not in physical survival of the individual, but rather in keeping and transmitting good cultural and social legacies between generations.

Living in a rural area, when I go to Walmart, I see some families that makes me suspect they might come from the shallow end of the gene pool. Every time I think like that I feel guilty, but there is some validity to my thoughts as well.

I understand. I am very elitist in my judgements myself. I have decided to make peace with myself; it is only human to feel bothered by what seems to me to be a waste of resources. I should take care not to lose sight of the consequences of such perception, but I can hardly avoid it.

I feel sorry for some of these folks, it is almost like their brain is not hitting on all cylinders.

The simple fact is that many people are indeed handicapped in one way or another, for a greater or lesser degree. There is no shame in acknowledging that; it just means that we have a lot of social responsibility and some very difficult choices ahead of us.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

When I say intelligent design, that does not nessessarily mean "God".

For all we know, our whole universe is inside a test tube in some labratory.

What raises questions for me is where the balance comes in. Trees make oxigen and we exhale carbon dioxide. Stuff like that.

Well that takes an understanding of the chemical reaction that happens when breathing and plant life.

If I remember correctly one of the theories of early existence is that the organisms that started to produce oxygen, resulted in the deaths of other organisms that couldn't use oxygen.

Mind you the balance isn't perfect. Oxygen for instance is highly electronegative, stripping electrons like no body business and is part of the creation of free radicals in mitochondria (if I remember correctly). The waste produce by those mitochondria (which have their own DNA) disrupts our own DNA. In return for energy (ATP) we get degradation of our DNA.

While the replication of DNA indicates intelligent design the designer if you use the ultimate standard of God, does not work given not simply the flaws but the rampant competition in day to day living.

 

[fantome profane]

What raises questions for me is where the balance comes in. Trees make oxigen and we exhale carbon dioxide. Stuff like that.

Where there is a resource something will develop the ability to exploit that resource.

It is like that nylon eating bacteria I am sure you have heard of. The nylon was not created for the purpose of giving the bacteria something to eat. And the bacteria was not designed to eat the nylon.

The plant and animal relationship is much the same. They exploit the resources created by the other. But no foresighted design was needed to create this arrangement.