If Intelligent Design is a scientific theory...

[Evangelicalhumanist]

that's what I was referring to. According to ToE, the design for the cell has to become the design for a human, by relying on lucky accidents, random mutations, millions of them to achieve countless significant design improvements.

NO! Here's a chance to learn something about biology and evolution at the same time. The "design" for the cell is nothing but DNA. And what does DNA do? Three things, really:

1. Codes for how to fold multiple proteins, and
2. Codes for how to turn various parts of itself on and off
3. Replicates itself (almost) perfectly

And that's enough.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Among other things- like

"Thanks to regular and heavy comet and meteorite bombardment of Earth’s surface during its formative years 4 billion years ago, the large craters left behind not only contained water and the basic chemical building blocks for life, but also became the perfect crucible to concentrate and cook these chemicals to create the first simple organisms. - See more at: Scientist Suggests Comet and Meteorite Impacts Made Life on Earth Possible - Astrobiology Magazine"

infinitely easier without dinosaurs? Hey do you want this job done quick or done right!?

Remember that before being surgically removed by a meteor, just right to leave everything else in place, dinosaurs dominated Earth for 100s of millions of years, during which time millions of years of energy was absorbed from the sun and CO2 and stored in vast reservoirs of extroardinarily convenient fuel.

Without which we would also not be having this conversation, an advanced technological civilization, or be exploring and learning about the rest of the universe.


Yet one more bizarre lucky coincidence? Not impossible of course, but when a die keeps rolling a 6, you eventually suspect that it's loaded.

Your reasoning is unreasonably anthropocentric. You conclude that what happened is IN ORDER THAT we could be here. I conclude (as does the article you cite) that we are here BECAUSE those things happened.

 

[Jose Fly]

that's what I was referring to. According to ToE, the design for the cell has to become the design for a human, by relying on lucky accidents, random mutations, millions of them to achieve countless significant design improvements.

Again you impose your belief in "design" without empirical justification.

I'm saying that those patterns in the record, fit both cars and the fossil record equally well, I think we agree?

I don't know. Where can we find stratified layers of automobiles that appear in the sorts of patterns you described?

We know for sure, that in the case of the automobiles, the patterns were the result of ID. right?

First, you've not shown where any such pattern exists among cars. Second, you need to clearly define what you mean by "ID".

For life, we are not so sure, my Granddad didn't have the picture of him riding his first model T-Rex in his wallet. Exactly how the design changes came about is a more interesting question

Again you impose your belief in "design" onto the data, without any empirical justification for doing so.

So if anything, the patterns point to design changes driven by creative intelligence rather than chance. But to be generous I think it's a wash, they don't really tell us anything in and of themselves.

I'd say "nice try", but that wouldn't be accurate. All you did was 1) frame the discussion in your terms by imposing the term "design" onto the data, 2) baldly assert a pattern of evidence in buried cars and attribute it to an undefined concept ("ID"), 3) conclude that the same must hold true for the fossil record, and 4) from that alone declare that life must be due to "creative intelligence".

If you don't see how #'s 1 and 2 are nothing more than empty rhetoric, totally devoid of substance, then you might want to stop and give it another think.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not sure that you would find many physicists who would agree with your characterization of "guiding instructions."

universal constants, atomic values determining various structural functions, everything was coded in there from the get go, accidentally or not, great fusion reactors and elements for life would not have formed without this precise info- in fact that's a big basis for multiverses, how all this info ever got generated without creativity.

On the subject evolution overall, however, I'd like to say this: what disturbs me the most in this sort of thread is the number of people who argue that the brightest minds in a century and a half of hard work in the sciences must all have it wrong because the evolution deniers, while having no real science training of their own, are presumably much smarter and wiser. It would be intemperate of me to say how that actually makes them look to the thoughtful reader.

But then, we know that the human being is capable of a very great deal of self-delusion, especially when motivated, and there's little more motivating that strong religious belief, except possibly fear.

well yes, it brings up that question, many people don't have the time to dig too deeply themselves and come to that conclusion; 'surely the scientists can't all be wrong?!'

It's a very good question and I will attempt to give you an answer here later that's a bit more complete

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again you impose your belief in "design" without empirical justification.



I don't know. Where can we find stratified layers of automobiles that appear in the sorts of patterns you described?



First, you've not shown where any such pattern exists among cars. Second, you need to clearly define what you mean by "ID".



Again you impose your belief in "design" onto the data, without any empirical justification for doing so.



I'd say "nice try", but that wouldn't be accurate. All you did was 1) frame the discussion in your terms by imposing the term "design" onto the data, 2) baldly assert a pattern of evidence in buried cars and attribute it to an undefined concept ("ID"), 3) conclude that the same must hold true for the fossil record, and 4) from that alone declare that life must be due to "creative intelligence".

If you don't see how #'s 1 and 2 are nothing more than empty rhetoric, totally devoid of substance, then you might want to stop and give it another think.

various 'designs' sharing certain traits, some appear to branch off into their own classifications, with some apparent gaps in the record, a few dead ends, some regressions, but a general progression towards more complexity and often larger size."

c'mon Jose, you know this applies perfectly well to a record of old cars. I'm not going to debate that with you

Again this doesn't make species intelligently designed, it just means that these patterns do not suggest otherwise, even though they are often presented as doing so.

What other evidence do you consider compelling for ToE?

 

[Jose Fly]

various 'designs' sharing certain traits, some appear to branch off into their own classifications, with some apparent gaps in the record, a few dead ends, some regressions, but a general progression towards more complexity and often larger size."

c'mon Jose, you know this applies perfectly well to a record of old cars. I'm not going to debate that with you

Again this doesn't make species intelligently designed, it just means that these patterns do not suggest otherwise, even though they are often presented as doing so.

Like most ID creationists I've encountered, you attempt to make your case by rhetorical means and appeals to faulty logic. Here, you rely on the assumption that "same patterns = same mechanisms". But there's one glaring problem with that assumption.....we already know the mechanisms that produce both patterns. With cars it's teams of engineers, robots, laborers, suppliers, etc.. We know this because we not only see it, we are the source of it. With life, it's mutations, selective pressures, genetic drift, etc. We know this because we not only see it, we're actively fighting it. Just the other day someone died of an infection that was resistant to all antibiotics.

So by simple observation, the fundamental assumption behind your entire rhetorical argument (same patterns = same mechanisms) is proven false.

What other evidence do you consider compelling for ToE?

The fossil record, genetic similarities and differences, biogeography and how it overlaps with geology, developmental similarities, shared fundamental cellular functions, and a bit more. And it's important to remember, it's when you put all of those lines of evidence together that they become a cohesive framework that not only explains an enormous amount of data, but has generated entire new fields of science that are incredibly productive (e.g.., comparative genomics).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

universal constants, atomic values determining various structural functions, everything was coded in there from the get go, accidentally or not, great fusion reactors and elements for life would not have formed without this precise info- in fact that's a big basis for multiverses, how all this info ever got generated without creativity.

Again, this appears to be anthropocentric thinking. Look, if I tear a sheet of paper in half, it is a simple fact that the torn edge of the right hand half will be an absolute mirror-image of the torn edge of the left. If all is one at the instant of the Big Bang, then as all that "one" begins to fly apart, everything affects everything else. And in any case, if (as many theorists opine) this is just one universe of many (perhaps unlimited) in a "multiverse," then it is also not unreasonable to suppose that there are differences between them. In which case, perhaps one shouldn't say, "the universe is what it is so that we could be here," but rather, "we are here talking about it because (this) universe is what it is, and allowed for our emergence."

Now, you may say -- and you would be correct -- I can't prove that anymore than I tell you can't prove God. Fair enough. But the alternative, for me, is the necessity to have to suppose an absolute nothingness except for the presumed existence of something as totally inexplicable and as wildly miraculous as God. Lot's of people say, "there must be a god, because you can't get something from nothing." To which I can only respond, "well, neither can you get God from no-God."

well yes, it brings up that question, many people don't have the time to dig too deeply themselves and come to that conclusion; 'surely the scientists can't all be wrong?!'

It's a very good question and I will attempt to give you an answer here later that's a bit more complete

I'm sure I'll be fascinated...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again, this appears to be anthropocentric thinking. Look, if I tear a sheet of paper in half, it is a simple fact that the torn edge of the right hand half will be an absolute mirror-image of the torn edge of the left. If all is one at the instant of the Big Bang, then as all that "one" begins to fly apart, everything affects everything else. And in any case, if (as many theorists opine) this is just one universe of many (perhaps unlimited) in a "multiverse," then it is also not unreasonable to suppose that there are differences between them. In which case, perhaps one shouldn't say, "the universe is what it is so that we could be here," but rather, "we are here talking about it because (this) universe is what it is, and allowed for our emergence."

I may have asked you this before but I don't think I got an answer, or correct me if I'm worng
if you see HELP spelled out in rocks on a deserted island beach, with absolutely no evidence of anyone ever being there, do you default to the random action of the waves washing them up like that?

why not? why the 'biased anthropocentric' thinking?

The universe may be entirely materialistic, or indeed anthropocentric, we just don't know, we have no default or precedent for how universes are 'usually' created

So we have to at least allow both as possibilities... and when we do so, one has the greater power of explanation.- as in the analogy

Now, you may say -- and you would be correct -- I can't prove that anymore than I tell you can't prove God. Fair enough. But the alternative, for me, is the necessity to have to suppose an absolute nothingness except for the presumed existence of something as totally inexplicable and as wildly miraculous as God. Lot's of people say, "there must be a god, because you can't get something from nothing." To which I can only respond, "well, neither can you get God from no-God."

So the first cause paradox applies to any explanation does it not? - 'where did THAT come from?!' right? So it's a wash, but not only that, it's a moot point. because.. here we are, obviously there is a solution one way or the other.

But we have a separate distinct paradox presented by naturalism- which is that the laws of nature can ultimately be accounted for by, those very same laws-- we have an infinite regression of automated cause and effect. With no creative capacity as the genesis for anything truly creative

Creative intelligence solves this paradox, it's the only phenomena we know of that can truly create, unrestrained by that endless chain of pre-determined cause and effect.

Having said this, if we do not forbid creativity, there is a hypothetical solution to the first cause paradox also, but for a different thread perhaps

I'm sure I'll be fascinated...

well never mind then, it's far more interesting to debate our own views than other people's anyway!

I appreciate your point of view, you do at least express some of your own thoughtful arguments for it, rather than purely dismissive ad hominem etc.This seems to be becoming a little rarefied here of late!

 

[McBell]

if you see HELP spelled out in rocks on a deserted island beach, with absolutely no evidence of anyone ever being there, do you default to the random action of the waves washing them up like that?

I default to "I Do Not Know", not GodDidIt.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

NO! Here's a chance to learn something about biology and evolution at the same time. The "design" for the cell is nothing but DNA. And what does DNA do? Three things, really:

1. Codes for how to fold multiple proteins, and
2. Codes for how to turn various parts of itself on and off
3. Replicates itself (almost) perfectly

And that's enough.

YES!

The design changes are generated in that (almost) part yes?, imperfections in the replication of the information, mutations of the blueprints, which are, according to ToE, random. And hence rely on pure blind luck, to create significant design improvements. No way around this, and that's where it gets a little tricky

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

to create significant design improvements

You keep saying this, which assumes an underlying standard of quality. There is none. What we have is significant design CHANGES. Changes are neither good nor bad, but they do either reduce the chances of survival, do not (immediately affect) survival, or increase the chances of survival. At random, in tiny little increments. Which in 4 billion years, can move life on earth from simple protist-like archaic single-celled organisms to the diversity of life we see today.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You keep saying this, which assumes an underlying standard of quality. There is none. What we have is significant design CHANGES. Changes are neither good nor bad, but they do either reduce the chances of survival, do not (immediately affect) survival, or increase the chances of survival. At random, in tiny little increments. Which in 4 billion years, can move life on earth from simple protist-like archaic single-celled organisms to the diversity of life we see today.

Right, so a change which diminishes chances of survival is bad, and one which increases those chances, is a design improvement, from the perspective of evolving a successful species right?

And that design improvement must be significant.

if a design improvement is not significant, how does an insignificant change provide a significantly greater chance of survival?
not only that but a significantly greater chance of reproduction? all from a insignificant 'tiny' change?

A car that goes .1% faster than it's competitor will never be selected for that insignificant improvement. For an individual reproducing animal with a limited number of offspring (and what would be a vastly greater number of deleterious mutations), this is even more problematic.

This is borne out in mathematical models, lab experiments, and the fossil record, where we see abrupt appearances, followed by practical stasis, and/or extinction, not tiny increment gradual changes as was held to be a vital prediction of the theory when it was conceived around 150 years ago.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Right, so a change which diminishes chances of survival is bad, and one which increases those chances, is a design improvement, from the perspective of evolving a successful species right?

And that design improvement must be significant.

if a design improvement is not significant, how does an insignificant change provide a significantly greater chance of survival?

not only that but a significantly greater chance of reproduction? all from a insignificant 'tiny' change?

A car that goes .1% faster than it's competitor will never be selected for that insignificant improvement. For an individual reproducing animal with a limited number of offspring (and what would be a vastly greater number of deleterious mutations), this is even more problematic.

This is borne out in mathematical models, lab experiments, and the fossil record, where we see abrupt appearances, followed by practical stasis, and/or extinction, not tiny increment gradual changes as was held to be a vital prediction of the theory when it was conceived around 150 years ago.

Forget the car example! Those are deliberate, human choices. That's not how "choice" is made in evolutionary terms. Really, it's quite simple to explain how small changes can lead to significantly different ends -- provided there is sufficient time. For prolific breeders, this can be quite quick, actually.

Here's how it happens.

• Natural selection. Better suited to the environment (even just a little) can lead to producing more offspring. The trait that made these variants more fruitful is passed on (mostly) to their offspring, leading to a cumulative effect that eventually makes the new trait much more common in the population.
• Random mutation. Mutations are random throughout the genome. Some help the organism flourish and produce more offspring, others are neutral, but persist in the population by chance, and many are harmful, and die off. Either way, the beneficial or neutral mutations and their associated traits become common in that population.
• Genetic drift. In some cases a trait might be neither helpful nor harmful, but for merely statistical reasons, more organisms with that feature reproduce and the trait ends up becoming common.
• Population catastrophe event. A big storm, earthquake or other dramatic event can kill off a large portion of a population. The remaining individuals are left to rebuild the species. If those survivors include a few individuals that had unusual features, that feature will become common in the renewed population.
• Founder effect. If a few individuals migrate together or are cut off from the main population they will go on to build a population of their own. That new population will reflect the genetics of the founders rather than the genetics of the original population. This latter (and in part population catastrophe) are the general cause of punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

YES!

The design changes are generated in that (almost) part yes?, imperfections in the replication of the information, mutations of the blueprints, which are, according to ToE, random. And hence rely on pure blind luck, to create significant design improvements. No way around this, and that's where it gets a little tricky

No, it is NOT tricky. Not at all.

Yes, the mutations are random. If they are unhelpful, they quickly disappear. If they are helpful, and result in more offspring than other, non-mutated invidividuals, the effect is cumulative through multiple generations -- and cumulative effects have a very powerful way of adding up (think of compound interest -- it's the same thing).

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Right, so a change which diminishes chances of survival is bad, and one which increases those chances, is a design improvement, from the perspective of evolving a successful species right?

And that design improvement must be significant.

if a design improvement is not significant, how does an insignificant change provide a significantly greater chance of survival?
not only that but a significantly greater chance of reproduction? all from a insignificant 'tiny' change?

A car that goes .1% faster than it's competitor will never be selected for that insignificant improvement. For an individual reproducing animal with a limited number of offspring (and what would be a vastly greater number of deleterious mutations), this is even more problematic.

This is borne out in mathematical models, lab experiments, and the fossil record, where we see abrupt appearances, followed by practical stasis, and/or extinction, not tiny increment gradual changes as was held to be a vital prediction of the theory when it was conceived around 150 years ago.

As you well know, the transmission and selection of traits for automobiles is not even slightly similar to the transmission and selection of traits for living things.

And no, your continued use of terms like "design improvement" is semantic reinforcement for your preconceived idea of intelligent design. If there really was design improvement, we wouldn't see all the errors and other evidence of accumulation of traits. Human eyes are not perfect--they work well enough for humans to survive though...mostly...although sometimes because of genetic problems, people are born or become blind... What "Intelligent" designer is going to include such possibilities in a "perfect" system?

The evidence really suggests there is no watchmaker, blind or not. There is no design, no intention, no goal...later living things are not "improved" over earlier ones...they are different because their ancestors survived the challenges that they had to live through. And they inherit good, bad, and indifferent changes in their makeup, which over time means big changes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Forget the car example! Those are deliberate, human choices. That's not how "choice" is made in evolutionary terms.

As you well know, the transmission and selection of traits for automobiles is not even slightly similar to the transmission and selection of traits for living things.

Absolutely correct both of you

'deliberate intelligent choices' are very different from the ToE, because they are far far more precise, efficient, conducive to improvement. In stark contrast to random mutations, the vast majority of intelligent design changes are beneficial, mostly significantly with only a handful of regressive screwups (like the Chevy Volt!)-

rather than the exact opposite in random mutation

, the vast vast majority being deleterious or (neutral) with very few beneficial, and even fewer if any being significantly beneficial. The ratio of bad to good 'random mutations' is vast, whatever plans you are talking about

Intelligent design changes are also different because we are all in unambiguous agreement that they actually work, it is self evident they actually produce better selected designs, not so much for accidental changes


So you are right, the analogy is way off. To fix it, we'd need to get rid of the whole R+D dept, and let the wonderful power of random mutation and natural selection take over.

So we take a number of the same cars and randomly muss up the plans for each. Selection forces still apply, the fittest will still be selected, but fitter?
No, the least damaged, dysfunctional is now the fittest, the broken electric window is selected over the broken transmission. Without those target goals, entropy is in charge, and the direction of change is towards decay, collapse, dysfunction. Just as physical reality would be if we removed it's plans and left it with only a few classical laws to operate on, so too would life.

But that's only half the fix, because we still have intelligent selection of the fittest relative model, based on knowing all the options, and evaluating them- guaranteeing the fittest survives. nature cannot do even this

, we'd have to fix that, and hide any intelligence info and communication about the differences at any time, relying purely on the aftermarket experience, so that the fittest may well never be identified at all

The cold hard mathematical algorithms don't get a waiver because were talking about life, but I will answer this in reply to your other post..

 

[McBell]

Absolutely correct both of you

'deliberate intelligent choices' are very different from the ToE, because they are far far more precise, efficient, conducive to improvement. In stark contrast to random mutations, the vast majority of intelligent design changes are beneficial, mostly significantly with only a handful of regressive screwups (like the Chevy Volt!)- rather than the exact opposite, the vast majority being deleterious with only a few beneficial, and even fewer if any being significantly beneficial. The ratio of bad to good 'random mutations' is vast, whatever plans you are talking about

Intelligent design changes are also different because we are all in unambiguous agreement that they actually work, it is self evident they actually produce better selected designs, not so much for accidental changes


So you are right, the analogy is way off. To fix it, we'd need to get rid of the whole R+D dept, and let the wonderful power of random mutation and natural selection take over.

So we take a number of the same cars and randomly muss up the plans for each. Selection forces still apply, the fittest will still be selected, but fitter?
No, the least damaged, dysfunctional is now the fittest, the broken electric window is selected over the broken transmission. Without those target goals, entropy is in charge, and the direction of change is towards decay, collapse, dysfunction. Just as physical reality would be if we removed it's plans and left it with only a few classical laws to operate on, so too would life.

But that's only half the fix, because we still have intelligent selection of the fittest relative model, based on knowing all the options, and evaluating them- guaranteeing the fittest survives. nature cannot do even this

, we'd have to fix that, and hide any intelligence info and communication about the differences at any time, relying purely on the aftermarket experience, so that the fittest may well never be identified at all

The cold hard mathematical algorithms don't get a waiver because were talking about life, but I will answer this in reply to your other post..

So long as you remain stuck on your car analogy, you will not be able to understand how and why you are just plain fat out wrong.

 

[siti]

Intelligent design changes are also different because we are all in unambiguous agreement that they actually work, it is self evident they actually produce better selected designs, not so much for accidental changes.

So you are right, the analogy is way off. To fix it, we'd need to get rid of the whole R+D dept, and let the wonderful power of random mutation and natural selection take over.

Right - and that's exactly what has happened - this is precisely why they never scrapped the Mk I fishy body plan when they made the Mk V giraffe and the latest supercharged Mk LVII homo sapiens (see post 80). But at least the process seems to have produced an intelligent model at last - that now recognizes the need to fire not only the entire R&D Dept, but especially the Chief Design Coordinator - who turned out to be right chump - I mean - heck - whoever heard of installing a tail bone but no tail - or hips but no legs. Ridiculous!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Absolutely correct both of you

'deliberate intelligent choices' are very different from the ToE, because they are far far more precise, efficient, conducive to improvement. In stark contrast to random mutations, the vast majority of intelligent design changes are beneficial, mostly significantly with only a handful of regressive screwups (like the Chevy Volt!)- rather than the exact opposite, the vast majority being deleterious with only a few beneficial, and even fewer if any being significantly beneficial. The ratio of bad to good 'random mutations' is vast, whatever plans you are talking about

Intelligent design changes are also different because we are all in unambiguous agreement that they actually work, it is self evident they actually produce better selected designs, not so much for accidental changes


So you are right, the analogy is way off. To fix it, we'd need to get rid of the whole R+D dept, and let the wonderful power of random mutation and natural selection take over.

So we take a number of the same cars and randomly muss up the plans for each. Selection forces still apply, the fittest will still be selected, but fitter?
No, the least damaged, dysfunctional is now the fittest, the broken electric window is selected over the broken transmission. Without those target goals, entropy is in charge, and the direction of change is towards decay, collapse, dysfunction. Just as physical reality would be if we removed it's plans and left it with only a few classical laws to operate on, so too would life.

But that's only half the fix, because we still have intelligent selection of the fittest relative model, based on knowing all the options, and evaluating them- guaranteeing the fittest survives. nature cannot do even this

, we'd have to fix that, and hide any intelligence info and communication about the differences at any time, relying purely on the aftermarket experience, so that the fittest may well never be identified at all

The cold hard mathematical algorithms don't get a waiver because were talking about life, but I will answer this in reply to your other post..

No good, Guy! You are still confusing selection by an agency (in the case of the car) with "selection" (difficult to find the right word) without any agency at all except the propagation frequency of living genes. You cannot get a working analogy along those lines.

(Edited to add: perhaps "apparent selection" is the right way to phrase it in evolutionary terms.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Right - and that's exactly what has happened - this is precisely why they never scrapped the Mk I fishy body plan when they made the Mk V giraffe and the latest supercharged Mk LVII homo sapiens (see post 80). But at least the process seems to have produced an intelligent model at last - that now recognizes the need to fire not only the entire R&D Dept, but especially the Chief Design Coordinator - who turned out to be right chump - I mean - heck - whoever heard of installing a tail bone but no tail - or hips but no legs. Ridiculous!

I think I take your point, I have a car with a radiator ornament, but no radiator cap under it, some spaces for extra accessories that it didn't come with, and even a hint of vestigal fins which no longer serve to attract girls on dates!

clear signs that this car morphed from another one by a series of unintended flukes!