What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

And how do you quantify purpose?

I do it very well. You might have some trouble though.

For example, during my teenage years I spent a lot of time writing and drawing on my arms. Does that mean that the purpose of my arms is to be drawn on?

Sorry - I don't do silly.

Complexity is a largely arbitrary distinction made by humans to differentiate between things that are easily understood and things which are not as easily understood, or things that involve few processes from things which involve many processes.

You're not saying that complexity is imaginary - are you?

Depends on the definition of "purpose".

I won't play your semantics game.

So, what are the right conclusions and how do you reach them, using science?

A fool is a person who works, consistently, against his own interests.
What is the right conclusion?

There's a gap in your logic.
Something is complex + lends itself to a purpose = ________________, therefore design is obvious.

Except for one thing:
That is not what I said. More of your word-twisting?

What causes complexity?
What purpose does complexity serve?
Can purpose be detected and explained in co-ordinated relationships?
If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious.

Don't try to twist my words. You won't get very far.

No, it's not obvious. If it were obvious, you wouldn't have so many atheists,

You seem to forget - an atheist is an unbeliever who will deny the obvious.
“For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish” (Romans 1:20-22)

let alone so many religious people who claim to rely entirely on faith for their beliefs.

This remark makes no sense, so I won't address it.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

I use a particular rock as a door prop in the summer... did god design my rock for this purpose?

Tornadoes are very organized weather systems, so well organized we still don't fully understand how they form and work.... are they intelligently designed?

wa:do

Sorry - I don't do silly.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[darkendless]

You seem to forget - an atheist is an unbeliever who will deny the obvious.
“For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish” (Romans 1:20-22)

Deny the obvious? Nice branding of unbelievers there. Then you go and post scripture. My mind hurts seeing such a paradox.

Your ignorance makes the last point make no sense. If it made sense you wouldn't be posting scripture in a thread about the fossil record to which it is completely irrelevant.

 

[darkendless]

Sorry - I don't do silly.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Did your God place soil on the earth to create problems for me doing my job? Did you God create organic clays that cause landslides that kill people?

 

[wilsoncole]

But purpose does not require design.

Please explain.

Still, that doesn't address my previous point. If you believe that everything is designed by God, then there is nothing that is not designed to compare it against, so how can you say when design is apparent?

I never said I believe that, so you got no point.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Deny the obvious? Nice branding of unbelievers there. Then you go and post scripture. My mind hurts seeing such a paradox.

Your ignorance makes the last point make no sense. If it made sense you wouldn't be posting scripture in a thread about the fossil record to which it is completely irrelevant.

If you are going to be insulting, then I will say nothing more to you.
Got that?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[painted wolf]

Sorry - I don't do silly.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Don't you?

But neither point was silly... perhaps worded in such a way as to be fun, but the issues addressed are entirely serious.

Tornadoes are highly complex.. if complexity requires design, then they must be designed yes?

And "purpose" is not an intrinsic value it is an arbitrary one we assign to things. The urpose of my rock is to keep my door open... it has a purpose, therefore it must be desined for that purose yes?

wa:do

 

[darkendless]

If you are going to be insulting, then I will say nothing more to you.
Got that?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

I'm not insulting you i'm revealing that you have posted something that is completely irrelevent to this topic.
I have also pointed out your sweeping generalization of atheists and my disagreement with your conclusion.

May I ask why you have joined this thread if you are concerned with having your position attacked?

 

[fantome profane]

If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious.

All right I will accept that. Not that it is absolute proof of design, but I will accept that it is a pretty good indication. A watch is the classic example. A watch is not only complex (relatively speaking) but it has a purpose. We observe a watch being used by human beings. So again this may not be absolute proof of design (pw already mentioned a rock being used as a doorstop), but it is an indication of design.

Now what about human beings themselves. Human beings are complex, much more complex than a watch. But do they have a purpose? Are humans used like a watch is used? If so for what purpose? It seems to me that humans are only used by other humans.

So the challenge I present to you is to prove to me that humans have a purpose. Not just some vague philosophical musings, not some religious dogma, and not some ad hominem attack about my daring to question that humans have a purpose, but actual evidence that humans have a purpose. Show me evidence that humans are used by their creator like we use a watch.

If you can do this, if you can show me that humans have a purpose I will concede that humans were designed. If you can’t do this you have no evidence of design. Even if we accept your premise you still fail.

 

[wilsoncole]

I'm not insulting you i'm revealing that you have posted something that is completely irrelevent to this topic.
I have also pointed out your sweeping generalization of atheists and my disagreement with your conclusion.

May I ask why you have joined this thread if you are concerned with having your position attacked?

You don't get it.
'Bye!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[camanintx]

Please explain.

As Painted Wolf pointed out, just because a rock makes a perfectly good door stop doesn't mean it was designed for that purpose. Nature is full of examples of objects being re-purposed to perform other functions.

I never said I believe that, so you got no point.

You do believe that an omniscient God created the entire universe as we know it, don't you?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sir, Please don't tell me anything about Behe. You're not talking to him.
If you tell me about Behe, I will tell you about Jesus. Do you think you can debunk him, too?

The biblical Yeshua is not the thread topic so I don't understand your point. Your post is dealing with "complexity" and Behe has been using this argument for a while now. Most creationist touting "complexity equals design" get their info from Behe. Your own Lonnig quotes Behe extensively so I think I'm on topic when bringing his name up.

And you are only attempting to duck the issue; so I raise it again:
"If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious."

No one is ducking anything. I answered it. It's been answered in a few threads already. The key word in your statement is ("IF"). You have not shown "complexity of anything to have been designed". You come to the conclusion that because it appears complex it must have been designed. Behe said the (Bacterial Flagellum) was complex so it must have been designed. He goes further to state that if you remove a component from a complex system that the system will no longer function. This is incorrect and in fact you can remove a bunch of components from the Flagellum and it will still function (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_three_secretion_system). Additionally the individual components themselves serve a separate function in other cells.

So this notion of yours that complexity lends itself to purpose then design is obvious....in bunk.

The cell is incredibly complex. What is its purpose? Do you think you can handle that?

While there are cells that are complex, depending on what you're referring to, we seem to know a lot about them as well as their function. But wile there are complex cells there are cells that aren't as complex as others such as (Prokaryote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

"Faith-based." That's how you manage to avoid debating Behe. If you guys would debate Behe on the biology alone, he would tear you apart.
But.

Well, we're not debating Behe. We're debating you and you seem to not understand biology very well. Ken Miller has debated Behe. Both being biologist and on equal footing debated each other and Miller crushed him on the "complexity" argument.

 

[waitasec]

I asked you for a quote from me claiming that everything is designed. You have failed to provide one, so your charge is a lie.
Besides, if everything is designed, chaos would be non-existent.
That is your own opinion. I have seen scenes like this after the rampage of a disgruntled man in a military tank, and, following a hurricane and an earthquake.
You cannot show me one in that picture. So what happens when they occur in uninhabited places?
Show me where I said that. This amounts to another accusation and a lie - your favorite trademark.
I said there is no design in that picture. You want to discuss tornadoes.
Do try to stay with the point being discussed.
Why do you have to resort to such deviousness?
Maybe its because you can't tell right from wrong.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

you know that picture is what a tornado caused...anyone can check your link.
that picture is a result of design according to your ridiculous claim of a designer....
so are tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions designed by a designer or are these just natural phenomenon?
come on wilson you can do it... yes or no?

 

[Autodidact]

wilson:

In your view, did God design and create the entire universe?

 

[ninerbuff]

We can't even find all the people who are "missing" and may be dead and buried somewhere in the US recently, yet creationists EXPECT science to have found the bones which may have been buried deep for thousands of years linking an evolutionary process between man and ancestors by NOW. Sorry to disappoint, but again just because it's not be found as of YET, doesn't mean it won't be found in the near future. Science has done much more to prove origin then creationism has.

 

[waitasec]

I asked you for a quote from me claiming that everything is designed. You have failed to provide one, so your charge is a lie.

this is what i said..

according to you a tornado was designed...
the destruction is the purpose....

do you deny saying this?

1. No other book gives us a rational view of the origin of all things, including mankind, and of the Creator&#8217;s purpose toward the earth and man. (Gen., chap.&#12288;1; Isa. 45:18)

Keep in mind: PURPOSE!
What causes complexity?
What purpose does complexity serve?
Can purpose be detected and explained in co-ordinated relationships?
Science lends itself to such extended investigations. Although drawing wrong conclusions, Neo-Darwinism has done so to a very great degree, even including industrial melanism.
If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious.

 

[waitasec]

Besides, if everything is designed, chaos would be non-existent.

what do you mean..? that certain things are designed; "creation" BUT then certain things are not; natural disasters?


i guess you can't commit to an answer with your inclination towards double standards

 

[newhope101]

All you evolutionists are hopefully aware of your own conundrum in relation to complexity.

ScienceDaily (Sep. 28, 2010) — The more complex a plant or animal, the more difficulty it should have adapting to changes in the environment. That's been a maxim of evolutionary theory since biologist Ronald Fisher put forth the idea in 1930.

But if that tenet is true, how do you explain all the well-adapted, complex organisms -- from orchids to bower birds to humans -- in this world?

This "cost of complexity" conundrum puzzles biologists and offers ammunition to proponents of intelligent design, who hold that such intricacy could arise only through the efforts of a divine designer, not through natural selection.
Complexity not so costly after all: Moderately complex plants and animals can be better equipped to adapt


So another mathematical model was put together and they got....

Further, the analysis showed that the ability of organisms to adapt is highest at intermediate levels of complexity. "This means a simple organism is not best, and a very complex organism is not best; some intermediate level of complexity is best in terms of the adaptation rate," Zhang said.


So Wilsoncole is correct in identifying complexity as a serious concern to evolutionary researchers. It appears to be the evolutionists replying to him are the ones less familiar with their own research, despite hitting on his lack of credentials.

Here is yet another model invented to explain evidence against TOE. This should not be news to any of you as the uptake of deleterious mutations and pay offs is well spoken to in evo literature.

Evolution may not produce the best organisms.
Natural Selection May Not Produce The Best Organisms

It seems evolutionary researchers can make up models to demonstrate anything they wish really. It would be wise for evolutionists and creationists alike to be skeptical of any such findings generated. Creationists also have many theories and models that can equally be put forward to support creationist thinking. Sanford is just one of them. Theories are not evidence, they are theories, and evolutionists have a plethora of them to choose from that are as robust as hand waving and as clear as mud.

"Another misconception is that increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution. In fact, decreasing complexity is common in the record of evolution".
Is the human race evolving or devolving?: Scientific American


You all should also know how complex physics were involved in the coalescence of the universe. We could just have easily just been atoms floating aimlessly in space.

The fossil evidence is what is evidence, not models, and it shows that decreasing complexity is common. Hence arguments that suggest that increasing complexity in the fossil record supports evolution are incorrect and flawed.

Re tornados and natural disasters..of course. The bible states that Satan is the ruler of this world for now. His biggest aim is to lead people away from a belief in God. He has been very sucessfull. Many of you have touted how can there be a God that lets babies die etc etc. Wilsoncole does not have to provide any of you a theory of everything to make his point. Untill Jesus is enthroned again this is how the earth will be....and worse is yet to come.

Here's a tip for the day....Pray....says your researchers...it helps anger.

Feeling angry? Say a prayer and the wrath fades away, study suggests

Many do not choose to go with "LUCK", nor your modelling, nor research paper against research paper, nor flavour of the year. Rather a designer being indicated in the creation of the universe, life and it's complexity is as good a theory as any.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How about you stop...? How about you stop quoting from these sources and not having an actual clue as to what they're saying.....? I mean really.....if you'd actually take the time to soak up what is being said you wouldn't be so quick to prove our points for us.....

All you evolutionists are hopefully aware of your own conundrum in relation to complexity.

ScienceDaily (Sep. 28, 2010) &#8212; The more complex a plant or animal, the more difficulty it should have adapting to changes in the environment. That's been a maxim of evolutionary theory since biologist Ronald Fisher put forth the idea in 1930.

But if that tenet is true, how do you explain all the well-adapted, complex organisms -- from orchids to bower birds to humans -- in this world?

This "cost of complexity" conundrum puzzles biologists and offers ammunition to proponents of intelligent design, who hold that such intricacy could arise only through the efforts of a divine designer, not through natural selection.
Complexity not so costly after all: Moderately complex plants and animals can be better equipped to adapt


So another mathematical model was put together and they got....

Further, the analysis showed that the ability of organisms to adapt is highest at intermediate levels of complexity. "This means a simple organism is not best, and a very complex organism is not best; some intermediate level of complexity is best in terms of the adaptation rate," Zhang said.

Let's see, what were the "new" findings...

"All of these findings challenge the assumptions underlying the classic mathematical models that suggest complexity is prohibitively costly."

"Further, the analysis showed that the ability of organisms to adapt is highest at intermediate levels of complexity. "This means a simple organism is not best, and a very complex organism is not best; some intermediate level of complexity is best in terms of the adaptation rate," Zhang said."

The researcher concludes the following....

"The new findings help buffer evolutionary biology against the criticisms of intelligent design proponents, Zhang said. "The evolution of complexity is one thing that they often target. Admittedly, there were some theoretical difficulties in explaining the evolution of complexity because of the notion of the cost of complexity, but with our findings these difficulties are now removed."

You don't normally see researchers outright refuting the claims of ID and creation proponents in Science Daily. I hope you weren't thinking this was to be some sort of blow to those who accept the fact of evolution....

So Wilsoncole is correct in identifying complexity as a serious concern to evolutionary researchers. It appears to be the evolutionists replying to him are the ones less familiar with their own research, despite hitting on his lack of credentials.

Actually, from what I've read, wilson wasn't pointing out some some sort of concerns researchers are supposed to have with complexity. Wilson has been arguing that biological systems themselves are complex because he's been drawing inferences to such and deeming them as requiring a designer. No one here has ever said biological systems aren't complex. What we're saying is just because we label them as complex does not mean we don't know anything about them nor should it be the default position that because we, at this point in time, may not have an answer for a particular complexity it should mean said complex system requires a designer (See. Bacterial Flagellum). Do try to keep up.

 

[David M]

"Another misconception is that increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution. In fact, decreasing complexity is common in the record of evolution".
Is the human race evolving or devolving?: Scientific American

Whats really funny here is that this sentence is addressed to people who don't know anything about evolution (especially creationists).