Does complexity require intelligent design?

Welcome, trent. Okay, so the definition of God is "first thing". Perhaps the logic holds thus far (if you ignore some rather obvious possibilities like an infinite past for all matter).However, you seem to add #10; in my words: That logic does not follow from the argument that God was the "first thing". What exactly does this mean, to you? An example perhaps? Could you give a defintion of "end" as used by Aquinas? Perhaps "goal" is interchangeable, but the "goal" of whom or what?Does a pebble rolling down a hill, or the formation of a water molecule, achieve an end? If so, where is the design detectable in such instances? Pebbles on a planet mankind cannot know are meant for our use? Sorry, this argument seems to fail on its own anthropocentrism. Which God? The Judeo-Christian God?Nothing in the your, or Aquinas' "logical" arguments allows the leap to a specific supernatural God or theology. By the logic laid out in the "9 steps", God could be anything; even something as simple as a subatomic particle carrying the embodiment of the natural laws of the universe.Is man meant for the glory of that subatomic particle?

You've contradicted yourself here in a huge way.You claim to logically proved the existence of a first being (God). Part of your proof is that "non-being to being is impossible". Then explain to me, praytell, how did the first being (God) come about? How do you know? You've simply listed very anthrocentric (and unreasonable) reasons for the oceans' existence, so that you can follow with "the glory of God" - and an arbitarily chosen God at that, a choice you've made without regard to the logic you claim. What part of your "logic" excludes all other Gods?Why does a planet exist so distant that we can never reach it? Is that also for our direct use so that we may glorify the Judeo-Christian God?Perhaps the ocean simply exists, and organisms utilize its existence. Thanks for the silly morality tale, (I didn't know Cardinals had wheels) but - how often has that happened?And how often has a pebble simple rolled down a hill or mountainside with zero impact on humankind?I'll ask again, but with more specificity. A pebble rolls down a foothill in a distant part of the Andes and comes to rest in a place where humans have never, and will never, set foot. What is the end? Why did God do this? Why not? Nothing in your logic directs one towards or away from any specific God.You might as well have followed your proof with, "the first being was Odin; therefore all of existence is for the glory of Odin. That is the final end of all things - to glorify Odin. Odin is perfect, Odin is happy, Odin is the wisest, etc... but glory can only come from something other than itself - thus, Odin created everything created, which final end is for Odin's glory."If you want to simply have faith in the Judeo-Christian God, you will find no arguments from me. However, your attempted use of "proofs" and "logic" to show the existence of that God couldn't be more illogical.

I'm confused as to why you think this is true.There is plenty of evidence/observation on these sorts of phenomenon, particularly abundant when a species finds its way into a new environment and is more fit than the native species. Here is a reference available on-line, Golden eagles, feral pigs, and insular carnivores: how exotic species turn native predators into prey.This isn't quite right. Life could still have evolved and now exist on Earth without the tides; however, it would be different than the life that we observe around us.Life evolved to be compatible with the planet; the planet wasn't created to be compatible with life as we know it. Okay. What was the cause of God again?

quote:

---

I just can't get the quotation thing to work!

---

Hey mick - hit the 'peek' button at the bottom right of this message for the answer.

Hey xevolutionist-You seem to have many misconceptions about the variety of eye forms and how they relate to evolution. It doesn't have to be "perfect"; in fact, human eyes are not "perfect". An 'eye' only has to be as good as or better than the eyes of competitors for it to stick around.Why don't you start a new topic on eyes and evolution since this seems to be off-topic here; but definitely worthwile discussing.

No, it's a discredit to the designer that humans are so prone to mutation, when the designer could have made us mutation-proof or less mutation-prone to preserve a "genetically undamaged" state. It has been shown to have happened; and here is the "documented improvement" you ask for:Mutations have been identified in humans that:
- Protect against atherosclerosis and cardiac disease.
- Improve cholesterol profiles to protect against heart disease.
- Enhance immune cell function.
- Decrease risk of heart attack.
- Enhance oxygen use, improving life at high altitudes.
- Confer resistance to malaria.
- Confer immunity to HIV.I'd say things like immunity to HIV and reduced chance of heart attack are beneficial things, wouldn't you?Will you ignore this evidence like you seem to have ignored the evidence I provided that "lesser animals" compete to extinction? That was also something you said was never observed.

That is true; much of the research on interspecies competition involves studying these "unintentional experiments" humans have created. There are a few reasons for this, including that it allows for a more "controlled" analysis since researchers often know the timing and nature of the introduction, and because there is more cause for alarm and ecosystem damage by human introduction.Indeed, the assumption is that if a species has invaded a new range in the past few hundred years, it was the result of human intent or accident, even if there is no direct evidence for human introduction. (I believe the invasion of the southeast US by Cuban anoles fits this category).There has been research done in plant introductions by bat-seed-dispersal, but I'm not sure if those studies followed post-introduction competition.We have genetic evidence of introductions and diversification into new ranges that undoubtably involved competition with existing species, but I don't see why you would believe the nature of that data since you don't believe the underlying techniques and theories to be correct. You seem to require directly observed examples. Unfortunately natural invasion events (along the lines of the slow expansion of a species' range) are less obvious, and may take decades if not centuries. Of course you find it doubtful. You discount the evolution theory.

xevolutionist-It pains me every time I read these comments you make.From your posting history here, it is obvious you have little understanding of the Theory of Evolution.Thus, I wish you would stop claiming you were an "evolutionist" or a member of the "evolutionary camp" - you may have thought you were, but the ignorance you demonstrate regarding evolutionary theory prevents such.Indeed, it is doubtful that anyone who supports or studies the theory of evolution would even call themselves "evolutionists". There is no such thing as "Evolutionism", so you couldn't have been a card-carrying member; evolutionary theory doesn't exclude Christianity, so the idea of you converting from one to the other is downright silly.This post isn't meant to be insulting, it's meant as a suggestion that you stop making yourself appear quite so ignorant.

I didn't reinforce your position - though I may have reinforced that you are ignorant of how science proceeds and scientists communicate.You obviously haven't done much scientific reading, otherwise you would understand that tentative scientific language does not negate findings.Normally, scientists reference the first paper to show something - which is what I did with the HIV paper. An enormous body of research has gone on since that paper was published, confirming that certain CCR5 mutations confer resistance, and that mutations in other genes can also modulate HIV infection resistance. You also didn't understand this statement that you quote. The authors are NOT saying that the mutation is rare because it is beneficial. They are stating that it is rare because it is BOTH a mutation that permits the formation of a splice-variant AND is beneficial. It's a rare combination of uncommon mutation type and uncommon outcome.

Does morality need an authoritative source?Most atheists live extremely moral lives; many more so than Christians - atheists believe/realize that the only impact they have on the universe is in this life, and they make the most of it. They don't just play nice so that they can get into Heaven.Atheists also don't place the responsiblity of their sins on some guy who was executed 2000 years ago. Without personal responsibility, why follow moral laws? All will be forgiven... Right - except for all the robbing, torturing, and killing done in His name. Are we to forget progroms, crusades, and holocausts? Thanks for the stats, but you've got no correlation whatsoever to the Theory of Evolution.Perhaps I prefer to blame the rise in suicide rates on:
- Fundamental Christianity
- Television
- The Holocaust
- Overpopulation
- Superficial materialism
- The Germ Theory of Disease
- Cell phone useThose are my reasons, they are as substantiated as yours. So I suppose your solution would be to ban the Theory of Evolution from public fora, so that society could heal?Ridiculous. Give a single piece of evidence correlating the Theory of Evolution to suicide and abortion; otherwise stop blaming a scientific theory for all of the ills of the world.

I can't find a date for your Chain quote.Ernst Chain won the Nobel Prize in 1945. He died in 1979.I wonder what he would think about the mounds of genetic evidence confirming evolution revealed since his death? Such evidence was essentially non-existent when he made his infamous quote.However, that doesn't really matter. Arguments from authority are worthless in science, except perhaps for examining historical context. If Ernst Chain had produced scientific evidence refuting evolution theory, that would be one thing - but he did no such thing. What, specifically, do you use to infer intelligent creative design within these concepts?Why are these not simply the result of natural law? More importantly, what was the intelligent creative force that created the intelligent creative force that created these things?If you don't have specific evidence of design, you've simply made a laundry-list argument from incredulity.(Not unlike the Chain quote above, which is also an argument from incredulity.)

xevo-Do you accept that DNA-based paternity testing is valid?

From your quotes: So? Beneficial mutations are rare. Good thing natural selection is around to help maintain the beneficial and get rid of the detrimental - rarity of beneficial mutations would only be a problem for evolution in the absence of natural selection. I know this concept has been explained to you before, so I'm not sure why you are still arguing this fallacy. This absolute statement has been refuted. See the thread Beneficial Mutations for a start.

It has enlightened by giving us the most accurate account thus far of the history of life. But separate of such abstract ideas, I'll point you to a thread I recently started on more direct benefits: Creationists benefit directly from the Theory of Evolution.You'll find examples there explaining how evolutionary theories have saved hundreds of millions of human lives by giving us a better understanding of human biology and its interaction with the environment. I would say that is a "positive effect".Of course, you apparently believe those hundreds of millions of (non) lives would be better off without the theory of evolution...

Genetic bottlenecks as you describe often result from founder populations or near extinctions, and are a predicted part of evolution theory, not a refutation of it.Also, your jump to ID/creation theory because of the genetic bottleneck is unfounded - as an example, there have been genetic bottlenecks in other species that we have an immediate grasp of the nature of the bottleneck. One example is the Lions of Ngorongoro Crater, which have been the subject of intense genetic study and have been shown to have gone through an intense bottleneck - it seems you would immediately jump to the conclusion that this was the result of ID/God intervention. However, this would be a false conclusion, since we know that the bottleneck was the result of a near extinction event caused by insect-borne disease epidemic in 1962. Hopefully you believe that DNA-based paternity testing is valid. It works by comparing the DNA of a child and potential father to look for similarities that far exceed the threshold for coincidence. Similarly, though not practiced as often, such DNA testing can be used to determine relationships between siblings, between child and grandparent, between cousins, etc. In other words, looking at the DNA of two individuals we can determine whether they shared a parent or grandparent, that is, whether or not they share common ancestry.The same thing can be done with species, and has been done. Using the same strategy as is used to determine if a man parented a child, we can determine if, for example, chimps and humans share a common ancestor at the species level.However, this is not done with just two species at a time - representative species across the diversity of life, including such things as plants and bacteria, can be assembled into a giant family tree based on DNA (often called the "Tree of Life"). Mark24 put together a nice detailed post on the subject here.Okay. But the important question isn't whether or not they believe in creation or ID; it is whether or not they believe creation or ID is science.Since the creation/ID camp has produced no falsifiable scientific theories or research, I see no reason to consider it science. Back to the ole self-contradicting logic again - things can't always exist except for the thing that always existed. If you accept that something always existed, than there is no logical or evidenciary reason to assume that the eternal thing is intelligent and creative, when it could just be matter and natural law. Natural laws; therefore it is not "strange". Other substances also act this way - water is not unique in having the characteristics you describe. You keep making these irrational jumps in logic; as in here, where you essentially state:We cannot use intelligent design to create life, therefore life must have been planted here by an intelligence.Don't you see how silly that sounds?Besides, it doesn't matter if man can or cannot create life - there is no reason to rely on a supernatural creator when we can understand how life became diverse and complex by natural means. Your assertion is no different from saying "humans can't create a Sun, therefore God made it"; while you may believe that on faith, there is no logical reason to do so since we have some understanding of how stars come about and exist by natural means. First, new species do continue to form on a regular basis. Secondly, it is not a prediction of the Theory of Evolution that new species must continuously arise - in fact, the theory would predict the opposite in times of environmental stasis and a lack of novel niches to occupy. If you are referring to abiogenesis here, you are not countering the independent theory of evolution. Feel free to have faith in that if you like; however, there is absolutely no evidence for the force you describe. No more than the evidence that the theory of evolution has caused a moral decline in society - you admitted to the lack of evidence in the case of morality, can you admit to a lack of evidence in the case of an eternal undetectable creative designer?