|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let's slow selection down even further:
To get from a 1/2" shrew size to a 6'-6" sauropod size - a 156 fold increase - with a limit of 0.1% change per generation - well within the natural variation limits - will only take:where n = generations ... and n = 5,052.4 generations, still well within the realms of time and space. At an average generation of 20 years (generation, not life span eh?) this still works out to 101,047.6 years, not even back to the Cretaceous period. Highly possible. Allowing selection for 1% of the natural variation in a species to accumulate over time being all that is necessary for adaptation of the species more than explains the change from shrew to sauropod or vice-versa. And to get from a 1/2" shrew size to a 6'-6" sauropod size - a 156 fold increase - with a limit of 0.01% change per generation - a barely noticable level of change - will only take:where n = generations ... and n = 50,501.1 generations, still well within the realms of time and space. At an average generation of 20 years (generation, not life span eh?) this still works out to 1,010,021.7 years, barely back to the middle of the Cretaceous period. So instead of needing to consider an infinite number of arbitrarily contrived intellectual concepts, all that needs to be considered is natural variation already existing within any population and a very slight tendency in selection. No designer need apply for work to accomplish this effort. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
There are varying degrees of intelligent design folks out there. Some believe in an all powerful creator while others simply don't feel comfortable with a purposeless existence. I'm just trying to help out the ones (if they exist at all) that are noble enough to say "I don't know" when asked who the intelligent designer is.
By the way, it should be noted that I'm a hardcore atheist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tudwell Member (Idle past 5979 days) Posts: 172 From: KCMO Joined: |
Anybody who supports intelligent design does so for religious reasons. No one looks at all the evidence and says, "no, evolution can't work." They come in with preconceived notions about evolution and refuse to learn what it truly is. Your parenthetical phrase is a big "if." The ones that say "I don't know" are in a courtroom trying to get Intelligent Design taught in school.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Anybody who supports intelligent design does so for religious reasons. No one looks at all the evidence and says, "no, evolution can't work." This is not supporting intelligent design this is supporting NOT{evolution}. Intelligent Design does not necessarily rule out evolution -- if you look at the basic premises and build from there. Intelligent Design properly pursued is NOT a science but a philosophy based on science, using science as possible stepping stones to then say "what if" and see what you can construct that is logical and consistent. For that to be fully implemented it would have to consider all science as equal in ability to provide information, and thus would necessarily include evolution. see Is ID properly pursued? for more. Intelligent Design as commonly used, however, is nothing but the philosophy of incredulity, and is not remotely scientific. That's a shame, because this could be an interesting vehicle to get people not normally interested in science actually trying to do it. Think about that a bit eh? There was no flood = evidence for design without a WW flood ... Life is evolving and has for billions of years = evidence that evolution is the design mechanism ... You want to believe there is evidence of the design of the universe in the design of the universe, then you must be willing to see where the message leads you, or you are not being faithful to the philosophy. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Hi KBC, how are you liking the boards?
My point was that with an infinite set of possible forms it would be impossible for random mutation to code for a selectable mechanically functional form. When a sauropod produces offspring they don't have a random genome attached to them, and evolutionists don't state that this is needed for evolution to work. The offspring inherits the parent's genome. This often comes with small variations. Some of the organisms variation comes from a non-hereditable influence (such as available diet), but some variation can come from these minor variations in the genome. Some coding DNA did not copy correctly and this results in a slight variation in the phenotype (for example shorter legs). It might turn out that given the environment the young 'en finds themselves in that shorter legs are a good thing. They increase his chances of passing on the 'shorter legs' gene to his little 'ens. If the variation isn't slight, the chances increase dramatically that they will jump of their island (see below) and bigger the variance the bigger the chance that the poor new organism will be drowning.
Since shape can be anything how does random mutation find the specific limited functional form combinations in a sea of infinite possibilities? One of the wonderful things we have found with genetics is that the sea might be vast, but there are islands in the gene-sea that represent functional forms. Navigating around the island is like examining all the possible functional forms of a given species. Imagine for example every form of something that can be called a brachiosaur, in the gene-sea they will be very close to each other (Where distance is measured in number of single mutations it would take to get from one form to another). An amazing discovery in genetics is that many of the 'islands' that currently live on earth are connected by thin bridges (in some cases via other living islands). The bridges themselves are interspersed with small islands. The theory of evolution, combined with other sciences connected with natural history has shown that in the cases where currently 'living islands' cannot be connected via other living islands they can be connected via now extinct islands. For example the human island has a thin bridge with several quite large islands along it leading back to a certain now extinct primate island. That same island has a bridge that leads to chimpanzee island. We have learned that we can mutate certain proteins, quite massively yet still have them perfectly functional. A yeast's cytochrome c can be entirely replaced with the comparitively mutated human cytochrome c and it will continue yeasting about happily. Evolution is the process whereby populations change, sometimes members of a population will be pushed down a bridge across the treacherous gene-sea by the force that is selection. If an organism is born so that it has effectively fallen off the bridge, it doesn't reproduce. Therefore only organisms that are fortunate to be born 'on the bridge' survive long enough to create more organisms. Once again only those that are born on a bridge manage to create more organisms. If the selection pressure continues, and the bridge does not lead to a dead end, the population 'parting the gene-sea' or travelling on an exodus might find itself at another island. Its size then tends to increase to encompass many of the functional forms that the island allows. And there they stay - until another subset is pushed once again into the fray. Incidentally this has the unusual effect that generally it is only islands are large enough to stand a chance of leaving evidence of their existence. This has come to be known as Punctuated Equilibrium, but it is the same way that Darwin had originally seen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Neither side would ever consider for a moment that if there is an intelligent designer that the designer would be like a child playing with his ant colony while we are the ants trying to understand the ant farm (aka the universe). If you have evidence for that position it would be my pleasure to consider it. But that's kind of the rub, isn't it? There are 2 polar opposites here at EvC: those who believe that some evidence is preferable before one goes around beliving in things, and those who feel absolutely comfortable adopting positions for which there is absolutely no evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
Evidence? I'll get back to you in, oh I don't know, may be a million years from now.
If you have evidence for that position it would be my pleasure to consider it. But that's kind of the rub, isn't it? There are 2 polar opposites here at EvC: those who believe that some evidence is preferable before one goes around beliving in things, and those who feel absolutely comfortable adopting positions for which there is absolutely no evidence.
Obviously... Let me ask you this question. If tomorrow an alien race makes contact with us and present evidence of fantastic coincidences in the geological and fossil records of several planets that ultimately led to the emergence of technologically advance civilizations on these planets at relatively the same time for them to talk to one another, would you budge? The reason I'm asking is after months of reading people's comments here I'd have to say that your views are almost at the very far end of the opinion spectrum. My experiences tell me that people whose too opinionated in one specific area (no matter how right the opinion may be) are always in danger of deluding themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4755 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
gasby writes: Why the hell does an intelligent designer have to consider every possible form for a biological structure before snapping its fingers? It doesn't. That's the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
See, sometimes I think people like me can make a better argument for ID or creationism better than the actual IDists or creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If tomorrow an alien race makes contact with us and present evidence of fantastic coincidences in the geological and fossil records of several planets that ultimately led to the emergence of technologically advance civilizations on these planets at relatively the same time for them to talk to one another, would you budge? Sure. Why wouldn't I?
The reason I'm asking is after months of reading people's comments here I'd have to say that your views are almost at the very far end of the opinion spectrum. If I appear inflexible or dogmatic about my atheism, it's only because the arguments of theists are relentlessly impotent. I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on the issue. It's just that no evidence whatsoever has ever been presented for me to do so. Don't mistake the lack of evidence of my opponents for some kind of dogmatism on my part. I'm perfectly willing to consider any evidence brought forward. But being open-minded doesn't mean that I'll believe something without evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
gasby: There are varying degrees of intelligent design folks out there. Some believe in an all powerful creator while others simply don't feel comfortable with a purposeless existence. I'm just trying to help out the ones (if they exist at all) that are noble enough to say "I don't know" when asked who the intelligent designer is. By the way, it should be noted that I'm a hardcore atheist. I appreciate the hat you're wearing in this discussion. Sorry I fluttered into the discussion late and took a minute to catch on. And yes, you are much more credible in this role than the leading Wedgies have been on their best day. Do you think your atheism is what enables you to make a better case? Rather than having a pet belief to protect, you can go at it more from the stance of considering possibilities and the kind of evidence that would support the idea. _ Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
gasby
While it is true that they haven't officially named the intelligent designer, they have most certainly tried to make it clear in court that more research had to be done before a reasonable answer could be given. Intelligent design advocates claim that the complexity of the world is only explainable in terms of an "intelligence" doing the "design". However they ,when pressed , fail to apply the logic of their hypothesis to the assumed intellgence itself.Since it can be reasonably assumed that the intelligence ,whatever that is, must needs be more complicated than that which it creates, the proponents fail to realize that the hypothesis must also apply to the complexity of the intelligent agent and we arrive at a logic loop that runs into the non terminating process known as ad infinitum. The intelligent desiner ,being of greater complexity itself than that which it designs is subject to the terms of the hypothesis and we need follow up with the question of what created the complexity of this intelligent designer? And so on and so on... etc.
You're not helping debunking ID by demanding that the IDists know everything about everything. I do not need to do that. The onus is on they who make the claim to support their contention for this. As I outlined above the hypothesis breaks itself{ complexity is only explainable through an intelligent agent} apart when we apply it to a premise{intelligent designer} that it makes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Archer writes:
Here is my take on how people approach their philosophical beliefs. We all started out believing in fairy tales as kids. Remember how fun it was to believe in santa? We couldn't really understand the dynamics of sound waves or gravity, so in our minds all of these things were magic. I remember growing up believing that the piano made the sound through magic rather than simple mechanical devices. But the most important thing about being kids was we all thought that what we knew at the time was the extend of knowledge for everybody else. I have a few nephews and nieces, all very little. They no doubt learn a lot from school and everytime I babysit them they'd tell me about what they learned from school. The thing that is always apparent is that they all assume I didn't know these things. Do you think your atheism is what enables you to make a better case? As we grow older, we begin to see the world differently. We begin to realize that the world wasn't operating by magic, that there are principles to which the tv and radio are based on. And here is where people started spliting off. Some people began to develop the ability to empathize, some began to learn how to operate on a more objective level, while others simply remained child-like (I'm not going to name anyone, but all you have to do is look at certain members on this forum and see the apparent child-like attitude they still possess while being biologically adults). I arrived at my atheism through many years of pondering about the moral and spiritual aspects of the human psyche. On the way, I learned objectivity. Naturally, I also evaluated many many so-called evidence presented by both the honest to god adults and the child-like adults. So, to answer your question directly, no I don't think my atheism gives me some kind of superpower to make a better case. I think it's from all those years of intellectual exercises such as examining evidence and developing my BS detector. The real creos and IDists, for the most part, are still child-like. I have no doubt that most of them are honest. They just haven't developed their BS detector. They are more gullible than the rest of us. This is why their arguments can be so easily shot down. They can't tell the difference between real evidence and BS evidence.
Ok, I'm sitting back and waiting for a temp suspension for leading you poor souls off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
sidelined writes:
Again, you are using a very common evo strawman of the official ID position. IDists refuse to get into this logic loop because they don't claim that whatever this intelligence that they claim to be behind the "designs" of our world is an all powerful being. The more noble ones simply say they don't know. In other words, and while they don't directly say this, we are to assume from their silence that for all we know the designer might have a designer behind it. Intelligent design advocates claim that the complexity of the world is only explainable in terms of an "intelligence" doing the "design". However they ,when pressed , fail to apply the logic of their hypothesis to the assumed intellgence itself.Since it can be reasonably assumed that the intelligence ,whatever that is, must needs be more complicated than that which it creates, the proponents fail to realize that the hypothesis must also apply to the complexity of the intelligent agent and we arrive at a logic loop that runs into the non terminating process known as ad infinitum. Again, you shouldn't demand omnisciency from the IDists.
The intelligent desiner ,being of greater complexity itself than that which it designs is subject to the terms of the hypothesis and we need follow up with the question of what created the complexity of this intelligent designer? And so on and so on... etc.
Perhaps... but just imagine this. Kepler spent years working with Brahe's data and finally came up with his three laws on planetary motion. He hadn't got a clue about gravity. Can you imagine all his work being flushed down the toilet (or dumped in the outhouse) simply because he couldn't answer the "how" part of his laws? When a field is as young as ID (and I'm not referring to the amount of time it's been floating around), you can't demand the "experts" of that field to know everything about it. If you want to debunk it, work with what they've presented.
As I outlined above the hypothesis breaks itself{ complexity is only explainable through an intelligent agent} apart when we apply it to a premise{intelligent designer} that it makes.
And I don't recall ever seeing an IDist make the claim that the intelligent agent doesn't have an intelligent agent behind it. Like I said before, they've been clever enough to leave this part blank and allow the gullible to assume that the intelligent designer is none other than god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
IDists refuse to get into this logic loop because they don't claim that whatever this intelligence that they claim to be behind the "designs" of our world is an all powerful being. The more noble ones simply say they don't know. In other words, and while they don't directly say this, we are to assume from their silence that for all we know the designer might have a designer behind it. Uh-huh. And which of the nation's prominent ID promoters hold this position? Which of them have not said that, while they don't have any evidence to suggest it, they believe that the Designer of ID is none other than Almighty God? I'm sure you're absolutely certain that it's possible for a ID promoter to believe in a designer who isn't a unitary deity. The problem for you is that, in practice, all of them do believe that the Designer is actually God. The ID advocates you're speaking about are entirely theoretical, or at best a muzzled minority within the movement.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024