Design is a fact. Its a fact not “because of” anything. Its just a fact. The origin of anything falls into one of two categories: nature or design. Look around you; anything you see is either made by nature or designed. Intelligent Design is scientific because it is an observed material cause. ID does not need to be proved in order to be considered a possibility for the origin of species. ID is a fact and a real possibility for the origin of species because design is a real scientific cause.
Claims that ID is not science, or unprovable, or what have you, are irrelevant to the fact of design. If ID is unprovable then our science lacks the ability to distinguish the two major scientific causes: nature and design. The inability to distinguish nature from design is not a basis on which to claim that life was made by nature. In fact, just the opposite is true; evolutionists should hail the claim that ID theory can distinguish nature from design since it would finally prove once and for all that life evolved. However, evolutionists' claim that design is not identifiable only serves to undermine the theory that life evolved.
The current evolution of a thing is not necessarily its origin. Even designed things evolve(change.) Showing that something evolves does not explain how it came into existence(origins). Sand dunes change, and cars change, but both are not products of nature. Organisms change and genes change; does this mean they originated in nature? Maybe life did originate in nature, but until design is considered a real possibility, and until science can distinguish nature from design, and until design is disproved, the biological theory of evolution remains a belief, not a fact.
Evolution is a fact.
Intelligent design is a fact.
All things evolve.
Some things are intelligently designed.
All designed things evolve.
Therefore, the fact of evolution does not necessarily rule out design as the origin.
Awwwh then i will sprout horns, again :)
QUOTE (psychological_nudity+Jul 17 2007, 05:54 AM)
ID is a fact and a real possibility
How can something be a fact, yet be a real possibility?
How can something be a fact, yet be a real possibility?
QUOTE (psychological_nudity+Jul 16 2007, 11:54 PM)
The origin of anything falls into one of two categories: nature or design.
I look out my window and I see nature. The only designed things I see are made by humans.
I look out my window and I see nature. The only designed things I see are made by humans.
psychological_nudity, please don't hate me now. but that name? Is it 'the naked truth?'
Whether or not the universe was intelligently designed, I'd have to say we've got a bias toward intelligent observations. It's tough to say, if people only have that conscious window to see things through whether that's inherent to everything that could lie outside of those observations as well ... or is there even any useful knowledge outside the universe of intelligent observations?
Everything is nature, whether it's a rose or a thermonuclear warpedo.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jul 17 2007, 05:12 PM)
Everything is nature, whether it's a rose or a thermonuclear warpedo.
Evolution is capable of intelligent design because we are products of evolution.
We can design children. We are now God who can manipualte evolution according to our desires. Let there be computers. And Bill Gates saw that his were going to beat the other competition.
Evolution is capable of intelligent design because we are products of evolution.
We can design children. We are now God who can manipualte evolution according to our desires. Let there be computers. And Bill Gates saw that his were going to beat the other competition.
I respect your view, "psychological_nudity," but I would like to ask: On what do you base your belief that life on earth was designed?
You might be right in that we soon are going to design children. But, that does not lift my 'soul' :) To me it reminds me of those that chose their carers over the joy of living.
May I ask whether the OP has read Behe's new book? Is that the cause of this thread? Isn't Behe the guy who said that astrology is science?
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 19 2007, 11:54 AM)
You might be right in that we soon are going to design children. But, that does not lift my 'soul' 
To me it reminds me of those that chose their carers over the joy of living.
That is very true, not a lot of soul lifting going on in those particular fields. There seems to be a missing element. You'll have to excuse yesterday's spot of sarcasm. It just seems that, even though many cling to evolution as the only entity, and without the idea of intelligent design, they are the very ones who are showing very much the intelligent design within evolution. Yet I fear, evolutionary design as manipulated by humans may bring about spiritless, or spiritually damaged products. Genetically modified crops may be an example. Not giving nature a spiritual entity means that we think we can merely use physical laws to obtain whatever we wish.
To me it reminds me of those that chose their carers over the joy of living. That is very true, not a lot of soul lifting going on in those particular fields. There seems to be a missing element. You'll have to excuse yesterday's spot of sarcasm. It just seems that, even though many cling to evolution as the only entity, and without the idea of intelligent design, they are the very ones who are showing very much the intelligent design within evolution. Yet I fear, evolutionary design as manipulated by humans may bring about spiritless, or spiritually damaged products. Genetically modified crops may be an example. Not giving nature a spiritual entity means that we think we can merely use physical laws to obtain whatever we wish.
So you would propose restricting science based upon supernatural claims of a “spiritual entity”?
Nothing in nature is designed as it is meant by the supporters of ID. Design exists in every living thing due to the forces that shape our environment and us, but it is not guided by any sort of testable or apparently rational intelligence.
As gmilian mentioned, the only things seen as being specifically designed are the constructs of mankind, mostly of the non-living variety.
Nothing in nature is designed as it is meant by the supporters of ID. Design exists in every living thing due to the forces that shape our environment and us, but it is not guided by any sort of testable or apparently rational intelligence.
As gmilian mentioned, the only things seen as being specifically designed are the constructs of mankind, mostly of the non-living variety.
So you would propose restricting science based upon supernatural claims of a “spiritual entity”?
*******************
Not at all, I love my scientific search in life. Still free over here to express my views, either right or later to be shown to be wrong, whatever. As far as science is concerned the onus is on someone to provide a suitable model for the introduction of a theory on Creation. From some of the things I am reading, I respect the fact that there are some making that effort.
>>>>Nothing in nature is designed as it is meant by the supporters of ID.
****************
I think you are right there. From what I know of this ID movement at the moment anyway.
>>>Design exists in every living thing due to the forces that shape our environment and us, but it is not guided by any sort of testable or apparently rational intelligence.
***********************
Yes, I would be pretty bored having to constantly guide the whole of creation.
I'm not being funny, I just think that everything is capable of looking after itself, and there are parameters that give anything the ability to adapt accordingly.
>>>>>As gmilian mentioned, the only things seen as being specifically designed are the constructs of mankind, mostly of the non-living variety.
Doesn't GM crops count then as a design of man? Or does that fall under some kind of alteration? There was something on tv about Designer babies a while back too.
Personally I think there are aspects of evolution that don't make sense without the thought of something like a programmer or a creator of such. I can see and accept that evolution has the inherent ability to adapt to its environment, and I feel happy that I am free to dare to contradict what something like a bible would say about it. However, once most people of common sense stop laughing at the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old, it doesn't mean game set and match for those that wish to label life as an accident, without purpose or direction and leave the matter closed. Things don't quite add up in my mind, and so I cannot agree with what some are saying about this accidental creation. And by that I mean the "something coming from nothing" idea.
*******************
Not at all, I love my scientific search in life. Still free over here to express my views, either right or later to be shown to be wrong, whatever. As far as science is concerned the onus is on someone to provide a suitable model for the introduction of a theory on Creation. From some of the things I am reading, I respect the fact that there are some making that effort.
>>>>Nothing in nature is designed as it is meant by the supporters of ID.
****************
I think you are right there. From what I know of this ID movement at the moment anyway.
>>>Design exists in every living thing due to the forces that shape our environment and us, but it is not guided by any sort of testable or apparently rational intelligence.
***********************
Yes, I would be pretty bored having to constantly guide the whole of creation.
I'm not being funny, I just think that everything is capable of looking after itself, and there are parameters that give anything the ability to adapt accordingly.
>>>>>As gmilian mentioned, the only things seen as being specifically designed are the constructs of mankind, mostly of the non-living variety.
Doesn't GM crops count then as a design of man? Or does that fall under some kind of alteration? There was something on tv about Designer babies a while back too.
Personally I think there are aspects of evolution that don't make sense without the thought of something like a programmer or a creator of such. I can see and accept that evolution has the inherent ability to adapt to its environment, and I feel happy that I am free to dare to contradict what something like a bible would say about it. However, once most people of common sense stop laughing at the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old, it doesn't mean game set and match for those that wish to label life as an accident, without purpose or direction and leave the matter closed. Things don't quite add up in my mind, and so I cannot agree with what some are saying about this accidental creation. And by that I mean the "something coming from nothing" idea.
QUOTE
Doesn't GM crops count then as a design of man? Or does that fall under some kind of alteration? There was something on tv about Designer babies a while back too.
Yes and I had that and other biological examples in mind. That’s why I stated “mostly of the non-living variety”. Animal husbandry would also be seen as mankind altering or trying to design an animal with traits considered “better.”
What I was questioning is your comment about giving nature a spiritual entity. Could you expand or clarify what you meant?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Doesn't GM crops count then as a design of man? Or does that fall under some kind of alteration? There was something on tv about Designer babies a while back too. |
Yes and I had that and other biological examples in mind. That’s why I stated “mostly of the non-living variety”. Animal husbandry would also be seen as mankind altering or trying to design an animal with traits considered “better.”
What I was questioning is your comment about giving nature a spiritual entity. Could you expand or clarify what you meant?
However, once most people of common sense stop laughing at the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old, it doesn't mean game set and match for those that wish to label life as an accident, without purpose or direction and leave the matter closed.
But again, life need not have any purpose other than inherently selfish and base motivations to survive and multiply. We know of only one animal that contemplates purpose in such a manner so far. Direction is determined along similar lines of survival.
While it may appear looking back along our own biological line that things were designed to insure our existence and survival, that appearance is an illusion and a very ego and theistic pleasing one, hence its attraction. If it were not for our ability to survive in our ever-changing environment, it is a simple fact that we would not be here.
QUOTE
Things don't quite add up in my mind, and so I cannot agree with what some are saying about this accidental creation. And by that I mean the "something coming from nothing" idea.
Are you specking of the origins of the universe or the appearance of life? I mentioned it before that theists tend to lump everything together and create confusion over the topic of evolution, the origin of the universe and similar subject because their religion addresses all of those topics so they assume that evolution is a defacto replacement. It is not nor is it presented to be.
The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of our solar system, and the origin of mankind are all separate subjects. They may collectively cross paths due to mankind’s tendency to arrange such topics in a nice, neat and simple timeline to foster a sense of order, but they are normally not bunched together in regards to active research or as in the view painted by theists.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 20 2007, 12:53 PM)
But again, life need not have any purpose other than inherently selfish and base motivations to survive and multiply.
**********************
Well that runs into the little spate of simplicity I poured out the other day. Admittedly I am lumping this possible purposeless accident of life with the thoughts and actions of everything that has transpired since. We do see plenty of purposeful actions every day of course, and I am being asked to "believe" that these are the natural consequences of evolution, in that some purpose was latched onto by humans through evolutionary adaption etc, and is part of the selfish and base motivation to adapt and survive, even though it may be argued that some actions are not done with selfishness in mind. Fair enough I say, and then reflect on the many actions of life including those of mad people like terrorists. Unless we are claiming that there are other layers that make up living things, and that some layers cannot fall within the scientific rhealm of research, then I will adnmit that a terrorist's motivation to cause mass murder is not led by evolutionary instincts, but dominated by one of these other layers that have no scientific standing. And if that is true, that one give to evolution the things of evolution and to the Spirt the things of Spirit, we may be believing that layers come together on their seperate paths and form the intrinsic qualities that are the basis of life. I don't believe that presently.
The question of origins of life is largely unanswered, save for generally accepted models (but not accepted by all scientists). Here's something I found whilst reading up on it:
Origin of Life:
There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:
Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.
The origin of the basic biomolecules, while not settled, is less controversial than the significance and order of steps 2 and 3. The basic chemicals from which life was thought to have formed are:
methane (CH4),
ammonia (NH3),
water (H2O),
hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and
phosphate (PO43-).
Molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) were either rare or absent.
As of 2007, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics.
In 1953 a graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that proved organic molecules could have spontaneously formed on Early Earth from inorganic precursors. The now-famous “Miller-Urey experiment” used a highly reduced mixture of gases - methane, ammonia and hydrogen – to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids. Whether the mixture of gases used in the Miller-Urey experiment truly reflects the atmospheric content of Early Earth is a controversial topic.
The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses.
>>>>While it may appear looking back along our own biological line that things were designed to insure our existence and survival, that appearance is an illusion and a very ego and theistic pleasing one, hence its attraction.
*******************************
I honestly couldn't believe that one way or the other. Although one cannot argue that the word "appear" is an interesting one to contemplate, for again evolution seems to introduce the ideas into the minds of humans, and also provide a concept of appearance, whether it be illusion or not. To base the idea of this "appear" word soley on illusion would question the surety of those that as yet can only believe in models. We are immersed in a world and universe where nothing appears out of nothing. We have our children, and we love them. We could have eaten children if we were to have partnered someone who already had children, as some animals do, but we as humans have developed a moral code. Perhaps that code is just an extension of the same seflish will to survive, and it was a replacement for the act of peeing around our territory to keep competition out. Moral codes evolve. Yet in the act of selfless loving evolution would have no answer. So we have to dismiss the very thought that there can be selfless loving. It leaves the issues open to contemplate, because I could not settle for a model of something and pretend to myself I am 100% sure, especially on this question of the orign of life.
It also appears that many humans wish to give up the idea of selfish motivation, solely for survival, and look to something that will give them the quality of serving, be it others or a cause, or even to worship. It is said we have a lower nature and and higher nature, and that they can conflict with each other. Two layers out of synch perhaps.
>>>What I was questioning is your comment about giving nature a spiritual entity. Could you expand or clarify what you meant?
****************************
It's a very old idea apparently, and appeals to some thinkers, and is revoked by others. Some believe that everything is Spirit, lowered or raised in frequency. I dunno what kind of interest could be here about that concept, but I can always find some sources and expand on that. It's one of those areas that doesn't "appeal" to mainstream science, and that's fair enough too. But basically, we are God, everything is God. No need to think of a God coming down here to save something from something. Spiritual Evolution has reached the stage, through Man where it can study itself within this dimension. Through that study, Man is becoming more conscious of the Creators they are. Or destroyers of course.
It is very understandable that at the beginning of such a noble journey to discover the origin and meaning of life that such opposition to obviously unrealistic doctrines such as in some of the myths in the bible, for example, will happen. Nevertheless we are the only specie here studying things like evolution. Inherent Spiritual qualities are also being understood more fully. Some Spirital claims seem rather potty to me to say the least, but eventually spirit and science will find plenty of common ground.
Are you specking of the origins of the universe or the appearance of life?
***********************
Both have their models, and as of today there is no unified model, let alone conclusive proof that would answer the question regarding both.
>>>>I mentioned it before that theists tend to lump everything together and create confusion over the topic of evolution, the origin of the universe and similar subject because their religion addresses all of those topics so they assume that evolution is a defacto replacement. It is not nor is it presented to be.
**************************
Well, my motivation isn't about sticking to a book, or even thinking I am an IST or ISM in some ways. The word Theist has never passed my lips, for example! Still, it's great to see where the arguments are happening.
Although I would agree that in my ignorance I would probably be tempted to lump things together. It's only as one stuidies, and realizes that the more they think they know, the more there is to search and learn, that things can become rather more seperated. And of course the purpose of that, for me anyway, is to join them back up into something like a TOE.
>>>The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of our solar system, and the origin of mankind are all separate subjects.
*******************************
Yes, and of course all to be studied and eventually undertsood. Not as of the writing of this post though.
Let's face it, we don't actually know if what we are postulating is true, when it comes to the big questions of the origin of universe. I don't see how it beginning as a big bang actually proves there is no creator, for exmaple. We don't know how life began, we don't know more than 10% of how the brain works etc etc. No one has the right to say they know the truth when they haven't got the facts to back it up, regarding life, universe or brain.
RE: ID Creationism vs. Science of Evolution of a TOE!?
QUOTE (Mirrorman: July 20 2007; 3:59p+)
Well, my motivation isn't about sticking to a book, or even thinking I am an IST or ISM in some ways. The word Theist has never passed my lips, for example! Still, it's great to see where the arguments are happening.
Although I would agree that in my ignorance I would probably be tempted to lump things together. It's only as one studies, and realizes that the more they think they know, the more there is to search and learn, that things can become rather more separated. And of course the purpose of that, for me anyway, is to join them back up into something like a TOE.
Although I would agree that in my ignorance I would probably be tempted to lump things together. It's only as one studies, and realizes that the more they think they know, the more there is to search and learn, that things can become rather more separated. And of course the purpose of that, for me anyway, is to join them back up into something like a TOE.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of our solar system, and the origin of mankind are all separate subjects.
Yes, and of course all to be studied and eventually understood. Not as of the writing of this post though.
Let's face it, we don't actually know if what we are postulating is true, when it comes to the big questions of the origin of universe. I don't see how it beginning as a big bang actually proves there is no creator, for example. We don't know how life began, we don't know more than 10% of how the brain works etc, etc. No one has the right to say they know the truth when they haven't got the facts to back it up, regarding life, universe or brain.
Briefly, I thought some of the above, great, and advanced ideas might have had been discussed before in this thread, Origin of Life (PhysOrgEU; April 10)—RE: The Emergence-Evolution of Life and Consciousness might involve different Quantum Mechanics of Elements on Earth.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, imagining, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 7/20/7usct12:21p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a critical reader-independent philosopher of Modern Mind and Emotion, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively—blogging avidly since February 2006!
Yes, and of course all to be studied and eventually understood. Not as of the writing of this post though.
Let's face it, we don't actually know if what we are postulating is true, when it comes to the big questions of the origin of universe. I don't see how it beginning as a big bang actually proves there is no creator, for example. We don't know how life began, we don't know more than 10% of how the brain works etc, etc. No one has the right to say they know the truth when they haven't got the facts to back it up, regarding life, universe or brain.
Briefly, I thought some of the above, great, and advanced ideas might have had been discussed before in this thread, Origin of Life (PhysOrgEU; April 10)—RE: The Emergence-Evolution of Life and Consciousness might involve different Quantum Mechanics of Elements on Earth.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, imagining, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 7/20/7usct12:21p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a critical reader-independent philosopher of Modern Mind and Emotion, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively—blogging avidly since February 2006!
QUOTE (Mong H Tan, PhD+Jul 20 2007, 05:21 PM)
RE: ID Creationism vs. Science of Evolution of a TOE!?
Yes, and of course all to be studied and eventually understood. Not as of the writing of this post though.
Let's face it, we don't actually know if what we are postulating is true, when it comes to the big questions of the origin of universe. I don't see how it beginning as a big bang actually proves there is no creator, for example. We don't know how life began, we don't know more than 10% of how the brain works etc, etc. No one has the right to say they know the truth when they haven't got the facts to back it up, regarding life, universe or brain.[/QUOTE]
Briefly, I thought some of the above, great, and advanced ideas might have had been discussed before in this thread, Origin of Life (PhysOrgEU; April 10)—RE: The Emergence-Evolution of Life and Consciousness might involve different Quantum Mechanics of Elements on Earth.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, imagining, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 7/20/7usct12:21p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a critical reader-independent philosopher of Modern Mind and Emotion, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively—blogging avidly since February 2006!
Hi Mong
I've spent the last hour reading up on various posts, triggered by the link you sent me. I've read them all with interest, and have gained more understanding as always, so I'm grateful for that. One post mentioned this:
>>>I suspect that the whole of existence is itself a living thing. On every level of existence we are dealing with a living self sustaining system that is existence. It's here now, so it had to always be here, wheather it cycles over and over infinitly or whatever. I wonder what sort of scientific research could be done in order to seek out that question?>>>>>>>>
It was made on another forum which is currently locked, so I can't respond there. I think the subject was WSM. I relate to this statement anyway, and I also believe there is a solid approach to answering the question. Anyway, won't get into that until some more reading has finally killed my mind off for the day!
Cheers for now
Yes, and of course all to be studied and eventually understood. Not as of the writing of this post though.
Let's face it, we don't actually know if what we are postulating is true, when it comes to the big questions of the origin of universe. I don't see how it beginning as a big bang actually proves there is no creator, for example. We don't know how life began, we don't know more than 10% of how the brain works etc, etc. No one has the right to say they know the truth when they haven't got the facts to back it up, regarding life, universe or brain.[/QUOTE]
Briefly, I thought some of the above, great, and advanced ideas might have had been discussed before in this thread, Origin of Life (PhysOrgEU; April 10)—RE: The Emergence-Evolution of Life and Consciousness might involve different Quantum Mechanics of Elements on Earth.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, imagining, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 7/20/7usct12:21p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a critical reader-independent philosopher of Modern Mind and Emotion, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively—blogging avidly since February 2006!
Hi Mong
I've spent the last hour reading up on various posts, triggered by the link you sent me. I've read them all with interest, and have gained more understanding as always, so I'm grateful for that. One post mentioned this:
>>>I suspect that the whole of existence is itself a living thing. On every level of existence we are dealing with a living self sustaining system that is existence. It's here now, so it had to always be here, wheather it cycles over and over infinitly or whatever. I wonder what sort of scientific research could be done in order to seek out that question?>>>>>>>>
It was made on another forum which is currently locked, so I can't respond there. I think the subject was WSM. I relate to this statement anyway, and I also believe there is a solid approach to answering the question. Anyway, won't get into that until some more reading has finally killed my mind off for the day!
Cheers for now
You appear to be viewing thing from a rather polarized view and still operating from a misconception of just what evolution seeks to address.
Evolution does not comment or seek to address anything but the change of a species over time. You keep on including social and apparent emotional items or factors of mankind and claiming that since science cannot address these that a spiritual dimension exists or must be used.
Also, no one claims that everything is a result of evolution. Only people who misclassify what evolution addresses (like Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson and the like) engage in this. If this is the view you are using, then you will not be able to debate about evolution without making similar claims.
Evolution does not comment or seek to address anything but the change of a species over time. You keep on including social and apparent emotional items or factors of mankind and claiming that since science cannot address these that a spiritual dimension exists or must be used.
Also, no one claims that everything is a result of evolution. Only people who misclassify what evolution addresses (like Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson and the like) engage in this. If this is the view you are using, then you will not be able to debate about evolution without making similar claims.
The question of origins of life is largely unanswered, save for generally accepted models (but not accepted by all scientists). Here's something I found whilst reading up on it:
Yes and there also exists the possibility that life was seeded here by an impact event. And again, biogenesis or abiogenesis are topics that evolution does not seek to address. Are you arguing that since science cannot address these topic that religion or something else is correct by default?
I was commenting on the illusion of design, not the appearance of something from nothing. And again, where is it stated that the universe came from nothing other than from theists who misrepresent what the current models and theories state?
I was commenting on the illusion of design, not the appearance of something from nothing. And again, where is it stated that the universe came from nothing other than from theists who misrepresent what the current models and theories state?
We have our children, and we love them. We could have eaten children if we were to have partnered someone who already had children, as some animals do, but we as humans have developed a moral code. Perhaps that code is just an extension of the same seflish will to survive, and it was a replacement for the act of peeing around our territory to keep competition out. Moral codes evolve. Yet in the act of selfless loving evolution would have no answer. So we have to dismiss the very thought that there can be selfless loving. It leaves the issues open to contemplate, because I could not settle for a model of something and pretend to myself I am 100% sure, especially on this question of the orign of life.
You make one huge assumption and dismissal here. Why would selfless loving not be the result of evolution of our species? I commented on the inherently selfish and base desires of life, but as mankind has shown, we have and continue to override these base desires due to our intellect and/or emotions.
I think that “spiritual” can and does mean, as far as experience goes, a shared commonality based on the fact that we are emotional creatures. Even with this understood, the idea of spirits is a mythological component of religion. It should not be mixed into a conversation about evolution or science. Emotional experiences can lead to the illusion of some sort of “spiritual” or similar experience, but we can and do recognize that our emotional content can and will result in this illusion.
I think that “spiritual” can and does mean, as far as experience goes, a shared commonality based on the fact that we are emotional creatures. Even with this understood, the idea of spirits is a mythological component of religion. It should not be mixed into a conversation about evolution or science. Emotional experiences can lead to the illusion of some sort of “spiritual” or similar experience, but we can and do recognize that our emotional content can and will result in this illusion.
Let's face it, we don't actually know if what we are postulating is true, when it comes to the big questions of the origin of universe. I don't see how it beginning as a big bang actually proves there is no creator, for exmaple. We don't know how life began, we don't know more than 10% of how the brain works etc etc. No one has the right to say they know the truth when they haven't got the facts to back it up, regarding life, universe or brain.
“Truth”, as mentioned in another debate, is not what science seeks to discover. The only thing science can address is our natural world. If the claim of a creator exists outside of our natural world, then science cannot address it. There are plenty of philosophical, analytical and logical reasons and arguments why if the big bang is correct that god would be highly unlikely.
A lack of knowledge on the part of science does not give credit to the claims of religion or similar sources. Science is our only method exploring our material world and discovering how it functions. The more we learn, the more religion comes into conflict with science due to the ever-shirking arena of ignorance that religion can operate form.
p_n: this quote seems foundational to your thinking. It's also not true, not true in the least. This is such a foundational mistake in your thinking that I don't think it's possible for you to have any true insight on the evo 'debate'.
As well, you seem to have retreated into "you can't PROVE that the protolife was ID'd". What a strange notion. We can't prove what the protolife was, either. All we've done is build viable models of what could have happened, and none of these models need ID.
Your statement is the equivalent to me saying "you can't PROVE the first droplet of water which lead to a stream bed forming wasn't placed there ON PURPOSE!" Er? So? We certainly can think of a bunch of natural mechanisms for how that droplet got there naturally.
Here's an idea, if you want to put forward the idea of Intelligent Design, go find the Designer. Not 'evidence of its work', but evidence of the Designer.
QUOTE
Well that runs into the little … and form the intrinsic qualities that are the basis of life. I don't believe that presently.
Evolution does not comment or seek to address anything but the change of a species over time. You keep on including social and apparent emotional items or factors of mankind and claiming that since science cannot address these that a spiritual dimension exists or must be used.
Also, no one claims that everything is a result of evolution. Only people who misclassify what evolution addresses (like Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson and the like) engage in this. If this is the view you are using, then you will not be able to debate about evolution without making similar claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well that runs into the little … and form the intrinsic qualities that are the basis of life. I don't believe that presently. |
Evolution does not comment or seek to address anything but the change of a species over time. You keep on including social and apparent emotional items or factors of mankind and claiming that since science cannot address these that a spiritual dimension exists or must be used.
Also, no one claims that everything is a result of evolution. Only people who misclassify what evolution addresses (like Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson and the like) engage in this. If this is the view you are using, then you will not be able to debate about evolution without making similar claims.
The question of origins of life is largely unanswered, save for generally accepted models (but not accepted by all scientists). Here's something I found whilst reading up on it:
Yes and there also exists the possibility that life was seeded here by an impact event. And again, biogenesis or abiogenesis are topics that evolution does not seek to address. Are you arguing that since science cannot address these topic that religion or something else is correct by default?
QUOTE
I honestly couldn't believe that one way or the other. Although one cannot argue that the word "appear" is an interesting one to contemplate, for again evolution seems to introduce the ideas into the minds of humans, and also provide a concept of appearance, whether it be illusion or not. To base the idea of this "appear" word soley on illusion would question the surety of those that as yet can only believe in models. We are immersed in a world and universe where nothing appears out of nothing.
I was commenting on the illusion of design, not the appearance of something from nothing. And again, where is it stated that the universe came from nothing other than from theists who misrepresent what the current models and theories state?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I honestly couldn't believe that one way or the other. Although one cannot argue that the word "appear" is an interesting one to contemplate, for again evolution seems to introduce the ideas into the minds of humans, and also provide a concept of appearance, whether it be illusion or not. To base the idea of this "appear" word soley on illusion would question the surety of those that as yet can only believe in models. We are immersed in a world and universe where nothing appears out of nothing. |
I was commenting on the illusion of design, not the appearance of something from nothing. And again, where is it stated that the universe came from nothing other than from theists who misrepresent what the current models and theories state?
We have our children, and we love them. We could have eaten children if we were to have partnered someone who already had children, as some animals do, but we as humans have developed a moral code. Perhaps that code is just an extension of the same seflish will to survive, and it was a replacement for the act of peeing around our territory to keep competition out. Moral codes evolve. Yet in the act of selfless loving evolution would have no answer. So we have to dismiss the very thought that there can be selfless loving. It leaves the issues open to contemplate, because I could not settle for a model of something and pretend to myself I am 100% sure, especially on this question of the orign of life.
You make one huge assumption and dismissal here. Why would selfless loving not be the result of evolution of our species? I commented on the inherently selfish and base desires of life, but as mankind has shown, we have and continue to override these base desires due to our intellect and/or emotions.
QUOTE
It's a very old idea apparently, and …y to me to say the least, but eventually spirit and science will find plenty of common ground.
I think that “spiritual” can and does mean, as far as experience goes, a shared commonality based on the fact that we are emotional creatures. Even with this understood, the idea of spirits is a mythological component of religion. It should not be mixed into a conversation about evolution or science. Emotional experiences can lead to the illusion of some sort of “spiritual” or similar experience, but we can and do recognize that our emotional content can and will result in this illusion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's a very old idea apparently, and …y to me to say the least, but eventually spirit and science will find plenty of common ground. |
I think that “spiritual” can and does mean, as far as experience goes, a shared commonality based on the fact that we are emotional creatures. Even with this understood, the idea of spirits is a mythological component of religion. It should not be mixed into a conversation about evolution or science. Emotional experiences can lead to the illusion of some sort of “spiritual” or similar experience, but we can and do recognize that our emotional content can and will result in this illusion.
Let's face it, we don't actually know if what we are postulating is true, when it comes to the big questions of the origin of universe. I don't see how it beginning as a big bang actually proves there is no creator, for exmaple. We don't know how life began, we don't know more than 10% of how the brain works etc etc. No one has the right to say they know the truth when they haven't got the facts to back it up, regarding life, universe or brain.
“Truth”, as mentioned in another debate, is not what science seeks to discover. The only thing science can address is our natural world. If the claim of a creator exists outside of our natural world, then science cannot address it. There are plenty of philosophical, analytical and logical reasons and arguments why if the big bang is correct that god would be highly unlikely.
A lack of knowledge on the part of science does not give credit to the claims of religion or similar sources. Science is our only method exploring our material world and discovering how it functions. The more we learn, the more religion comes into conflict with science due to the ever-shirking arena of ignorance that religion can operate form.
You know what I don't get?
Simple ideas, explained in the most fuped up way..
Simple ideas, explained in the most fuped up way..
Know what else? I hate it when people jabber on and on... Physics is about fact or fiction!
(Well, probabilitys really)
But common... Arg! Is all the crap of the day needed?!
Just see how long it takes you to scroll to the top of this page and watch the rubbish fly past.
If this in Science, it should be easily boiled down into a list of bullet points!
(Well, probabilitys really)
But common... Arg! Is all the crap of the day needed?!
Just see how long it takes you to scroll to the top of this page and watch the rubbish fly past.
If this in Science, it should be easily boiled down into a list of bullet points!
QUOTE (professor andy+Jul 23 2007, 03:39 PM)
You know what I don't get?
Simple ideas, explained in the most fuped up way..
Know what else? I hate it when people jabber on and on... Physics is about fact or fiction!
(Well, probabilitys really)
But common... Arg! Is all the crap of the day needed?!
Just see how long it takes you to scroll to the top of this page and watch the rubbish fly past.
If this in Science, it should be easily boiled down into a list of bullet points!
Then by all means, lead by example.
Simple ideas, explained in the most fuped up way..
Know what else? I hate it when people jabber on and on... Physics is about fact or fiction!
(Well, probabilitys really)
But common... Arg! Is all the crap of the day needed?!
Just see how long it takes you to scroll to the top of this page and watch the rubbish fly past.
If this in Science, it should be easily boiled down into a list of bullet points!
Then by all means, lead by example.
What is it that draws the crackpot creationists to science web sites? Are there scientists logging on to religious blogs taunting them with evidence of their hypocrisies or flawed ideologies?
Seriously, what drives them to keep coming back with more voodoo garbage? Is there's a psychological basis? Is it a mass hysteria thing? Cultural indoctrination?
Seriously, what drives them to keep coming back with more voodoo garbage? Is there's a psychological basis? Is it a mass hysteria thing? Cultural indoctrination?
QUOTE (Corvidae+Jul 23 2007, 01:57 PM)
What is it that draws the crackpot creationists to science web sites? Are there scientists logging on to religious blogs taunting them with evidence of their hypocrisies or flawed ideologies?
Seriously, what drives them to keep coming back with more voodoo garbage? Is there's a psychological basis? Is it a mass hysteria thing? Cultural indoctrination?
You haven't figured that out yet?
[SARCASM]
It's because science is corrupting our youth and teaching them to hate god.
[/SARCASM]
Seriously, what drives them to keep coming back with more voodoo garbage? Is there's a psychological basis? Is it a mass hysteria thing? Cultural indoctrination?
You haven't figured that out yet?
[SARCASM]
It's because science is corrupting our youth and teaching them to hate god.
[/SARCASM]
QUOTE (Corvidae+Jul 23 2007, 07:57 PM)
What is it that draws the crackpot creationists to science web sites? Are there scientists logging on to religious blogs taunting them with evidence of their hypocrisies or flawed ideologies?
Seriously, what drives them to keep coming back with more voodoo garbage? Is there's a psychological basis? Is it a mass hysteria thing? Cultural indoctrination?
Maybe there is an insight here to your own crackpot view that all people that contemplate a created universe must be ID worshippers, or fundamentalist christians. Science goes back much further than the parameters it is given for its existence in todays age. And what if one had evidence of a symbol that is recognized as representing Consciousness, and the uniting of the masculine/feminine/expansion/contraction forces within nature? Where would be the best place to share that? And why would this section of physorg be called creation/evolution?
Seriously, what drives them to keep coming back with more voodoo garbage? Is there's a psychological basis? Is it a mass hysteria thing? Cultural indoctrination?
Maybe there is an insight here to your own crackpot view that all people that contemplate a created universe must be ID worshippers, or fundamentalist christians. Science goes back much further than the parameters it is given for its existence in todays age. And what if one had evidence of a symbol that is recognized as representing Consciousness, and the uniting of the masculine/feminine/expansion/contraction forces within nature? Where would be the best place to share that? And why would this section of physorg be called creation/evolution?
I think that the creation/evolution section was made to quarantine the nuttiness. That, and to allow focused education.
QUOTE (psychological_nudity+Jul 17 2007, 05:54 AM)
Design is a fact. Its a fact not “because of” anything. Its just a fact. The origin of anything falls into one of two categories: nature or design. Look around you; anything you see is either made by nature or designed. Intelligent Design is scientific because it is an observed material cause. ID does not need to be proved in order to be considered a possibility for the origin of species. ID is a fact and a real possibility for the origin of species because design is a real scientific cause.
Claims that ID is not science, or unprovable, or what have you, are irrelevant to the fact of design. If ID is unprovable then our science lacks the ability to distinguish the two major scientific causes: nature and design. The inability to distinguish nature from design is not a basis on which to claim that life was made by nature. In fact, just the opposite is true; evolutionists should hail the claim that ID theory can distinguish nature from design since it would finally prove once and for all that life evolved. However, evolutionists' claim that design is not identifiable only serves to undermine the theory that life evolved.
The current evolution of a thing is not necessarily its origin. Even designed things evolve(change.) Showing that something evolves does not explain how it came into existence(origins). Sand dunes change, and cars change, but both are not products of nature. Organisms change and genes change; does this mean they originated in nature? Maybe life did originate in nature, but until design is considered a real possibility, and until science can distinguish nature from design, and until design is disproved, the biological theory of evolution remains a belief, not a fact.
Evolution is a fact.
Intelligent design is a fact.
All things evolve.
Some things are intelligently designed.
All designed things evolve.
Therefore, the fact of evolution does not necessarily rule out design as the origin.
Ignorance is bliss. You are happy.
Reading and study of science may not be enough for you.
Cohesion of typing and mastery of sentence structure does not counter your misunderstanding of science.
I'm sure you know of creationist forums.
Might be better if you stayed there.
If design is intelligent, an intelligent designer of the intelligent designer is essential. Otherwise you deny the premise. How many gods?
Got any other "facts of design?"
Claims that ID is not science, or unprovable, or what have you, are irrelevant to the fact of design. If ID is unprovable then our science lacks the ability to distinguish the two major scientific causes: nature and design. The inability to distinguish nature from design is not a basis on which to claim that life was made by nature. In fact, just the opposite is true; evolutionists should hail the claim that ID theory can distinguish nature from design since it would finally prove once and for all that life evolved. However, evolutionists' claim that design is not identifiable only serves to undermine the theory that life evolved.
The current evolution of a thing is not necessarily its origin. Even designed things evolve(change.) Showing that something evolves does not explain how it came into existence(origins). Sand dunes change, and cars change, but both are not products of nature. Organisms change and genes change; does this mean they originated in nature? Maybe life did originate in nature, but until design is considered a real possibility, and until science can distinguish nature from design, and until design is disproved, the biological theory of evolution remains a belief, not a fact.
Evolution is a fact.
Intelligent design is a fact.
All things evolve.
Some things are intelligently designed.
All designed things evolve.
Therefore, the fact of evolution does not necessarily rule out design as the origin.
Ignorance is bliss. You are happy.
Reading and study of science may not be enough for you.
Cohesion of typing and mastery of sentence structure does not counter your misunderstanding of science.
I'm sure you know of creationist forums.
Might be better if you stayed there.
If design is intelligent, an intelligent designer of the intelligent designer is essential. Otherwise you deny the premise. How many gods?
Got any other "facts of design?"
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 26 2007, 02:25 PM)
I think that the creation/evolution section was made to quarantine the nuttiness. That, and to allow focused education.
That's right, so many here are passing as facts mere conjectures. Ideals in the hands of humans. Science that claims to be objective is yet another collection of belief systems.
People attack each other because they don't actually stand on facts. One gets told to read up on science and then they'll know the facts. Another is told to read the bible then they'll know the facts. Idiotic attitudes that influence the education of children, who are used as fodder for the egos that want to justify their stances in life.
We get told that the second law of thermodynamics has to be sacrificed in order to fit the facts regarding what evolution is. In religion we are bulldozed into worshipping some outside force, and taught to fear. Science at least shows us that life could only have come about due to the most delicate existence of universal laws. Any deviation from the delicate balance and no life is possible. So the "facts" become that of multiverses, and continual accidents until the conditions are met, a little like someone trying to kick start their moterbike on a cold winter's morning. Then we're told that because the facts can be established without the need for a creator, that the creator bit can be discarded. But what FACTS are we talking about? We haven't got to the bottom of what makes evolution tick. Or is the real motivation to discard the need for a creator not based on anything scientific at all, but on a dislike of the other so called facts that religion wants to enforce?
There is no real objectivity. We lack facts. Facts are replaced by belief systems.
That's right, so many here are passing as facts mere conjectures. Ideals in the hands of humans. Science that claims to be objective is yet another collection of belief systems.
People attack each other because they don't actually stand on facts. One gets told to read up on science and then they'll know the facts. Another is told to read the bible then they'll know the facts. Idiotic attitudes that influence the education of children, who are used as fodder for the egos that want to justify their stances in life.
We get told that the second law of thermodynamics has to be sacrificed in order to fit the facts regarding what evolution is. In religion we are bulldozed into worshipping some outside force, and taught to fear. Science at least shows us that life could only have come about due to the most delicate existence of universal laws. Any deviation from the delicate balance and no life is possible. So the "facts" become that of multiverses, and continual accidents until the conditions are met, a little like someone trying to kick start their moterbike on a cold winter's morning. Then we're told that because the facts can be established without the need for a creator, that the creator bit can be discarded. But what FACTS are we talking about? We haven't got to the bottom of what makes evolution tick. Or is the real motivation to discard the need for a creator not based on anything scientific at all, but on a dislike of the other so called facts that religion wants to enforce?
There is no real objectivity. We lack facts. Facts are replaced by belief systems.
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 31 2007, 06:52 AM)
Any deviation from the delicate balance and no life is possible.
Who said NO life would be possible. Of course the universe looks like it's perfectly designed for us. Had it been different, then life would be different.
Who said NO life would be possible. Of course the universe looks like it's perfectly designed for us. Had it been different, then life would be different.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jul 31 2007, 01:03 PM)
Who said NO life would be possible. Of course the universe looks like it's perfectly designed for us. Had it been different, then life would be different.
That is stating one of the belief systems I read just the other day. What we at least do know is the delicate balance required that brought about this one. Or at least that's what many scientists are leading people to believe. Conjecturing on the basis of other parameters able to bring life doesn't displace the realization that a delicate balance is required. One needs the meeting of more than one universal law/condition too. A collection of delicately balanced laws that must meet by eventual chance. A lot of faith required there.
That is stating one of the belief systems I read just the other day. What we at least do know is the delicate balance required that brought about this one. Or at least that's what many scientists are leading people to believe. Conjecturing on the basis of other parameters able to bring life doesn't displace the realization that a delicate balance is required. One needs the meeting of more than one universal law/condition too. A collection of delicately balanced laws that must meet by eventual chance. A lot of faith required there.
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 31 2007, 07:25 AM)
That is stating one of the belief systems I read just the other day. What we at least do know is the delicate balance required that brought about this one. Or at least that's what many scientists are leading people to believe. Conjecturing on the basis of other parameters able to bring life doesn't displace the realization that a delicate balance is required. One needs the meeting of more than one universal law/condition too. A collection of delicately balanced laws that must meet by eventual chance. A lot of faith required there.
No faith required, we are here. Life happened.
To borrow an example from Douglas Adams. Suppose a puddle of water in a hole in the road suddenly became sentient. It looks around and says, "Wow! This hole fits me perfectly. It's like it was designed specifically to hold me. I am the reason why this hole is here."
Of course the universe looks perfectly designed for us. If the conditions were any different, then we wouldn't be here to discuss how miraculous it all is.
No faith required, we are here. Life happened.
To borrow an example from Douglas Adams. Suppose a puddle of water in a hole in the road suddenly became sentient. It looks around and says, "Wow! This hole fits me perfectly. It's like it was designed specifically to hold me. I am the reason why this hole is here."
Of course the universe looks perfectly designed for us. If the conditions were any different, then we wouldn't be here to discuss how miraculous it all is.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jul 31 2007, 01:44 PM)
No faith required, we are here. Life happened.
To borrow an example from Douglas Adams. Suppose a puddle of water in a hole in the road suddenly became sentient. It looks around and says, "Wow! This hole fits me perfectly. It's like it was designed specifically to hold me. I am the reason why this hole is here."
Of course the universe looks perfectly designed for us. If the conditions were any different, then we wouldn't be here to discuss how miraculous it all is.
Humans are sentient too, and they are searching for why they are here. In that search it has led to various realizations, that for them to be sentient and give the ""wow" statement it required all that I just mentioned. You have every right to believe it in the way you wish to of course, but questioned all views will remain for all of us. And yes, it requires a tremendous amount of faith to take a stance such as yours, I believe.:-)
Will be back to share just what these delicate balanced universal laws required are a little later.;-)
To borrow an example from Douglas Adams. Suppose a puddle of water in a hole in the road suddenly became sentient. It looks around and says, "Wow! This hole fits me perfectly. It's like it was designed specifically to hold me. I am the reason why this hole is here."
Of course the universe looks perfectly designed for us. If the conditions were any different, then we wouldn't be here to discuss how miraculous it all is.
Humans are sentient too, and they are searching for why they are here. In that search it has led to various realizations, that for them to be sentient and give the ""wow" statement it required all that I just mentioned. You have every right to believe it in the way you wish to of course, but questioned all views will remain for all of us. And yes, it requires a tremendous amount of faith to take a stance such as yours, I believe.:-)
Will be back to share just what these delicate balanced universal laws required are a little later.;-)
gmilam
We all miss Douglas Adam's insights. This is the perfect argument for the "us fitting nature" view as opposed to MM's "Nature was made to fit us" view.
Of course the laws of the universe fit our needs exactly, we've been adjusting to them for billions of years. The laws were always thus, it is life that has adapted to them, not vice versa. Just as intelligence is a result of evolution, not it's cause. If you need something to worship it should be the Carbon Atom, whose properties allow complex molecules(Bucky Balls, chains, fibers, crystals(diamonds), and multiple combinations with the other life chemicals(H,O,N and, in the case of Hot Smokers, Sulfur)). Isaac Asimov wrote that Carbon Atoms are the source of all the possible first self replicating molecules and (he predicted) would be found as the basis for all life in this universe.
All Hail the Great Carbon Atom!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
To borrow an example from Douglas Adams. Suppose a puddle of water in a hole in the road suddenly became sentient. It looks around and says, "Wow! This hole fits me perfectly. It's like it was designed specifically to hold me. I am the reason why this hole is here."
We all miss Douglas Adam's insights. This is the perfect argument for the "us fitting nature" view as opposed to MM's "Nature was made to fit us" view.
Of course the laws of the universe fit our needs exactly, we've been adjusting to them for billions of years. The laws were always thus, it is life that has adapted to them, not vice versa. Just as intelligence is a result of evolution, not it's cause. If you need something to worship it should be the Carbon Atom, whose properties allow complex molecules(Bucky Balls, chains, fibers, crystals(diamonds), and multiple combinations with the other life chemicals(H,O,N and, in the case of Hot Smokers, Sulfur)). Isaac Asimov wrote that Carbon Atoms are the source of all the possible first self replicating molecules and (he predicted) would be found as the basis for all life in this universe.
All Hail the Great Carbon Atom!!!
Grumpy
Did the universe come about solely through chance and natural processes? Or was it designed to be hospitable to life?
One of the most compelling evidences for the idea of cosmological intelligent design is the fact that the universe is finely tuned. In other words, the universe's physical constants are precisely the right values that are needed in order to sustain life.
Consider the gravitational force constant, G. If you have taken a physics course, you may remember a familiar equation for gravitational force: F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2, where G = 6.67 * 10^-11. If G were slightly tweaked, complex life could not exist.
Other examples of finely tuned parameters are the strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, electromagnetic force constant, and ratio of electron to proton mass. If these parameters were even slightly smaller or slightly larger, chemistry (as we know it) would not be possible, and molecules would probably not even exist. It would be almost impossible for life of any kind to be sustained in these conditions.
There are three possible explanations for this extraordinary universal fine-tuning: 1) there exists an underlying mechanism that correctly sets these parameters; 2) it happened by sheer luck; 3) it happened by intelligent design.
A January 2006 Nature article titled “Our Universe: Outrageous Fortune” highlights a shift in sentiment among scientists regarding the cause of this fine-tuning. According to the article, “[s]tring theorists and cosmologists are increasingly turning to dumb luck as an explanation” since the search for an underlying mechanism for fine-tuning has been unfruitful.
However, the probability of randomly selecting the correct values for these parameters is so infinitesimally small that it is unreasonable to think that sheer luck alone can be the explanation for cosmological fine-tuning.
In order to increase the probabilistic resources, some scientists have been driven to suggest that there exist millions of universes that are parallel to our own universe but have different laws and constants. Even though the probability of fine-tuning is astronomically low, a fine-tuned universe could hypothetical emerge if chance has an enormous ensemble of universes at its disposal.
In reality, this concept of a multiverse is a metaphysical postulate, since only one universe is scientifically observable, and that universe is our own. The hypothetical existence of millions of universes must be assumed by faith. Charles Townes, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, suggests that the entire postulate is fantastic:
“Some scientists argue that ‘well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.' Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially” (UCBerkeleyNews interview, June 2005).
Scientists have not found an underlying mechanism that can explain fine-tuning. Sheer luck cannot be invoked without assuming the metaphysical concept of the existence of millions of universes. The only other alternative is cosmological intelligent design, which is the idea that a Designer has intelligently calibrated the constants in order to sustain life.
A critic may ask, “Doesn't intelligent design appeal to a metaphysical cause?” Actually, the concept of intelligent design is no more metaphysical than the hypothetical concept that millions of universes exist. And Ockham's Razor would favor intelligent design over the concept of an elaborate multiverse, since intelligent design is more direct as an explanation.
If one accepts that this physical universe had a beginning, then one is forced to appeal to a metaphysical cause. For how can there be any physical explanation for the origin of the physical universe?
In addition to the fine-tuning of constants, another positive evidence for cosmological intelligent design is the simplicity and beauty of the physics equations themselves. Einstein once said:
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
This simplicity and comprehensibility of physical laws suggests that the universe is more than just a mere fluke of nature, since we would not expect sheer luck to produce mathematically elegant and simple laws.
From the current amount of scientific evidence, we can reliably infer that cosmological intelligent design is the most rational explanation for fine-tuning in the universe. Let's be grateful, for without fine-tuning, we would not exist.
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~asuncion/fine_tuned.htm
One of the most compelling evidences for the idea of cosmological intelligent design is the fact that the universe is finely tuned. In other words, the universe's physical constants are precisely the right values that are needed in order to sustain life.
Consider the gravitational force constant, G. If you have taken a physics course, you may remember a familiar equation for gravitational force: F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2, where G = 6.67 * 10^-11. If G were slightly tweaked, complex life could not exist.
Other examples of finely tuned parameters are the strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, electromagnetic force constant, and ratio of electron to proton mass. If these parameters were even slightly smaller or slightly larger, chemistry (as we know it) would not be possible, and molecules would probably not even exist. It would be almost impossible for life of any kind to be sustained in these conditions.
There are three possible explanations for this extraordinary universal fine-tuning: 1) there exists an underlying mechanism that correctly sets these parameters; 2) it happened by sheer luck; 3) it happened by intelligent design.
A January 2006 Nature article titled “Our Universe: Outrageous Fortune” highlights a shift in sentiment among scientists regarding the cause of this fine-tuning. According to the article, “[s]tring theorists and cosmologists are increasingly turning to dumb luck as an explanation” since the search for an underlying mechanism for fine-tuning has been unfruitful.
However, the probability of randomly selecting the correct values for these parameters is so infinitesimally small that it is unreasonable to think that sheer luck alone can be the explanation for cosmological fine-tuning.
In order to increase the probabilistic resources, some scientists have been driven to suggest that there exist millions of universes that are parallel to our own universe but have different laws and constants. Even though the probability of fine-tuning is astronomically low, a fine-tuned universe could hypothetical emerge if chance has an enormous ensemble of universes at its disposal.
In reality, this concept of a multiverse is a metaphysical postulate, since only one universe is scientifically observable, and that universe is our own. The hypothetical existence of millions of universes must be assumed by faith. Charles Townes, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, suggests that the entire postulate is fantastic:
“Some scientists argue that ‘well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.' Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially” (UCBerkeleyNews interview, June 2005).
Scientists have not found an underlying mechanism that can explain fine-tuning. Sheer luck cannot be invoked without assuming the metaphysical concept of the existence of millions of universes. The only other alternative is cosmological intelligent design, which is the idea that a Designer has intelligently calibrated the constants in order to sustain life.
A critic may ask, “Doesn't intelligent design appeal to a metaphysical cause?” Actually, the concept of intelligent design is no more metaphysical than the hypothetical concept that millions of universes exist. And Ockham's Razor would favor intelligent design over the concept of an elaborate multiverse, since intelligent design is more direct as an explanation.
If one accepts that this physical universe had a beginning, then one is forced to appeal to a metaphysical cause. For how can there be any physical explanation for the origin of the physical universe?
In addition to the fine-tuning of constants, another positive evidence for cosmological intelligent design is the simplicity and beauty of the physics equations themselves. Einstein once said:
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
This simplicity and comprehensibility of physical laws suggests that the universe is more than just a mere fluke of nature, since we would not expect sheer luck to produce mathematically elegant and simple laws.
From the current amount of scientific evidence, we can reliably infer that cosmological intelligent design is the most rational explanation for fine-tuning in the universe. Let's be grateful, for without fine-tuning, we would not exist.
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~asuncion/fine_tuned.htm
Although Wikipaedia is probably the least biased about a fine tuned universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
Mirrorman
Once again you have it backwards, life is so well suited to this universe because life DEVELOPED within this universe, to fit the conditions of the universe.
ID is a bogus, unscientific, irrational concept of man's invention, made possible because evolution gave him brains, but no instruction manual.
Grumpy
QUOTE
One of the most compelling evidences for the idea of cosmological intelligent design is the fact that the universe is finely tuned. In other words, the universe's physical constants are precisely the right values that are needed in order to sustain life.
Once again you have it backwards, life is so well suited to this universe because life DEVELOPED within this universe, to fit the conditions of the universe.
ID is a bogus, unscientific, irrational concept of man's invention, made possible because evolution gave him brains, but no instruction manual.
Grumpy
Mong, I see the intelligence in your ideas, and I would buy and read your book,
but for one problem: What reason do I have to believe that you are
demonstrating the science of the creative power of biological evolution, rather
than interpreting the world from within an evolutionary paradigm? It seems you
have taken for granted bio evo as the origin of species, and have written about
how that belief sheds light on other spheres of knowledge. Since I am
interested in looking at why people think bio evo has the power to create
genetic information, I am not sure your book would interest me. You can of
course, change my mind.
ID is both a fact and possibility in that 1) It's an observed material cause for
some things (that's a fact) and 2) since ID is a real cause, life may have been
designed (that's a possibility)
I wish the problem were as easy as observing methods of genetic change. Like
I've been saying, no one debates that the genetic code changes. I am simply
saying that those changes are not enough to conclude that life evolved.
I don't disagree that the study of mutation is science, nor that genes change via
various methods. But all things change according laws of nature. But not all
things are made by nature. Therefore, in order to claim a thing is made by nature
one must be able to distinguish the two possible causes, or the two possible
origins: nature and design.
Furthermore, we must specify the type of change we seek. Organisms do indeed
change in ways that enhance their survival. But, evolution rests on an ambiguous
definition of change without reference to entropy. All things are not possible,
given enough time. Change is not bidirectional. Change goes one way: from
high levels of specificity to lower. In application, compare the extinction rate to
the mutation rate and notice that the extinction rate far exceeds benevolent
mutation.
We don't only need organisms to survive, we need a real increase in genetic
information. Currently, there is no observed nature process that can increase genetic info.
If you don't know the difference between a DNA sequence that
enhances survival, and a DNA sequence that has increased in information then
your acceptance of biological evolution is based on a lack of clarity in
thinking. The difference in DNA between an amoeba an a human is more than
enhanced survival. (if you think about, if procreation is the purpose of life, then
amoebas have us beat, hands down(or flagella))
Any scientists knows that there is no observed natural process for creating
genetic info. Just pick up any book on the subject. But what they tell the masses
is that bio evo must be the origin of species because they have rejected the
possibility of design. Bio evo is "the best available" theory only when ID is
ignored.
Since I have not contested the science of genetic mutation, I am not sure why
Grumpy responded that such a study remains scientific, "despite my bleatings." I
understand that genetic changes occur via various methods, but he has missed
missed the point entirely. I know that the genetic code changes, as I have stated
consistently, but there is not reason to believe that such changes led to the
creation of the genetic codes we see in living things today. Simply showing
how a things changes now does not explain how it came into existence.
What scientific reason do we have to believe that the genetic changes occurring
today are what formed the genome, especially when our observations reveal
genetic decay? Sure, sometimes that genetic decay leads to a temporary survival
enhancement, but its not an overall life enhancement.
New traits are not new information, even when they enhance survival. My rusting
car exhibits traits never before seen in the paint, and that deters criminals from
stealing it, but the change is in one direction only. We can observe the erosion
of Mount Rushmore, but observing such erosion does not lead to the conclusion
that erosion created it. Both designed and natural things change according to
the laws of nature. The fact that nature changes a thing does not imply
that nature created it. The fact that genes change does not imply they originated
in nature.
In short, there must be some way of determining whether a thing is designed or
made naturally in order for us to claim that the changes we observe today
created genetic information.
but for one problem: What reason do I have to believe that you are
demonstrating the science of the creative power of biological evolution, rather
than interpreting the world from within an evolutionary paradigm? It seems you
have taken for granted bio evo as the origin of species, and have written about
how that belief sheds light on other spheres of knowledge. Since I am
interested in looking at why people think bio evo has the power to create
genetic information, I am not sure your book would interest me. You can of
course, change my mind.
ID is both a fact and possibility in that 1) It's an observed material cause for
some things (that's a fact) and 2) since ID is a real cause, life may have been
designed (that's a possibility)
I wish the problem were as easy as observing methods of genetic change. Like
I've been saying, no one debates that the genetic code changes. I am simply
saying that those changes are not enough to conclude that life evolved.
I don't disagree that the study of mutation is science, nor that genes change via
various methods. But all things change according laws of nature. But not all
things are made by nature. Therefore, in order to claim a thing is made by nature
one must be able to distinguish the two possible causes, or the two possible
origins: nature and design.
Furthermore, we must specify the type of change we seek. Organisms do indeed
change in ways that enhance their survival. But, evolution rests on an ambiguous
definition of change without reference to entropy. All things are not possible,
given enough time. Change is not bidirectional. Change goes one way: from
high levels of specificity to lower. In application, compare the extinction rate to
the mutation rate and notice that the extinction rate far exceeds benevolent
mutation.
We don't only need organisms to survive, we need a real increase in genetic
information. Currently, there is no observed nature process that can increase genetic info.
If you don't know the difference between a DNA sequence that
enhances survival, and a DNA sequence that has increased in information then
your acceptance of biological evolution is based on a lack of clarity in
thinking. The difference in DNA between an amoeba an a human is more than
enhanced survival. (if you think about, if procreation is the purpose of life, then
amoebas have us beat, hands down(or flagella))
Any scientists knows that there is no observed natural process for creating
genetic info. Just pick up any book on the subject. But what they tell the masses
is that bio evo must be the origin of species because they have rejected the
possibility of design. Bio evo is "the best available" theory only when ID is
ignored.
Since I have not contested the science of genetic mutation, I am not sure why
Grumpy responded that such a study remains scientific, "despite my bleatings." I
understand that genetic changes occur via various methods, but he has missed
missed the point entirely. I know that the genetic code changes, as I have stated
consistently, but there is not reason to believe that such changes led to the
creation of the genetic codes we see in living things today. Simply showing
how a things changes now does not explain how it came into existence.
What scientific reason do we have to believe that the genetic changes occurring
today are what formed the genome, especially when our observations reveal
genetic decay? Sure, sometimes that genetic decay leads to a temporary survival
enhancement, but its not an overall life enhancement.
New traits are not new information, even when they enhance survival. My rusting
car exhibits traits never before seen in the paint, and that deters criminals from
stealing it, but the change is in one direction only. We can observe the erosion
of Mount Rushmore, but observing such erosion does not lead to the conclusion
that erosion created it. Both designed and natural things change according to
the laws of nature. The fact that nature changes a thing does not imply
that nature created it. The fact that genes change does not imply they originated
in nature.
In short, there must be some way of determining whether a thing is designed or
made naturally in order for us to claim that the changes we observe today
created genetic information.
QUOTE
Currently, there is no observed nature process that can increase genetic info.
p_n: this quote seems foundational to your thinking. It's also not true, not true in the least. This is such a foundational mistake in your thinking that I don't think it's possible for you to have any true insight on the evo 'debate'.
As well, you seem to have retreated into "you can't PROVE that the protolife was ID'd". What a strange notion. We can't prove what the protolife was, either. All we've done is build viable models of what could have happened, and none of these models need ID.
Your statement is the equivalent to me saying "you can't PROVE the first droplet of water which lead to a stream bed forming wasn't placed there ON PURPOSE!" Er? So? We certainly can think of a bunch of natural mechanisms for how that droplet got there naturally.
Here's an idea, if you want to put forward the idea of Intelligent Design, go find the Designer. Not 'evidence of its work', but evidence of the Designer.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 1 2007, 02:20 AM)
Mirrorman
Once again you have it backwards, life is so well suited to this universe because life DEVELOPED within this universe, to fit the conditions of the universe.
ID is a bogus, unscientific, irrational concept of man's invention, made possible because evolution gave him brains, but no instruction manual.
Grumpy
Thanks for your opinion man.:-) And Man invents lots of things.
Once again you have it backwards, life is so well suited to this universe because life DEVELOPED within this universe, to fit the conditions of the universe.
ID is a bogus, unscientific, irrational concept of man's invention, made possible because evolution gave him brains, but no instruction manual.
Grumpy
Thanks for your opinion man.:-) And Man invents lots of things.
Mirrorman
My INFORMED opinion, yes. And the only Intelligently Designed things we see are the result of MAN's intelligence.
psychological_nudity
My INFORMED opinion, yes. And the only Intelligently Designed things we see are the result of MAN's intelligence.
psychological_nudity
ID is both a fact and possibility in that 1) It's an observed material cause for
some things (that's a fact) and 2) since ID is a real cause, life may have been
designed (that's a possibility)
Everything we see that is intelligently designed is a result of man's intelligence, man was nonexistent when life began, there is no valid evidence of a supernatural intelligence, so there is no valid evidence that intelligence designed life, the "possibility" is exceedingly small(on the level with apples falling from the ground to the tree).
That is your UNINFORMED opinion, it is wrong.
That is your UNINFORMED opinion, it is wrong.
Furthermore, we must specify the type of change we seek. Organisms do indeed
change in ways that enhance their survival. But, evolution rests on an ambiguous
definition of change without reference to entropy. All things are not possible,
given enough time. Change is not bidirectional. Change goes one way: from
high levels of specificity to lower. In application, compare the extinction rate to
the mutation rate and notice that the extinction rate far exceeds benevolent
mutation.
"But, evolution rests on an ambiguous
definition of change without reference to entropy."
That is because life decreases it's own entropy at the expense of an increase of entropy in it's environment. The sun serves as the "entropy sink" of our Earth, any decrease caused by life is more than payed for by the increase of entropy in our sun.
"Change is not bidirectional."
No one with a working knowledge of what evolution can do would make this kind of ignorant statement.
Ditto!
Ditto!
In application, compare the extinction rate to
the mutation rate and notice that the extinction rate far exceeds benevolent
mutation.
You are working from skewed data. When future biologists look back on the era of man they will recognize another mass extinction event greater than that which killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago! Comparing extinction rates of this time to all times is not valid and gives a distorted view of the question.
We don't only need organisms to survive, we need a real increase in genetic
information. Currently, there is no observed nature process that can increase genetic info.
Again, your opinion based on ignorance. Evolutionary advances caused by new genetic information are observed daily in labs all over the world. Just one example is the nylon eating bacteria. Nylon has only existed for~70 years, yet a bacteria developed a new enzyme to break it down in that short time. New enzyme=new genetic information, your statement is simply wrong.
Again, your opinion based on ignorance. Evolutionary advances caused by new genetic information are observed daily in labs all over the world. Just one example is the nylon eating bacteria. Nylon has only existed for~70 years, yet a bacteria developed a new enzyme to break it down in that short time. New enzyme=new genetic information, your statement is simply wrong.
Any scientists knows that there is no observed natural process for creating
genetic info.
Says who??? This is simply ignorance, not fact.
Bio Evo is all we have evidence for, should we make up stories to tell in science class based on your ignorance of that evidence??? ID is ignored because no valid evidence for it exists. Evo is the best explanation because it fits all the available evidence.
Bio Evo is all we have evidence for, should we make up stories to tell in science class based on your ignorance of that evidence??? ID is ignored because no valid evidence for it exists. Evo is the best explanation because it fits all the available evidence.
What scientific reason do we have to believe that the genetic changes occurring
today are what formed the genome, especially when our observations reveal
genetic decay? Sure, sometimes that genetic decay leads to a temporary survival
enhancement, but its not an overall life enhancement.
"Genetic Decay" is not a term or concept used in the study of evolution, it is a made up, pseudo-scientific term invented by creationist/ID supporters based on the idea that genes were perfect at one point(Garden of Eden???) and that all changes have been downhill from there. Nothing could be further from the facts.
If your car could give birth to several copies of itself your argument, while it still wouldn't make sense, would be relevant to the discussion. Traits passed down from one generation to another are the driving force of evolutionary change. The success of those generations passing on those traits is what determines what traits are kept.
If your car could give birth to several copies of itself your argument, while it still wouldn't make sense, would be relevant to the discussion. Traits passed down from one generation to another are the driving force of evolutionary change. The success of those generations passing on those traits is what determines what traits are kept.
In short, there must be some way of determining whether a thing is designed or
made naturally in order for us to claim that the changes we observe today
created genetic information.
And how would you recognize "Design"??? The Label??? There is no such thing as Irreducible Complexity, there is only ignorance of the specific evolutionary path, and that ignorance can be reduced by continued study.
ID is simply Creationism Light, the last gasp of those who want their religious beliefs taught as science. The Federal Courts have so ruled, it is a dead end in science and an unnecessary process in nature, everything we see around us is either man made or a result of natural processes, even the things man makes are constrained by the laws of nature. Face it, the Universe doesn't need a creator, it is the creator!
From the first generations of huge, fast burning stars that cooked up every element other than Hydrogen, Helium and a bit of Lithium(The only elements in the beginning), and seeded space with the very elements we are made from, to the evolution of galaxies and our sun and Earth, to the beginnings of self replicating molecules and the rise of intelligence(missing, as far as we know, from the universe until that point) it has all been following the laws of nature as they were set by the Big Bang. Nothing else is required for what we see.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Thanks for your opinion man.:-) And Man invents lots of things.
My INFORMED opinion, yes. And the only Intelligently Designed things we see are the result of MAN's intelligence.
psychological_nudity
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thanks for your opinion man.:-) And Man invents lots of things. |
My INFORMED opinion, yes. And the only Intelligently Designed things we see are the result of MAN's intelligence.
psychological_nudity
ID is both a fact and possibility in that 1) It's an observed material cause for
some things (that's a fact) and 2) since ID is a real cause, life may have been
designed (that's a possibility)
Everything we see that is intelligently designed is a result of man's intelligence, man was nonexistent when life began, there is no valid evidence of a supernatural intelligence, so there is no valid evidence that intelligence designed life, the "possibility" is exceedingly small(on the level with apples falling from the ground to the tree).
QUOTE
I wish the problem were as easy as observing methods of genetic change. Like
I've been saying, no one debates that the genetic code changes. I am simply
saying that those changes are not enough to conclude that life evolved.
I've been saying, no one debates that the genetic code changes. I am simply
saying that those changes are not enough to conclude that life evolved.
That is your UNINFORMED opinion, it is wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I wish the problem were as easy as observing methods of genetic change. Like I've been saying, no one debates that the genetic code changes. I am simply saying that those changes are not enough to conclude that life evolved. |
That is your UNINFORMED opinion, it is wrong.
Furthermore, we must specify the type of change we seek. Organisms do indeed
change in ways that enhance their survival. But, evolution rests on an ambiguous
definition of change without reference to entropy. All things are not possible,
given enough time. Change is not bidirectional. Change goes one way: from
high levels of specificity to lower. In application, compare the extinction rate to
the mutation rate and notice that the extinction rate far exceeds benevolent
mutation.
"But, evolution rests on an ambiguous
definition of change without reference to entropy."
That is because life decreases it's own entropy at the expense of an increase of entropy in it's environment. The sun serves as the "entropy sink" of our Earth, any decrease caused by life is more than payed for by the increase of entropy in our sun.
"Change is not bidirectional."
No one with a working knowledge of what evolution can do would make this kind of ignorant statement.
QUOTE
Change goes one way: from
high levels of specificity to lower.
high levels of specificity to lower.
Ditto!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Change goes one way: from high levels of specificity to lower. |
Ditto!
In application, compare the extinction rate to
the mutation rate and notice that the extinction rate far exceeds benevolent
mutation.
You are working from skewed data. When future biologists look back on the era of man they will recognize another mass extinction event greater than that which killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago! Comparing extinction rates of this time to all times is not valid and gives a distorted view of the question.
QUOTE
We don't only need organisms to survive, we need a real increase in genetic
information. Currently, there is no observed nature process that can increase genetic info.
Again, your opinion based on ignorance. Evolutionary advances caused by new genetic information are observed daily in labs all over the world. Just one example is the nylon eating bacteria. Nylon has only existed for~70 years, yet a bacteria developed a new enzyme to break it down in that short time. New enzyme=new genetic information, your statement is simply wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
We don't only need organisms to survive, we need a real increase in genetic information. Currently, there is no observed nature process that can increase genetic info. |
Again, your opinion based on ignorance. Evolutionary advances caused by new genetic information are observed daily in labs all over the world. Just one example is the nylon eating bacteria. Nylon has only existed for~70 years, yet a bacteria developed a new enzyme to break it down in that short time. New enzyme=new genetic information, your statement is simply wrong.
Any scientists knows that there is no observed natural process for creating
genetic info.
Says who??? This is simply ignorance, not fact.
QUOTE
Just pick up any book on the subject. But what they tell the masses
is that bio evo must be the origin of species because they have rejected the
possibility of design. Bio evo is "the best available" theory only when ID is
ignored.
is that bio evo must be the origin of species because they have rejected the
possibility of design. Bio evo is "the best available" theory only when ID is
ignored.
Bio Evo is all we have evidence for, should we make up stories to tell in science class based on your ignorance of that evidence??? ID is ignored because no valid evidence for it exists. Evo is the best explanation because it fits all the available evidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Just pick up any book on the subject. But what they tell the masses is that bio evo must be the origin of species because they have rejected the possibility of design. Bio evo is "the best available" theory only when ID is ignored. |
Bio Evo is all we have evidence for, should we make up stories to tell in science class based on your ignorance of that evidence??? ID is ignored because no valid evidence for it exists. Evo is the best explanation because it fits all the available evidence.
What scientific reason do we have to believe that the genetic changes occurring
today are what formed the genome, especially when our observations reveal
genetic decay? Sure, sometimes that genetic decay leads to a temporary survival
enhancement, but its not an overall life enhancement.
"Genetic Decay" is not a term or concept used in the study of evolution, it is a made up, pseudo-scientific term invented by creationist/ID supporters based on the idea that genes were perfect at one point(Garden of Eden???) and that all changes have been downhill from there. Nothing could be further from the facts.
QUOTE
New traits are not new information, even when they enhance survival. My rusting
car exhibits traits never before seen in the paint, and that deters criminals from
stealing it, but the change is in one direction only.
car exhibits traits never before seen in the paint, and that deters criminals from
stealing it, but the change is in one direction only.
If your car could give birth to several copies of itself your argument, while it still wouldn't make sense, would be relevant to the discussion. Traits passed down from one generation to another are the driving force of evolutionary change. The success of those generations passing on those traits is what determines what traits are kept.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| New traits are not new information, even when they enhance survival. My rusting car exhibits traits never before seen in the paint, and that deters criminals from stealing it, but the change is in one direction only. |
If your car could give birth to several copies of itself your argument, while it still wouldn't make sense, would be relevant to the discussion. Traits passed down from one generation to another are the driving force of evolutionary change. The success of those generations passing on those traits is what determines what traits are kept.
In short, there must be some way of determining whether a thing is designed or
made naturally in order for us to claim that the changes we observe today
created genetic information.
And how would you recognize "Design"??? The Label??? There is no such thing as Irreducible Complexity, there is only ignorance of the specific evolutionary path, and that ignorance can be reduced by continued study.
ID is simply Creationism Light, the last gasp of those who want their religious beliefs taught as science. The Federal Courts have so ruled, it is a dead end in science and an unnecessary process in nature, everything we see around us is either man made or a result of natural processes, even the things man makes are constrained by the laws of nature. Face it, the Universe doesn't need a creator, it is the creator!
From the first generations of huge, fast burning stars that cooked up every element other than Hydrogen, Helium and a bit of Lithium(The only elements in the beginning), and seeded space with the very elements we are made from, to the evolution of galaxies and our sun and Earth, to the beginnings of self replicating molecules and the rise of intelligence(missing, as far as we know, from the universe until that point) it has all been following the laws of nature as they were set by the Big Bang. Nothing else is required for what we see.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 1 2007, 03:27 PM)
Mirrorman
My INFORMED opinion, yes. And the only Intelligently Designed things we see are the result of MAN's intelligence.
How true.:-) Being a Pantheist I'm not surprised that ID is now the evolutionary goal of evolution:
http://www.bioinfo-online.net/modules/news...php?storyid=732
Evolutionary paths to new therapeutic drugs, as well as a wide assortment of other enzyme products, have been created through, of all things, intelligent design. A team of researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have developed a technique in which the evolution of an important class of proteins is steered towards a desired outcome.
"We've taken enzymes that are promiscuous, meaning they have the capacity to evolve along many different functional lines, and trained them to become specialists," said chemical engineer Jay Keasling, who led this study.
"This technology could be used by pharmaceutical manufacturers in the future to create specific enzyme products."
Keasling is director of Berkeley Lab's Physical Biosciences Division, and a professor of chemical engineering with UC Berkeley's Chemical Engineering Department. Collaborating with him on this project were his graduate student, Yasuo Yoshikuni, and Thomas Ferrin, a professor of pharmaceutical chemistry and biopharmaceutical sciences at UC San Francisco.
The results of this study were reported in the February 22, 2006, on-line edition of the journal Nature.
According to the theory of divergent molecular evolution, primordial enzymes and other proteins started out as "promiscuous" so that primitive organisms would be better able to adapt to their environment. Driven by selective pressures, these promiscuous enzymes and other proteins evolved along divergent lines to acquire the specialized functions needed by a host organism to survive.
"This process is highly dependent on the fact that the functions of promiscuous proteins can be altered with just a small number of amino acid substitutions, a property known as plasticity," said Keasling. "It was our contention that the application of the theory of divergent molecular evolution to promiscuous enzymes would enable us to design enzymes with greater specificity and higher activity."
To test this idea, Keasling and his students worked with a type of naturally occurring hydrocarbon compounds, called sesquiterpenes, that is widely used in a variety of products. For their model enzyme, they selected a sesquiterpene synthase produced by the Grand fir tree, which has the capacity to develop into any of 52 different sesquiterpenes from a sole substrate.
"This Grand fir sesquiterpene synthase represents the ultimate in promiscuous enzymes," said Yoshikuni. "We were able to take it and construct seven specific and active enzymes synthases. These seven enzymes use different reaction pathways to produce specific products that are as diverse as they can be from one another."
In nature, the divergent evolution of promiscuous enzymes is achieved through trial and error, similar to the way in which the human immune system works. Multiple combinations of many different amino acid substitutions are tested in promiscuous enzymes until an evolutionary path that achieves a desired result is found. The amino acid substitutions that significantly drive molecular evolution are called "plasticity residues."
The Berkeley researchers identified the plasticity residues for the Grand fir sesquiterpene synthase, then systematically recombined mutations of these residues through site-directed mutagenesis, based on a mathematical model developed by Yoshikuni. Construction of the seven sesquiterpene synthases was accomplished with the screening of fewer than 2,500 mutants. An alterative approach, called directed evolution or molecular breeding, that is currently being tested at other laboratories, requires the screening of tens of thousands to a million or more mutants.
"The enzyme synthase was there ready to be evolved, and with our methodology, we were able to rapidly and efficiently evolve it down a pathway of our choice," Keasling said. "We are recapitulating evolution into intelligent design. In the case of this particular Grand fir enzyme synthase, it naturally makes a soup of small amounts of 52 different products. We were able to focus it instead on making large amounts of one of seven of those products."
While the researchers have not yet reached the point where they can design a promiscuous enzyme to make any kind of product they want, even one that does not occur in nature, this demonstration represents a significant step in that direction. The idea would be to one day be able to design an enzyme synthase that would evolve along a specific functional pathway to yield a desired molecular product, then introduce it into microbes for mass production. In addition to synthesizing therapeutic drugs, other possible applications would include flavors, fragrances and nutraceuticals.
"Our ultimate goal is to be able to put as much chemistry as we can into microbes," said Keasling, a pioneer and leading authority in the burgeoning scientific field of synthetic biology. "We can use microbes to do a lot of complicated chemistry, and the way in which this will be done is through the use of enzymes. One can imagine where you could take a series of promiscuous enzymes that would make different parts of a molecular compound, and combine them to obtain a final product that could do whatever you needed it to do."
Since plasticity residues also play other important biological roles, in addition to the evolution of promiscuous proteins, Keasling and Yoshikuni said their technology, with some modifications, could prove useful for designing novel functions into other types of enzymes and proteins, as well as protein ligands and receptors, transcription factors and antibodies.
My INFORMED opinion, yes. And the only Intelligently Designed things we see are the result of MAN's intelligence.
How true.:-) Being a Pantheist I'm not surprised that ID is now the evolutionary goal of evolution:
http://www.bioinfo-online.net/modules/news...php?storyid=732
Evolutionary paths to new therapeutic drugs, as well as a wide assortment of other enzyme products, have been created through, of all things, intelligent design. A team of researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have developed a technique in which the evolution of an important class of proteins is steered towards a desired outcome.
"We've taken enzymes that are promiscuous, meaning they have the capacity to evolve along many different functional lines, and trained them to become specialists," said chemical engineer Jay Keasling, who led this study.
"This technology could be used by pharmaceutical manufacturers in the future to create specific enzyme products."
Keasling is director of Berkeley Lab's Physical Biosciences Division, and a professor of chemical engineering with UC Berkeley's Chemical Engineering Department. Collaborating with him on this project were his graduate student, Yasuo Yoshikuni, and Thomas Ferrin, a professor of pharmaceutical chemistry and biopharmaceutical sciences at UC San Francisco.
The results of this study were reported in the February 22, 2006, on-line edition of the journal Nature.
According to the theory of divergent molecular evolution, primordial enzymes and other proteins started out as "promiscuous" so that primitive organisms would be better able to adapt to their environment. Driven by selective pressures, these promiscuous enzymes and other proteins evolved along divergent lines to acquire the specialized functions needed by a host organism to survive.
"This process is highly dependent on the fact that the functions of promiscuous proteins can be altered with just a small number of amino acid substitutions, a property known as plasticity," said Keasling. "It was our contention that the application of the theory of divergent molecular evolution to promiscuous enzymes would enable us to design enzymes with greater specificity and higher activity."
To test this idea, Keasling and his students worked with a type of naturally occurring hydrocarbon compounds, called sesquiterpenes, that is widely used in a variety of products. For their model enzyme, they selected a sesquiterpene synthase produced by the Grand fir tree, which has the capacity to develop into any of 52 different sesquiterpenes from a sole substrate.
"This Grand fir sesquiterpene synthase represents the ultimate in promiscuous enzymes," said Yoshikuni. "We were able to take it and construct seven specific and active enzymes synthases. These seven enzymes use different reaction pathways to produce specific products that are as diverse as they can be from one another."
In nature, the divergent evolution of promiscuous enzymes is achieved through trial and error, similar to the way in which the human immune system works. Multiple combinations of many different amino acid substitutions are tested in promiscuous enzymes until an evolutionary path that achieves a desired result is found. The amino acid substitutions that significantly drive molecular evolution are called "plasticity residues."
The Berkeley researchers identified the plasticity residues for the Grand fir sesquiterpene synthase, then systematically recombined mutations of these residues through site-directed mutagenesis, based on a mathematical model developed by Yoshikuni. Construction of the seven sesquiterpene synthases was accomplished with the screening of fewer than 2,500 mutants. An alterative approach, called directed evolution or molecular breeding, that is currently being tested at other laboratories, requires the screening of tens of thousands to a million or more mutants.
"The enzyme synthase was there ready to be evolved, and with our methodology, we were able to rapidly and efficiently evolve it down a pathway of our choice," Keasling said. "We are recapitulating evolution into intelligent design. In the case of this particular Grand fir enzyme synthase, it naturally makes a soup of small amounts of 52 different products. We were able to focus it instead on making large amounts of one of seven of those products."
While the researchers have not yet reached the point where they can design a promiscuous enzyme to make any kind of product they want, even one that does not occur in nature, this demonstration represents a significant step in that direction. The idea would be to one day be able to design an enzyme synthase that would evolve along a specific functional pathway to yield a desired molecular product, then introduce it into microbes for mass production. In addition to synthesizing therapeutic drugs, other possible applications would include flavors, fragrances and nutraceuticals.
"Our ultimate goal is to be able to put as much chemistry as we can into microbes," said Keasling, a pioneer and leading authority in the burgeoning scientific field of synthetic biology. "We can use microbes to do a lot of complicated chemistry, and the way in which this will be done is through the use of enzymes. One can imagine where you could take a series of promiscuous enzymes that would make different parts of a molecular compound, and combine them to obtain a final product that could do whatever you needed it to do."
Since plasticity residues also play other important biological roles, in addition to the evolution of promiscuous proteins, Keasling and Yoshikuni said their technology, with some modifications, could prove useful for designing novel functions into other types of enzymes and proteins, as well as protein ligands and receptors, transcription factors and antibodies.
RE: What would One get after reading your book Gods, Genes, Conscience?!
QUOTE (Psychological Nudity: August 1 2007; 4:24a+)
Mong, I see the intelligence in your ideas, and I would buy and read your book, but for one problem: What reason do I have to believe that you are demonstrating the science of the creative power of biological evolution, rather than interpreting the world from within an evolutionary paradigm?[1]
It seems you have taken for granted bio evo as the origin of species, and have written about how that belief sheds light on other spheres of knowledge.[2]
Since I am interested in looking at why people think bio evo has the power to create genetic information, I am not sure your book would interest me. You can of course, change my mind.[3]
1] Thanks, it really would take a mature intellectual (pantheist or atheist or creationist or evolutionist or empiricist or metacognitive epistemologist) to see my points, or those philosophical and scientific ideas that are presented in my book!
My book is written from a living Philosopher’s point of view—BTW I’m a retired bench-scientist-oncologist—whose scientific worldview is derived from a full comprehension of our modern interdisciplinary Science, including Evolutionary Biology, Cosmology, Genetics, Biochemistry, etc—but not falsely based on the 19th-century evolutionary paradigm of Darwin’s Natural Selection (NS) as Richard Dawkins—the armchair pseudo-scientist par excellence at Oxford (UK)—has had been uncharacteristically degrading the Darwinian NS since 1976 (with his first book of genetic-rhetoric The Selfish Gene); or as his archrival Michael Behe—the ID-misguided or self-defeatist biochemist at Lehigh (USA)—has had been antithetically challenging the Darwinian NS since 1996 (with his first book of creationist-polemic Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution), clearly as an acute reaction to the pseudo-scientific literary rise of Dawkinsian Evolutionism since 1976!
My book would help you see through the fallacies of their pseudo-scientific ID-Creationism vs. NS-Evolutionism debates since the 1990s; and beyond—BTW I’m just beginning to conceive another book on these issues, tentatively entitled A Philosophical Case against Scientism, so I’m responding to your specific queries about my first book herein only, while leaving your other interesting queries to other capable Readers to respond, at their discretion of course!
2] As such, and furthermore, my first book (linked below) doesn’t assume anything; but presents a smooth (evolutionary) narrative and (epistemological) quest—including Bio Evo as you put it—of the Origins of Life or Biogenesis, and of Mind or Consciousness on Earth; and much more, including the Origins of Religions, Gods, Conscience, etc, all beyond the thinking of the 19th-century Darwinism, and of the current ID-Creationism vs. Dawkinsian Evolutionism tautology; as explained in 1] above, and more below.
3] Indeed, after reading my book Gods, Genes, Conscience, you would be able to recognize that “bio evo has the power to create genetic information” is a misconception, or a misreading of our current interdisciplinary Science—a typical creationist reactive tautology against Dawkinsian Evolutionism, as well as Scientism, that I first analyzed and discussed with a creationist-philosopher here, Natural selection is recursive (PhysOrgEU; September 10, 2006)—and, with your thoughtful reading of it, it might help you further advance your current thinking and learning of our evermore dynamic Epistemology of Science in general, and Evolution of Genetics in particular, as fathomable in and from a self-conscious, intellectual, and spiritual perspective; also as explained in 1] above!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, imagining, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 8/2/7usct12:49p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a critical reader-independent philosopher of Modern Mind and Emotion, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively—blogging avidly since February 2006!
It seems you have taken for granted bio evo as the origin of species, and have written about how that belief sheds light on other spheres of knowledge.[2]
Since I am interested in looking at why people think bio evo has the power to create genetic information, I am not sure your book would interest me. You can of course, change my mind.[3]
1] Thanks, it really would take a mature intellectual (pantheist or atheist or creationist or evolutionist or empiricist or metacognitive epistemologist) to see my points, or those philosophical and scientific ideas that are presented in my book!
My book is written from a living Philosopher’s point of view—BTW I’m a retired bench-scientist-oncologist—whose scientific worldview is derived from a full comprehension of our modern interdisciplinary Science, including Evolutionary Biology, Cosmology, Genetics, Biochemistry, etc—but not falsely based on the 19th-century evolutionary paradigm of Darwin’s Natural Selection (NS) as Richard Dawkins—the armchair pseudo-scientist par excellence at Oxford (UK)—has had been uncharacteristically degrading the Darwinian NS since 1976 (with his first book of genetic-rhetoric The Selfish Gene); or as his archrival Michael Behe—the ID-misguided or self-defeatist biochemist at Lehigh (USA)—has had been antithetically challenging the Darwinian NS since 1996 (with his first book of creationist-polemic Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution), clearly as an acute reaction to the pseudo-scientific literary rise of Dawkinsian Evolutionism since 1976!
My book would help you see through the fallacies of their pseudo-scientific ID-Creationism vs. NS-Evolutionism debates since the 1990s; and beyond—BTW I’m just beginning to conceive another book on these issues, tentatively entitled A Philosophical Case against Scientism, so I’m responding to your specific queries about my first book herein only, while leaving your other interesting queries to other capable Readers to respond, at their discretion of course!
2] As such, and furthermore, my first book (linked below) doesn’t assume anything; but presents a smooth (evolutionary) narrative and (epistemological) quest—including Bio Evo as you put it—of the Origins of Life or Biogenesis, and of Mind or Consciousness on Earth; and much more, including the Origins of Religions, Gods, Conscience, etc, all beyond the thinking of the 19th-century Darwinism, and of the current ID-Creationism vs. Dawkinsian Evolutionism tautology; as explained in 1] above, and more below.
3] Indeed, after reading my book Gods, Genes, Conscience, you would be able to recognize that “bio evo has the power to create genetic information” is a misconception, or a misreading of our current interdisciplinary Science—a typical creationist reactive tautology against Dawkinsian Evolutionism, as well as Scientism, that I first analyzed and discussed with a creationist-philosopher here, Natural selection is recursive (PhysOrgEU; September 10, 2006)—and, with your thoughtful reading of it, it might help you further advance your current thinking and learning of our evermore dynamic Epistemology of Science in general, and Evolution of Genetics in particular, as fathomable in and from a self-conscious, intellectual, and spiritual perspective; also as explained in 1] above!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, imagining, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 8/2/7usct12:49p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a critical reader-independent philosopher of Modern Mind and Emotion, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively—blogging avidly since February 2006!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.