Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

Who is more irrational: the guy that believes in a God he doesn’t see
or
a guy who’s offended and angry by and about a God he doesn’t believe in?

Militant evangelical atheists?
What ever would you rationally do that for?

reply to post by PhotonEffect


That's a very good question about jerry-rigging. I think what the author meant was that evolution makes a lot of "mistakes", that it takes more than one time or a single mutation to accomplish what the organism needs or will need. The WHY of the DNA code is anyone's guess - it's as much philosophical as it is biological. The general idea is that mutations are random and that those that benefit the organism remain permanent while the others may just disappear or become inactive.

There is something called "feedback inhibition" in biochemistry - what it means is that for some enzymatic reactions, the accumulation of the product will inhibit the production of that product. So perhaps that's what is happening in evolutionary terms. Until recently, it has been difficult to assess the WHY of the DNA machinery. The HOW we know. But now that de novo life forms can be created in the lab, I'm sure there will be a lot of experimentation around that question.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


So the need(problem) comes first, then a solution is delivered.
Is that what you are saying?

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Not really that way either. I guess I should edit my example a bit. Let's say a shotgun blast into a crowd of people that are loosely grouped together. If you look at every person as a "problem" and every projectile in the flak as a "solution" then that means that most flak will miss but a few of it will hit a few different people and implement various solutions to these problems. It's a pretty basic example so it may not cover the more finer points of Evolution, but it is a better way to look at it like this: Nature determines a problem. Then, nature throws a ton of solutions at it to fix it. Because that isn't how it works either.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Agree. Evolution runs its own set of experiments. Some work out; others don't. We have to examine the entire spectrum to understand the code better. And I believe there is a fundamental code in DNA - we just haven't elucidated it yet. The code may be ubiquitous throughout the universe. Who knows. But whatever it is, life itself has the ability to self assemble without any outside intervention. That has been demonstrated over and over again in laboratory experiments. Self assembly itself is a remarkable process.

If you attribute everything to a "god-designer", doesn't that take away the beauty of research and the pursuit of knowledge? Hell, if some guy/gal in another galaxy pushed a button and started life on this planet, I would be extremely disappointed. It would say that we're nothing more than Lego blocks.

reply to post by spirited75


No one cares what personal god you believe in, but when creationists post ignorant statements regarding evolution on a public forum don't be surprised when they are challenged. If you don't like the idea of discussion around this topic then perhaps the Origins & Creationism forum isn't the forum for you.

reply to post by Phantom423


Yes, but what's seems to be getting lost here (or perhaps ignored) is that evolution produces forms to address certain, and sometimes very specific, needs. Sure, the process by which it delivers those solutions is a bit like "jerry rigging" in a sense, or can be considered a bit like trial and error, but that doesn't change the underlying intent of the process. It seems that there is this false sense about evolution being totally random and blind because of it's use of "random mutations" to effect change. But underlying all of that is the actual intent to find that right solution.

This is why I ask - does the need come first, or does the solution? Environment is the ultimate dictator and effects change on the organisms. Evolution is only trying to keep everything up to speed. Environments can change rapidly though. And evolution is not a quick enough process sometimes. This is why extinctions occur. Evolution couldn't create changes that allowed the organism to adapt fast enough. Not necessarily from a poor design.

What would life be like if environments remained static?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Nature determines a problem. Then, nature throws a ton of solutions at it to fix it. Because that isn't how it works either.

Why should there be a solution at all, is really what I'm getting at.

It's not about how the solution is determined. It's the fact that a solution is even trying to be worked out at all. This implies intent.

I don't care so much that the process of evolution is cumbersome and inefficient in finding the best solutions. I get it. Some work, some don't. Eventually some work great, until the environment changes. Then it's time for a new solution. The process starts all over. Fine with that.

What I care more about is the fact that it's a process with the seeming intent of finding solutions to begin with...

PhotonEffect
It seems that there is this false sense about evolution being totally random and blind because of it's use of "random mutations" to effect change. But underlying all of that is the actual intent to find that right solution.

There is no intent, any more than there is an intent for a river to flow down the path of least resistance. The river doesn't "know" the shortest gravitational route, it doesn't plan its path, it doesn't contemplate a number of routes and then act accordingly, it merely flows according to the laws of physics. It is the effect of gravity at play here, not intent.

Genetic mutation is random. The environmental pressures that allow a favorable mutation to give a tangible benefit to an organism means that evolution itself is not. If a given mutation does not harm an organism but the environment changes to make that mutation favorable, the organisms without that mutation will not be as successful at reproducing so those with it will spread their genes further. There is no intent here, it's just organisms lucking out when the environment changes.

What would life be like if environments remained static?

There's lifeforms that have remained pretty much unevolved because for hundreds of millions of years because their environment has not changed. Without the environmental pressures to select favorable genetic mutations, there's no reason for a given benign mutation to proliferate throughout a population. It may get passed on, it may not, but when there's pressure to give those with it more favorable odds at reproducing then it will.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Well I think part of the answer is that systems are dynamic. In adiabatic systems ( closed systems ) environments i.e. temperature, pressure, water vapor - can be controlled. That's how we actually establish measurements like Planck's constant, or Avogadro's number. We don't have a mathematical constant for evolution and we'll probably never have one.

The chicken-and-the-egg question is reasonable - it's rather intuitive in fact. But consider this: what if there was no "first"? In quantum theory it's entirely possible. Maybe the universe we live in is a perpetual motion machine which by nature really needs no beginning or end. It just "is".

Our problem as humans trying to understand nature is that we only see a small part of the universe. Most of it is hidden. It wasn't until we had spectroscopy that we were able to dig deeper.

Codes are embedded in this universe - that's my belief (I don't have hard evidence). Simply look at DNA - it's a code - it's mathematical - someday it will be completely elucidated down to all bonding energies and quantum levels. Even then we may not be able to decipher or find the source code. It's a cryptographic/holographic universe!!



Good conversation.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Simply saying that genes determine growth and form do not make it so. You should read all my posts to this thread. It is an article of faith that genes determine growth and form. It has not been shown to be the case. The evidence presented does not show the article of faith is true. Simply saying "genes did it" does not make it so.

PhotonEffect
You are simply substituting the concept of design with the concept of organize. At least from my arm chair it appears that way...
Perhaps you can clarify the confusion.

I already have but you need to read all my posts. You have been led to believe, as many people have, that the issue is proved but it is not. It is an article of faith that is being presented as true. I am not disagreeing with the fact of evolution, that much is true, but it has not been shown that genes are responsible for the entire organism. Read my posts.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I think your view is flawed. You see, we don't know there was a problem needing solved until AFTER it has been solved. So it is easy to look back on this process and say, "see here is a problem that nature addressed and fixed," but if that niche hadn't of been filled by evolution then we wouldn't even know that something needed to be done. Life just spreads out, the things that can't hack it, die out, the things that can live on and pass the traits that helped them live on down to their offspring. That's really all that happens.

To be honest, I see no rational reason anyone could say a god doesn't exist. An intelligent designer could totally be possible given the knowledge that we currently have. However, there is no definitive proof of said god so I see no reason to be able to say that one exists either. But I definitely leave room in the realm of possibility that there is an ultimate creator who uses evolution to develop life.

a reply to: GetHyped

GetHyped
Genetic mutation is random. The environmental pressures that allow a favorable mutation to give a tangible benefit to an organism means that evolution itself is not. If a given mutation does not harm an organism but the environment changes to make that mutation favorable, the organisms without that mutation will not be as successful at reproducing so those with it will spread their genes further. There is no intent here, it's just organisms lucking out when the environment changes.

Yes that makes perfect sense. However, evolution is often spoken in terms of delivering solutions to problems, even by those who support it. Hence my question about which one comes first (if thats the case). Perhaps it's from a misunderstanding of how adaptation works...

Regardless, random genetic mutation is only a part of the whole picture. We all know that. And even random mutations can still effect the same changes to different and unrelated species in different parts of the planet. So amongst all of the randomness there may be predicability (or patterns) in the process.

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Our problem as humans trying to understand nature is that we only see a small part of the universe. Most of it is hidden. It wasn't until we had spectroscopy that we were able to dig deeper.

What's interesting is that evolution delivered a [super]organism (humans) that has developed the capacity to control and direct the very process that delivered it "randomly" in the first place.

What will this mean for Darwin's theory hundreds or thousands of years from now if humans manage to survive long enough to effect an even broader, deeper and more meaningful level of genetic manipulation? What happens when(if?) we get to the point of marrying our technology with biology? The current theory of evolution will have to be rewritten.

Codes are embedded in this universe - that's my belief (I don't have hard evidence). Simply look at DNA - it's a code - it's mathematical - someday it will be completely elucidated down to all bonding energies and quantum levels. Even then we may not be able to decipher or find the source code. It's a cryptographic/holographic universe!!

Yes it certainly appears that way. However many folks don't like it when people use the literal meaning of "code" as it applies to biology, or even nature on a broader scale. It implies intent and purpose. But we have to call it what it is, right?

a reply to: EnPassant

originally posted by: EnPassant

I already have but you need to read all my posts. You have been led to believe, as many people have, that the issue is proved but it is not. It is an article of faith that is being presented as true. I am not disagreeing with the fact of evolution, that much is true, but it has not been shown that genes are responsible for the entire organism. Read my posts.

Actually I think you might be responding to a post I was directing to another poster. But I will go back and read what you've posted. Perhaps we share some similar ideas. I do not deny evolution either. Those who do would still have to explain the evident change in organisms.

I do think that the current explanation is not complete, however.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

I think your view is flawed.

Possibly- but only within the current framework of the theory. I think we may soon realize that evolution according Darwin is flawed, if not incomplete.

To be honest, I see no rational reason anyone could say a god doesn't exist. An intelligent designer could totally be possible given the knowledge that we currently have.

Really? What knowledge would you be referring to?
And what do you mean by 'god', exactly?

there is no definitive proof of said god so I see no reason to be able to say that one exists either. But I definitely leave room in the realm of possibility that there is an ultimate creator who uses evolution to develop life.

That's very diplomatic of you....
The problem is in the personification of 'god', or the lack of a concrete meaning of 'god'.
Ask 10 people what that means and you'll get 10, maybe even 11, different answers.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: GetHyped


Yes that makes perfect sense. However, evolution is often spoken in terms of delivering solutions to problems, even by those who support it. Hence my question about which one comes first (if thats the case). Perhaps it's from a misunderstanding of how adaptation works...

I think this is more a matter of rhetoric. Hearing people talk about evolution providing, say, "the perfect solution to" (insert problem) is more a matter of the relaxation of terminology rather than a statement about evolution itself. Which came first (environmental pressures vs adaptation) is a perfectly valid question but the more we wind back the hand of time the more we move backwards in the gradient of life towards the point of basic chemical processes which determine things like RNA self replication until we reach a point where we're not talking about life as we know it (Jim) but basic physical interactions as defined by the laws of physics. We're in uncharted territory here because ultimately the more we move backwards in the life gradient the more abstract things become. At what point does the self-replication of matter stop being basic physical interactions and become life? There's no clear boundary where we can say "Yup, this is life, this is not", all we can say is that the laws of the universe (as we know them) allow life to be an emergent property of this system. Where you want to go from here is a philisophical point and god vs no god dichotomy is equally valid albeit ultimately unknowable. However, neither has any bearing on evolution as a scientific theory and observed process: a god could well have put the gears in motion, this does not in any way conflict with the ToE.

Regardless, random genetic mutation is only a part of the whole picture. We all know that. And even random mutations can still effect the same changes to different and unrelated species in different parts of the planet. So amongst all of the randomness there may be predicability (or patterns) in the process.

You do get common traits (as I'm sure you understand) but then on the flip side you do get independent solutions to the same problem. For example, the eye. At its most basic level we're talking about a genetic mutation offering photosensitivity in cells. Now, multiple, independent mutations have offered up different beneficial solutions to the same pressures (ranging from simple "light/dark" photosensitivity to the complex, 3D, colored landscapes of highly developed eyes) but ultimately they're all going to be hinged in the same basic principles. Take the human eye as an example. Our optic nerves are right behind the retina, meaning that our brain has to filter out this web of nerves to avoid them obfuscating our view (you can even test this by holding your fingers slightly ajar to a bright background and moving your hand back and forth. You'll be able to see this array of optic nerves that are normally filtered out by the brain). In humans, we can see this trait in the common ancestor in lifeforms that share the same lineage (that is to say, the same beneficial mutations for the task of sight). A squid's eye, on the other hand, evolved independently yet still adheres to the same basic principles. However, squids (and their common ancestors) evolved a more efficient eye that does not have the optic nerves hindering sight (which in retrospect seems the obvious solution) thus not needing brain function to compensate for these (and this is the rhetoric I was talking about) "design flaws". It can be argued that any life on a distant planet evolving photosensitivity will follow the same basic principles of light, focal lenses, photosensitive cells and so forth because these are the basic prerequisites to what we call sight. It's not so much that there's an inherent pattern, rather that the same environmental obstacles come up that filter the genetic mutations that are suitable to the pressures at hand and offer similar solutions. It's akin to independent developers tackling the same challenges in software development. Each has their own implementation and solutions but because the same problems are being faced they follow the same basic principles in the the way they overcome these challenges. Windows, Linux and Mac OSs offer completely different solutions to the same problems but when stripped back to their most basic level the core principles they follow are the same because these are the solutions that have independently proven to work. We don't hear about those who didn't make the grade because they never gained enough of a foothold to be around today for us to notice.

originally posted by: EnPassant


I already have but you need to read all my posts. You have been led to believe, as many people have, that the issue is proved but it is not. It is an article of faith that is being presented as true. I am not disagreeing with the fact of evolution, that much is true, but it has not been shown that genes are responsible for the entire organism. Read my posts.

If you didn't have a genetic code for the eye, would you have an eye? If there wasn't a genetic code for liver, would you have a liver? What part of the organism is not regulated by its genetic makeup?

I've read your posts. You have failed to present any credible evidence that the genetic profile of an organism IS NOT responsible for its shape, form, whatever you want to call it.

Please give a detailed example of some shape or form that is NOT genetically regulated.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I think we need to look to mathematics and probability theory to visualize some answers. Random processes are a sequence of random variables. That means that there's a random distribution of likely scenarios that might take place. If we think about precursors to living organisms, we would most likely find a distribution of probable candidates who might fill the bill to become the "living" organism (this, of course, assumes there was a "first" - which isn't at all certain).

Darwin's theory, survival of the fittest and natural selection are really talking probability statistics. So if the first "living" organism was a single cell creature, that creature's genetic traits would have been the result of a probability distribution - a distribution of a number of candidates or variables. I know we call this "random", but in fact it gets complicated because "random" may or may not be the same as "predictability". We don't know all the variables - we can only guestimate what we think they were.

But once the organism is established, in order to survive, it has to adapt. It doesn't matter whether it's on land, in the sea, or under 1000 feet of ice. It has to adapt to survive. More importantly, it has to reproduce and to reproduce, it must be able to pass on a genetic code that will ensure the survivability of its progeny.

That's why in answer to En Passant's position, it's virtually impossible for an organism to reproduce without an intact genetic code that supports survivability. If some part of the organism has no relationship to its genetic code as he/she proposes, then that part of the organism is at tremendous risk to be wiped out because it's not reproducible.