does evolution exsist

[Rav]

If I had to choose one, I guess I would choose atheist. I don't believe in supernatural things. Even if one of the many religions is true, the god of that religion would be a natural thing in my eyes. What right do we have to call anything other than it being "natural"?

Now, in order to avoid a semantic argument, I should clarify my previous choice of words. For example, when I say that the creation of man could not have come about by "natural" means, I am using that word in a different way and in a different context. I simply mean that man must have been designed by an intelligent designer. Now of course this intelligent designer is a "natural" product of the universe.

My belief in an intelligent designer was born solely from my realization that life on this planet is too complex to have formed by "natural" means. In other words, I didn't believe in "God" first.

In my understanding, the complex interactions that evolutionists take for granted is akin to a radio receiver picking up random noise which just happens to have the form of Beyoncé's latest single. If given enough time, an evolutionist would believe that this would occur. The problem is, evolutionists don't realize that this is what they actually believe in. They believe it is more akin to a claymation doll being transformed gradually into different positions while tumbling down a stream. If given enough time, the doll might eventually give a perfect salute. I believe evolutionists just underestimate the complex, inter-dependent intricacies of the programming of life. Although there seems to be much flexibility pre-programmed into the DNA code of life(which makes complete sense from an ID perspective), evolutionists take this concept to outrageously different levels, while assuming it's the same thing(ie. microevolution vs. macroevoluion). In the end, the argument of evolutionists amount to "DNA is complex beyond our understanding, therefore we have the freedom to imagine simplicity in it's place. Simplicity + time = complexity."

Wow. What a can of absolute contradiction that is. You've redefined atheism, redefined supernatural and after characterizing yourself as an atheist you went on to argue for intelligent design.

There are other words in the english language you know. Rather than screwing around with the existing definitions how about choosing more appropriate ones in the first place.

 

[matthew809]

So now you're just playing with definitions.

It's called English. Sometimes a word means one thing, sometimes the same word means a different thing. You know exactly what I mean, but you're playing dumb on the matter to derail this topic to some silly semantics argument.

And reverting to turtles all the way down: if this designer is natural (in the usual sense) then you've just defeated your own argument. If that designer is natural, why aren't we?

I take back my last comment. Maybe you're not playing dumb. We are natural, but we are not naturally made. In this last sentence, I was using the word "natural" in two different ways. I explained this in my last post. I won't talk any more about my different uses of the word "natural".

You can't even understand the complexities of the English language. It's no wonder you can't understand the complexities of the DNA language.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You know exactly what I mean, but you're playing dumb on the matter to derail this topic to some silly semantics argument.

Wrong. You're being deliberately (or ignorantly) disingenuous. As Rav pointed out in the post following mine.

I take back my last comment. Maybe you're not playing dumb. We are natural, but we are not naturally made. In this last sentence, I was using the word "natural" in two different ways. I explained this in my last post. I won't talk any more about my different uses of the word "natural".

So I ask once again: if those who created us are natural why aren't we?

You can't even understand the complexities of the English language. It's no wonder you can't understand the complexities of the DNA language.

Wrong. I understand English (and its complexities) very well. You, however, don't even seem to understand your own contentions...

 

[matthew809]

Considering the complex DNA language that all earthly life is "written" in, it's apparent to me that we were created by an intelligent source. This intelligent source is the creator(s) of not just the assembly of life on earth, but perhaps even the language of DNA itself. But I can not know whether or not our creator(s) is written of the same DNA language as we are. If they are written in the same language, then they too must have been created. So where does it end? I don't know. But I have a nonsensical idea:

The original creator of all life exists in a different dimensional state than we do, with different physical laws than what governs our existence, if indeed there are any laws at all. I see the totality of existence as being the same as non-existence. Something is only a sliver of nothing. In comprehensible terms, this nothingness is like a infinite field of potential- like an infinite block of clay. Every shape possible exists in this clay, all at the same time. Every possible state of consciousness exists in this field of potential as well. Our original creator is simply a consciousness that exists, because everything possible exists. This being exists without cause, such as your consciousness exists without cause. From your consciousness- this cookie-cutter of infinite possibilities- the perceived world around you is just a slice of nothingness. Out of this nothingness becomes something. It just so happens that this "something" abides by arbitrary rules- or laws. In your personal sliver of nothingness, your DNA was created by another intelligent force, and perhaps that force by another, and perhaps so on and so on... until finally, the original force simply exists not from cause, but just because it does- just as all things do. And there are an infinite number of other original forces of creation, in other slivers of existence, in this infinite field of nothingness- and everything.

This last paragraph makes no sense. I know this. It's just an idea impossible to articulate clearly and this is "free thoughts" after all. But my reasoning that life on this earth was created by other life is not conditional on this nonsensical idea, so it shouldn't matter. I don't need to know about the "original creator" to know that life on earth was created.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

wouldn't the theory of evolution also predict something like a unicorn or pegasus?

To the former - possibly

horses belong to the order Perissodactyla which includes rhinos, so it is possible that they share the genes for developing a cephalic horn with the common ancestor that they share - genome mapping would provide the answer.

The latter no - size, body plan, and bone composition pretty much rule this one out.
Evolution works by adapting pre-existing structures, so all tetrapods which are, or have been, capable of genuine flight as opposed to gliding or controlled falling have adapted their fore-limbs for flight, so this is a route a flying horse would need to take - but to end up with something that still looked like a horse only with wings, you would need a 6 limbed horse to start with - and you dont get 6 limbed mammals.


Evolution in general doesn't make specific predictions of the precise organisms that will evolve (there are a few exceptions), but instead makes predictions of what we should find if the concept of common ancestry is correct.
Here's a few for example:
Most mammals with the exception of primates (which includes us) have a gene which helps them synthesize Vitamin C - but for some reason we cannot produce vitamin C so need it from our diet - evolutionary theory predicts that if we share a common ancestor with all mammals then we also have the gene but for some reason it is not expressed - genome mapping has found the gene in primates and shows us that it is damaged and therefore can no longer be expressed. This shows us not only that we share a common ancestor with all primates, but also all mammals. Intelligent Design has no answer for this and would not make this prediction in the first place.

Our closest living ancestor is the chimpanzee, however paradoxically although most of our chromosomes are virtually identical, chimps have 2 pairs of chromosomes and we have only 23 - in molecular biology terms this is quite an uncommonly big difference for such a short distance of separation. However chromosomal errors are not all that uncommon (think down syndrome) so it while it is unusual it isn't impossible.
Evolution would predict that if we really are closely related to chimps then we should be able to find a chromosome that is made up of 2 chromosomes that have been fused together - and as it happens there's a way to test that. So we have a prediction and a testable hypothesis, and a way to falsify evolution - all good solid science so far. Chromosomes have some very distinct DNA sequences which determine the ends and the midsection of the chromosome - called telomeres and centromeres respectively. If we have a fused chromosome, then we should be able to fine one that not only has 2 telomeres at each end, but 2 inactive ones in the middle, and an extra 2 centromeres - which is exactly what we found on human chromosome number 2.
This test not only confirmed a prediction, but it could potentially have falsified evolution itself - as it stands it provides as close to incontravertable proof of common descent as you will ever come across.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Considering the complex DNA language that all earthly life is "written" in, it's apparent to me that we were created by an intelligent source. This intelligent source is the creator(s) of not just the assembly of life on earth, but perhaps even the language of DNA itself. But I can not know whether or not our creator(s) is written of the same DNA language as we are. If they are written in the same language, then they too must have been created.

please get it out of your head that DNA is complex - you have been told several times now that it isn't

Why?

Because it isn't

Really!

Got it?

Good!

it's a comparatively simple macromolecule that carries a simple triplet code.

what the code produces can be complex, but complexity arising from simple rules is an emergent property of the universe - look up Langton's Ant and other examples of emergence - plus of course we had 4 and a bit BILLION years to get to where we are with DNA through evolution

This last paragraph makes no sense. I know this. It's just an idea impossible to articulate clearly and this is "free thoughts" after all. But my reasoning that life on this earth was created by other life is not conditional on this nonsensical idea, so it shouldn't matter. I don't need to know about the "original creator" to know that life on earth was created.

Indeed it was nonsensical - that's why everyone who isn't a ravening Koran thumping religious extremist rejects it for an explanatory framework that has made thousands of logical predictions, all of which have been upheld and never contradicted - that has supporting evidence coming from multiple scientific disciplines with no contradictions - that explains in tremendous mind boggling detail how the diversity of life came about and how and why in interrelates - and has provided us with innumerable social, cultural, moral and commercial benefits.
We call that explanatory framework The Theory of Evolution.

The question is, why is it that you reject something that is so almost unasailably rock solid so something that even you readily admit is so intangible?
(I expect you to answer that question)

 

[matthew809]

Common ancestry(evolution) is just a story made up to connect certain dots, while ignoring other dots(such as biochemistry). Making up stories that don't necessarily conflict with your self-limiting understanding does not prove the story true. I could just as easily say(which I do), that all these animals you mention are connected not by ancestry, but by a common designer and common elements of design. It's just a story though. Why do you tout stories as evidence?

So.... common design elements in different species can concur with a story of evolution, and with my story of intelligent design. Obviously common design elements do not provide evidence of just one story, unless you misrepresent the opposing story.

 

[matthew809]

please get it out of your head that DNA is complex - you have been told several times now that it isn't
...
it's a comparatively simple macromolecule that carries a simple triplet code.

what the code produces can be complex, but complexity arising from simple rules is an emergent property of the universe ...

I agree. DNA language and it's applications(life) is what is complex, not the elements that make it up. Now... can you give another example of a language and an application of language which emerges from something other than a mind?

The question is, why is it that you reject something that is so almost unasailably rock solid so something that even you readily admit is so intangible?
(I expect you to answer that question)

Read my other post where I said that my belief of our creation is not dependent on this nonsensical idea that I had.

Intelligent design makes the most sense, unless of course the only idea of intelligent design that your mind can conceive of is restricted by what you know of religion.

 

[leopold]

what gets me is how can a machine, in this case organic, be constructed conforming to every known natural law but yet give a subjective opinion as to "does your car run good ?".
some might even bring consciousness itself into the question.
maybe even the placebo effect.
these are things that defy logic.

 

[Billy T]

... Intelligent design makes the most sense, ...

I don't think so as there is zero evidence for any designer and lots of evidence for creatures being formed by CHANCE changes in their DNA, etc.

Anyway, I admit it is not impossible that that the earliest stages of life on Earth were created by some intelligence, probably an extraterrestrial, and then evolution took over to create the multi-celled creatures we observed today via chance - initially imperfect cell division copying and then sexually with some "how to construct off springs" information / code inherited from both parents for much more rapid introduction of variations in the gene pools.

My main objection is that the design was clearly not "intelligent." see this post http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2716845&postcount=427 and 426 and others referenced in them for examples of how stupidly creatures are designed, if designed. I.e. a SD, Stupid Designer, is at least a not impossible way for life on Earth to begin. (Evolution is not concerned with how it began.)

To avoid making an obviously false claim you could say you believe in "Design by an Intelligence." (That does not exclude design by an SD, but the facts do exclude design by an ID. - Just too many dumb aspects of the design exist, only a few given in the above links.) If you say that, however, it is likely you have not read The blind watchmaker, at least not with an "open mind" seeking the truth.

 

[Billy T]

what gets me is how can a machine, in this case organic, be constructed conforming to every known natural law but yet give a subjective opinion as to "does your car run good {"well" is better English}?".

I gave a published answer to that more than 18 years ago, but it focused on the more difficult, but closely related problem of how any machine (biological or silicon) could have genuine free will. See later version of it here:http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66

some might even bring consciousness itself into the question.

Yes, we may just be "philosophical zombies" self deluded into thinking we are conscious, in addition to being aware and thinking.

maybe even the placebo effect.

Not very likely the placebo effect is false - it has been demonstrated in many experiments. I.e. the drug given was also a placebo, but produce measurable improvements compared to the control group that knew they were just controls, not getting any drug. I.e. both groups were given identical pills to swallow, but one group thought theirs had been demonstrated in animals to be very effective, so they did get good results from it.

these are things that defy logic.

not really - the mind / your thoughts has a lot of control over your physiology. For example if returning to your parked car at night, and man suddenly appears pointing a gun at you, your pulse rate will jump, even a just a letter can do that as you read it. etc.

Consciousness is a ("the" according to Chambers) hard problem to explain / understand but that does not "defy logic." - there is not yet any logic about how consciousness works or is achieved, to defy.

 

[leopold]

you aren't getting it billy.
life is the anomaly, the alien, the freak of nature.
life is unnatural, you might even say supernatural, in this sense above nature.
consciousness cannot be explained by any known natural law.
a machine doesn't become aware of itself.

faith seems to be a valuable commodity in religion, the placebo effect is direct evidence of faith.

 

[matthew809]

I don't think so as there is zero evidence for any designer and lots of evidence for creatures being formed by CHANCE changes in their DNA, etc.

Anyway, I admit it is not impossible that that the earliest stages of life on Earth were created by some intelligence, probably an extraterrestrial, and then evolution took over to create the multi-celled creatures we observed today via chance - initially imperfect cell division copying and then sexually with some "how to construct off springs" information / code inherited from both parents for much more rapid introduction of variations in the gene pools.

My main objection is that the design was clearly not "intelligent." see this post http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2716845&postcount=427 and 426 and others referenced in them for examples of how stupidly creatures are designed, if designed. I.e. a SD, Stupid Designer, is at least a not impossible way for life on Earth to begin. (Evolution is not concerned with how it began.)

To avoid making an obviously false claim you could say you believe in "Design by an Intelligence." (That does not exclude design by an SD, but the facts do exclude design by an ID. - Just too many dumb aspects of the design exist, only a few given in the above links.) If you say that, however, it is likely you have not read The blind watchmaker, at least not with an "open mind" seeking the truth.

Supposed examples of "stupid design" in many cases have been shown to be actually beneficial. But many examples do seem to be less than perfect. But be that as it may, the only story that stupid design examples discredit is the idea of a perfect God, who created all life perfectly. I admit that the evidence doesn't point to perfect creation. To some degree, my idea of intelligent design(or "design by an intelligence" if you believe that's more appropriate) is somewhat in line with evolution's [unintentional] design process- one of experimentation and trial and error.

Edit: Also, limited evolution does have it's place in intelligent design- as life could have been purposely designed with the ability to change and adapt- at least to some degree. Many cases of stupid design- I suspect- can be attributed to unintended consequence of this flexible programming of life.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

what gets me is how can a machine, in this case organic, be constructed conforming to every known natural law but yet give a subjective opinion as to "does your car run good ?". some might even bring consciousness itself into the question. maybe even the placebo effect. these are things that defy logic.

You must be an American because you have the typical American inability to comprehend extremely large numbers. When a planet has several billion years, events which have an extremely small probability of happening, at any given moment, become quite a bit less unlikely, over that enormous time span.

Multiply this by what we now know is a huge number of planets in this universe, and it starts to seem rather unremarkable that abiogenesis would have happened by accident on at least one of them!

The formation of the universe itself can be analyzed as a local reversal of entropy, which is quite allowable under the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That event alone illlustrates the fact that there is nothing supernatural about organization springing up by chance in a given location. Personally I regard the sudden appearance of the universe in one instant, in the middle of a vast expanse of nothing, as considerably more remarkable than organic matter arising out of inorganic matter, after several hundred million years of atoms being tossed around in a warm, moist environment.

I understand that the scientific method does not require anyone to prove a negative. Nonetheless, I'm curious: Can you list any specific obstacle to abiogenesis that you think cannot be overcome without violating one or another canonical scientific theory? The fact that something is extremely unlikely is NOT the same as being impossible, especially over an enormous timespan.

 

[leopold]

The fact that something is extremely unlikely is NOT the same as being impossible, especially over an enormous timespan.

yes, i will agree that 1.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 does not equal 2.

no, i will not agree to anything that i can not prove. i WILL say there is a possibility.

even if you took a fully grown man and broke him down into the amino acids he is made of then stewed them in some broth a man will not come walking out of it. and that's with all the required parts.
the case against abiogenesis is chirality.

 

[Billy T]

... limited evolution does have it's place ... as life could have been purposely designed with the ability to change and adapt- at least to some degree. ...

We know life does adapt and how. In one case such as lifting weight, it is the body adapting with ZERO of that adaption passed on to following generations - I.e. no evolution, not even the slightest possible by this adaption, so for discussion of evolution we can ignore this type of adaption.

In the adaptation that does make evolutionary changes, Darwin did not know how it works, but we do now. The typical DNA sequence in the "gene pool" is slightly changed in the following generation. What brings in your postulated "limit" to how many generations can have continuing change in the typical distribution of genes in the gene pool? Does the Designer step in and effectively say:

"Hold it right there - you are drifting too far from my design. The very idea of a fish developing lungs or legs is going too far."

SUMMARY: By what mechanism is your "limit" to genetic change imposed so that evolution can proceed to some degree? (But not enough micro-evolution to be macro evolution of a new species, I assume is your limit.)

For example assume that after 10,000 generations the gene pool has changed by X. - Where then is it recorded that X amount of change has already occurred so no more is permitted?

I.e. all the information the biological system has available after 10,000 generations is the current gene pool, not how it has changed. In some well adapted species in stable environment that change could be essentially zero.

Do you not understand this idea of "limited" evolution is nonsense unless you can postulate some way the gene pool records how much change has already occurred. I.e. something, a recording mechanism, that says: "Stop evolving now as we are at the permitted limit already."

 

[Billy T]

... i will not agree to anything that i can not prove. ...

I briefly tried to get you to understand that solid proof is ONLY possible in the realm of mathematics, which is a closed logical system, not about anything physical. Lets try a different approach to educating you to this truth:

Tell me some physical fact you agree with, I.e one you think has been proved to be a fact. "Circular facts" such as water is H2O; or temperature is the average KE, etc. are really definitions, not facts. I want you to give an independent physical "fact" you accept like: "Water is most dense at 4C." etc. and tell how that was proved to be a fact.

 

[matthew809]

Do you not understand this idea of "limited" evolution is nonsense unless you can postulate some way the gene pool records how much change has already occurred. I.e. something, a recording mechanism, that says: "Stop evolving now as we are at the permitted limit already."

Maybe the DNA code for a certain animal has a pre-set range of values to select from for certain properties of that animal. For example, the DNA code for human skin tone might say that [natural selection] can choose a number between 1 to 1000, which each number representing a specific color. This is extremely simplified, and probably not anything like the truth, but I think you get the basic idea- natural selection is only given so many options to choose from when directing a species' evolution, dictated by the programmed instructions in it's DNA code.

Or maybe there's another reason. I can't say.

Why can't a dog be selectively bred to grow as big as an elephant, or as small as a mouse? Limitations of it's original programming prevent this.

 

[Enmos]

Why can't a dog be selectively bred to grow as big as an elephant, or as small as a mouse? Limitations of it's original programming prevent this.

Says who?

 

[matthew809]

Says who?

Says who what? Why and where?