An argument with an intelligent design advocate/anti-evolutionist

Science & Technology Biosciences
21

Re Daniel’s specific questions, I refer you to the suggestion I made in the beginning of my post for the reasons I gave then: if you really want the details, read the books by evolutionary scientists.

Would The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins be good?

If you are influenced by creationist/ID literature: go to a university library and look up the original literature. Really, you need a book to answer the details.

I have looked high and low but my questions have never been answered. Also I may be not satisfied with any kind of answer like: photosynthesis evolved because grass is green and such…

As for the general questions, the evidence in Darwin’s day was incomplete but pretty convincing. Now it is absolutely convincing. It comes from the whole convergence of fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, comparative biochemistry (including comparative gene sequences), molecular biology (the actual basis of heredity and its variability - unknown in Darwin’s day), experiments on many aspects of evolutionary theory that happen on a short enough time span to be experimentally studied.

Can you name any aspect of the evidence that is there for evolution but is not their for artificial advancement? Like cars or computers?

If it is absolutely convincing why am I not convinced?

The evidence “against” design is primarily the evidence for evolution

The evidence for evolution is primarily evidence against design if such evidence is uncommon to be found in designed objects.

(in that because there is a natural explanation, there is no need for a “designer”)

So you admit your bias :slight_smile:

and secondarily the weird and wonderful ways in which organisms have evolved which make perfect sense if they evolved

Maybe makes sense to you…

(where x is co-opted for y and good enough is good enough) but would require a criminally negligent designer. Again - read the books.

Give me an example.. I am tired of the books…

22

So you admit your bias :slight_smile:

Yes, he admits his bias towards explaining things using referents known to exist, instead of referents known to have been made up.

23

For the most part a genetically modified life form carries the same genes and ERV-s as its original.

Does that prove that it had evolved?

That is the case because the original code is the baseline for the modified organism’s code, which is also what happens in evolution. There would be no reason for a designer to operate in this way.

My question is this: is the existence of ERV-s sufficient to prove evolution? If yes, why? If not what would be sufficient?

Yes. It is a confirmed prediction of the theory with no reasonable alternative explanation.

The theory of Evolution was established before ERVs and before the human and chimp genomes were sequenced. What was the basis for evolution before that? Plain ignorance?

The fact that you think I could possibly give you every piece of evidence in favor of evolution in one forum post illustrates that you clearly don’t understand the breadth and the depth of the evidence, stretching much farther back than the snippet I just gave you. The fact that evolution made this prediction about the genome before it was confirmed is a strength of the theory.

What part of what you said cannot be explained by a common designer and why?

The part where completely useless code that a designer has no reason to bother with, because it does not show up in the phenotype, follows patterns completely consistent with evolution through common descent. The only reason a designer would have to write the code in this way would be active deception; to make it look like things had evolved from a common ancestor even when they hadn’t.

24

That is the case because the original code is the baseline for the modified organism’s code, which is also what happens in evolution. There would be no reason for a designer to operate in this way.

That is interesting because that is exactly how we humans do it.

Every genetically modified product was created that way.

Yes. It is a confirmed prediction of the theory with no reasonable alternative explanation.

It is easy to make predictions after the discovery and label them as if they were things that the scientists expected.

Give me the date the prediction was made and when ERV-s were found and I will believe it.

It’s not a prediction it is just a fact that happens to not contradict evolution. Doesn’t matter much if the rest of the facts are ignored.

The fact that you think I could possibly give you every piece of evidence in favor of evolution in one forum post illustrates that you clearly don’t understand the breadth and the depth of the evidence, stretching much farther back than the snippet I just gave you. The fact that evolution made this prediction about the genome before it was confirmed is a strength of the theory.

Anyone could make a prediction like that if they looked at Windows 7 and Vista. Since they look similar if they were run by a code the code would be similar as well.

Also since Win7 is found later in the Tree of Microsoft it will be more complex and more fit for survival than Vista.

And I didn’t have to believe in evolution to make that prediction…

And the operating systems that are not fit for survival die out.. oh what a great discovery…

The part where completely useless code that a designer has no reason to bother with, because it does not show up in the phenotype, follows patterns completely consistent with evolution through common descent. The only reason a designer would have to write the code in this way would be active deception; to make it look like things had evolved from a common ancestor even when they hadn’t.

That’s a rather hasty generalization. If preexisting organisms are used to create modified living beings than it would not be surprising to see inactive retro viruses in the the offspring. (You see organisms unlike computers can self reproduce) That would be the product of cost effectiveness rather than deceit.

It is not like viruses and antiviruses with virus databases don’t exist in the computer world. My computer has more ERV-s than my own genome…probably…

25

That’s a rather hasty generalization. If preexisting organisms are used to create modified living beings than it would not be surprising to see inactive retro viruses in the the offspring. (You see organisms unlike computers can self reproduce) That would be the product of cost effectiveness rather than deceit.

Used by whom, through what causal process?

26

I don’t know anyone or anything now or in the past that can produce such things. Well except for humans perhaps but they would qualify as a poor candidate. I could guess, but that would be somewhat pointless.

I however believe that it isn’t necessary to identify a concrete designer to know that it exists. It is sufficient to identify an object to be most likely the product of design and that would prove that there existed a designer in the past.

Even if we don’t know who exactly built the Stonehenge and why there had to be someone who built it if we agree that it was built.

It works like saying that there had to be a common ancestor of apes and humans if evolution is true even though we can’t prove that there was or what it was.

If I had to pick a designer I would not be able to pick anything in the known World, however that doesn’t mean I have to accept any naturalistic explanation with vague definitions and arguments supported by almost no real evidence since my knowledge of the World may be less than that what can be known.

If a person looks at the cell one will find a unbelievable efficient system that is much more advanced than ours. Is it the product of nature or the product of design? I do not know, but I don’t think we should decide such questions based on what we think reality ought to be. Reality doesn’t care what we want it to be especially if reality hat to be objective.

27

Reality doesn’t care what we want it to be especially if reality ha to be objective.

Reality is objective?

28

Is it not? You can ignore that sentence if you don’t think so…

29

I don’t know anyone or anything now or in the past that can produce such things. Well except for humans perhaps but they would qualify as a poor candidate. I could guess, but that would be somewhat pointless.

I however believe that it isn’t necessary to identify a concrete designer to know that it exists. It is sufficient to identify an object to be most likely the product of design and that would prove that there existed a designer in the past.

Even if we don’t know who exactly built the Stonehenge and why there had to be someone who built it if we agree that it was built.

It works like saying that there had to be a common ancestor of apes and humans if evolution is true even though we can’t prove that there was or what it was.

Both examples you give are examples where the advocate of the existence of said entity can specify the causal process by which the proposed entity came about. The natural processes by which stone structures are constructed by humans, and by which speciation occurs are well understood. It is one thing to make claims like that, and quite another to make a claim without specifying a possible causal process. The second is akin to proposing magic.

If I proposed in a court of law that someone, I don’t know who, stole a knife from a crime scene and replaced it with a gun, I am on much firmer ground than if I propose that someone transformed the murder weapon from a knife into a gun. Unless you specify a process by which *some* entity could reach into the DNA of a population and make designed alterations, you’re in the second case.

Is it not? You can ignore that sentence if you don’t think so…

Objective is an evaluation of a cognitive process. Reality is not objective, it just is. We can be objective or not in forming knowledge from reality, but reality itself just is.

30

Both examples you give are examples where the advocate of the existence of said entity can specify the causal process by which the proposed entity came about. The natural processes by which stone structures are constructed by humans, and by which speciation occurs are well understood.

Yes, but how did such a thing become understood and why is that the only way one can identify something to be the product of design. Is that the only way observation can work?

If there was not causal process known to man that could have created the Stonehenge than we would have to accept that it was made by nature?

Is the only way to identify a casual process is to experience it first hand and have record about it in books?

Intelligence is the cause of design and design has observable properties that match all designed objects.

Life would be the one and only exception if evolution was true… Isn’t it rational to ask why it is irrational to believe that life was designed regardless of evolution being true or not?

It is one thing to make claims like that, and quite another to make a claim without specifying a possible causal process. The second is akin to proposing magic.

If I proposed in a court of law that someone, I don’t know who, stole a knife from a crime scene and replaced it with a gun, I am on much firmer ground than if I propose that someone transformed the murder weapon from a knife into a gun. Unless you specify a process by which *some* entity could reach into the DNA of a population and make designed alterations, you’re in the second case.

You seem to claim that evolution was observed… it was not. It is as much in the air as any magic I propose.

Mutations have been observed, change was observed (for the most part because of variation and not mutation), increase in complexity was not observed which would be required for evolution to work.

And no copying the same letter or a gene a billion times does not increase complexity… Also one would need to observe a very high rate of increase of complexity to prove that evolution works.

31

<p>

<br />

Would The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins be good?

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Most Dawkins books are good, though I haven't read that one specifically. Any book against ID/creationism by a working biologist is likely to be good - I'd check out Amazon and read the reviews.<br />

<br />

<br />

I have looked high and low but my questions have never been answered. Also I may be not satisfied with any kind of answer like: photosynthesis evolved because grass is green and such…

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry to have to say this, but much as I like to give people the benefit of the doubt you are making me think you're just trolling. You can't have searched very high or low if you think <em>anyone</em> gives an reason like "photosynthesis evolved because grass is green." That's the kind of bizarre parody not seen outside the most klutzy creationist pamphlet.<br />

<br />

Can you name any aspect of the evidence that is there for evolution but is not their for artificial advancement? Like cars or computers?<br />

If it is absolutely convincing why am I not convinced?

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>All the reasons I gave, where the backup data is in the places I've mentioned. You are not convinced because you don't know the evidence, as you have stated.<br />

<br />

Give me an example..[of bad design] I am tired of the books…

</p>

<p>I believe the book "The Panda's Thumb" discusses this kind of thing. But there are plenty of examples. One that springs to mind is the male reproductive system. Fond as I am of it, the way the tubes curve up, down, round and about (purely because of how things shifted around during evolution especially when mammals became warm-blooded and the testes, rather than simply becoming heat-resistant instead migrated outside the body) has resulted not only in its legendary vulnerability, but in otherwise unnecessary medical problems like Inguinal hernia and prostate problems. "God hates men" doesn't cut it as an explanation :-)<br />

 </p>

<div id=“myEventWatcherDiv” style=“display:none;”> </div>

32

Gaaa, sorry, the way the HTML works and doesn’t work in this forum got me again. Can’t find how to delete it either. Oh well, you can still see what I said :frowning:

33

Most Dawkins books are good, though I haven't read that one specifically. Any book against ID/creationism by a working biologist is likely to be good - I'd check out Amazon and read the reviews.

I have read The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution about two years ago.

If you have something better I am willing to try, but I heard that The God Delusion was not mainly about ID or Evolution.

I wonder where you got your info of ID from. Did you read: Darwin’s Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, Signature in the Cell, The Design Inference or The Evolution Deceit ?

Sorry to have to say this, but much as I like to give people the benefit of the doubt you are making me think you're just trolling. You can't have searched very high or low if you think <em>anyone</em> gives an reason like "photosynthesis evolved because grass is green." That's the kind of bizarre parody not seen outside the most klutzy creationist pamphlet.

I do no troll…well not more than you do.

I could just say what you say to me too you know. Say that you haven’t read any of the books I mentioned and that you clearly do not understand how things work…

It is very easy to claim such things.

You are not convinced because you don't know the evidence, as you have stated.

I do not remember stating such a thing. I did say I have looked “high and low” though. Reading books, listening to lectures, learning genetics…

I believe the book "The Panda's Thumb" discusses this kind of thing. But there are plenty of examples. One that springs to mind is the male reproductive system. Fond as I am of it, the way the tubes curve up, down, round and about (purely because of how things shifted around during evolution especially when mammals became warm-blooded and the testes, rather than simply becoming heat-resistant instead migrated outside the body) has resulted not only in its legendary vulnerability, but in otherwise unnecessary medical problems like Inguinal hernia and prostate problems. "God hates men" doesn't cut it as an explanation :slight_smile:

The male reproductive system has achieved its role the last few thousand years I believe. If someone uses a preexisting animal to create a new but different one things like this may happen the same way similar things happen in software engineering all the time. There is no such thing as a template that is one size fits all. That doesn’t mean programs evolve from one to another.

Maybe making testes heat resistant isn’t as simple as making them migrate them outside the body. Maybe if it was even evolution could have done it.

By the way how did the two sexes evolved? Which one evolved first or did they evolve at the same time even though the opposite sex for either did not yet exist?

34

By the way how did the two sexes evolved? Which one evolved first or did they evolve at the same time even though the opposite sex for either did not yet exist?

You could try looking at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction Short answer, they don’t really know for sure yet.

But the fact that you are raising the old silly creationist chestnut that one sex might have evolved without the other one being present indicates to me that you probably don’t actually understand what evolutionary theory is saying, yet you presume to denounce it as false. (It would have to be simultaneous, both sexes inhabit the same gene pool. Asking the question usually demonstrates that the questioner is perhaps unwittingly assuming they are two separate species with two separate gene pools. On the plus side at least you didn’t raise the so-called issue of “what if one sex evolves faster than the other?” which is just as absurd as this is, and if you think about it, equivalent, since one sex evolving first would imply different rates.)

35

If it is such a silly question could you explain to me how the mixing of bases that is necessary for sexual reproduction to have any kind of positive effect evolved?

It is one thing to take DNA from the environment and integrate into the cells body and it is another to evolve a mechanism that can mix two full sets of DNA.

Until the mechanism evolved there could have been little advantage to have sexual reproduction and even once evolved there wouldn’t be two different sets of DNA that could have been mixed.

To me it seems natural selection only works if it is convenient for someone arguing for Darwinism.

36

Intelligence is the cause of design and design has observable properties that match all designed objects.

What are they? Intelligence embodied in what entity in this case?

37

To observe that an object has been designed it needs to have two properties. It has to be complex and it has to be specific (specified complexity). We can measure these properties…

For example:

erdo Teno siGh

is complex, but no specified

There is no God

Is complex and specified

Both sentences have equal chance to appear in a computer that randomly generates words, but only one of them has a meaning.

An infinite number of ‘A’-s would be also complex but not specified the same way as an infinite number of random letters is as well.

You may read The Design Inference for a better explanation if you like.

Intelligence embodied in what entity in this case?

All I can say that intelligence is the property of humans but humans aren’t necessarily the only beings gifted with this property. Humans also have mass, location, life and other properties that aren’t unique to them.

Intelligence of other entities other than ourselves can be observed by what they produce. You can’t measure Intelligence by measuring someones or somethings height or weight. The only way you could find other intelligent beings is by looking at what they produced. Looking at the results of tests or tools that they produced.

What if we found a high tech weapon on Mars and no other evidence that would prove that someone who could have deigned such a thing ever existed?

Do we just accept that it was not designed and walk away?

How can we suggest that an object’s designer is such and such even without realizing that the object was most likely designed?

38

I am afraid this topic is going round and round in circles. I believe that’s what I said would happen :slight_smile: And since all questions raised have been answered directly or indirectly at the start + 2 iterations, I now move on to more interesting things.

39

I see

Thank you for your time

41

Daniel,

What evidence would convince you that “intelligent design” is not a valid hypothesis?