Evolution and Intelligent Design

[JETZAL]

I don't want to spend to much time debating this with you guys, but many of you guys are mixing micro evolution (this is not Darwin's evolution. it's just like people who live on a mountain get stronger lungs so they can survive) and macro evolution, which is like sharks turning into people. Anyone who studies the human body would see how amazingly complex it is, yet if you are a evolutionist you are forced to believe that all happened by chance! Take the great Pyramids in Egypt they aren't very complex yet when you look at them you don't think that those stones happened to fall together in a pyramid shape and that they all got cut somehow, do you? that would be ridiculous! But you say the human body which is very  complex just happened by chance?

Dont go there. Ignorance is bliss. As far as most of them are concerned, there is no difference between the 2. They are convinced it is a creationist term, which is it actually scientific. Even though it is offten mentioned in debates between ID and Evolution. Them term evolution is also brought up a lot as well. Does that mean Evolution is not scientific?  Just dont go that route... Its pointless..

(and who says it had to have metabolism from the start?)

If it has no metabolism, it cant grow. It has to grow to replicate, otherwise itll get infinitly smaller. Unless matter for it is spontaneously generating now. I didnt explain each part because I didnt think it was really neccessary.It has to have some way to ingest food, simple or complex. So that it can grow, so that when it replicates, its not getting smaller.

Blue Priest is right if a being doesn't have metabolism It will die in and matter of minutes (because these would be cell we are dealing with)  And then there wouldn't be any life and your back to square one.

Priest's reply to may last post is so true. Chemist said that there is no sharks turning into people in the theory of evolution... Check your facts just last year there was a study saying that people evolved from sharks because of similar breeding process or something. This was recently decided to be wrong and now we're back to apes  

[airframe]

This topic is very interesting topic, because where I live it really is not an issue. So it's kinda new to me, while I have heard I have never met anyone who would prefer reliogion over evolution. (i.e. intelligent design).

One thing I don't understand, is what does the chance of life existing have to do with evolution. Theory of evolution is about what happens when life does exist in a place like earth. How it develops and, in a way, gains complexity.

[Chemist]

Blue Priest is right if a being doesn't have metabolism It will die in and matter of minutes (because these would be cell we are dealing with)  And then there wouldn't be any life and your back to square one.

Viruses don't have or need metabolism. Besides I said:

It has to grow to replicate, otherwise itll get infinitly smaller.

There are other ways of self-replication - you just need to create a copy of yourself. We know of self-replicating molecules, and those could have well been an intermediate stage towards life as we know it.

Also note that you're missing the point of the original argument:

We can assume first life was simpler than current day cells (and who says it had to have metabolism from the start?), so it would be way easier for something like that to emerge by chance than something as complex as the cells around today. So for anyone doing "probabilities" of the right pieces hitting together they really *should* consider that there wouldn't be as many different proteins required, nor would those be nearly as complex.

If you remove the sentence (in parenthesis) that's bothering you then the argument stands just as well.

Priest's reply to may last post is so true. Chemist said that there is no sharks turning into people in the theory of evolution... Check your facts just last year there was a study saying that people evolved from sharks because of similar breeding process or something. This was recently decided to be wrong and now we're back to apes  

Give me a link or you just made that up. If there was indeed such a study then I presume it was simply never taken seriously by the scientific community. Or maybe you were reading The Onion or something.

One thing I don't understand, is what does the chance of life existing have to do with evolution.

Nothing. It's just that creationists don't understand that any better than they understand evolution itself. They think it's about sharks turning into people and whatever stuff creationist propaganda tells them.

[PhuzzY LogiK]

Yes, you are right, I do like attacking evolution. Is it because I think it is an "ungodly secular viewpoint", no, however, no one on here has been able to give reasonable evidence that it can be taught as a fact in schools. That is where my problem is.

Let me quote you one more time: "Lets see if you can grasp this." 

I'll even put this in all caps for you:
EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT. EVOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT AS FACT.  THIS WAS ADDRESSED ON PAGE 1.

So are you extremely dense and unable to take in information, or just conveniently ignoring what we've already covered because your otherwise ridiculous assertions would fall apart?

[BluePriest]

Yes, you are right, I do like attacking evolution. Is it because I think it is an "ungodly secular viewpoint", no, however, no one on here has been able to give reasonable evidence that it can be taught as a fact in schools. That is where my problem is.

Let me quote you one more time: "Lets see if you can grasp this." 

I'll even put this in all caps for you:
EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT. EVOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT AS FACT.  THIS WAS ADDRESSED ON PAGE 1.

So are you extremely dense and unable to take in information, or just conveniently ignoring what we've already covered because your otherwise ridiculous assertions would fall apart?

But it is taught as a fact, and people believe it as a fact. That is what the whole point is. And ill address the other things people brought up as well, but I dont have time right now.

[BluePriest]

This topic really has low priority as I havent found anything on here that is concrete in the least bit, however, I do want to be sure that I dont leave any room out there, so I am now going to cover things that were mentioned.

Quote from: airframe on April 14, 2010, 06:09:33 PM
One thing I don't understand, is what does the chance of life existing have to do with evolution.
____________________________
Nothing. It's just that creationists don't understand that any better than they understand evolution itself. They think it's about sharks turning into people and whatever stuff creationist propaganda tells them.

Actually, it has everything to do with it. If life never existed, then life wouldnt have the chance to evolve. It has to do with it because we are talking about things I consider to be scientifically impossible, and the origin of life has everything to do with evolution.

So are you extremely dense and unable to take in information, or just conveniently ignoring what we've already covered because your otherwise ridiculous assertions would fall apart?

So what is this information that im ignoring? It seems more than anything the people supporting evolution are ignoring things. So let me ask you in case I am being real dense. What is it that Im ignoring?

Quote from: JETZAL on April 14, 2010, 05:28:31 PM
Blue Priest is right if a being doesn't have metabolism It will die in and matter of minutes (because these would be cell we are dealing with)  And then there wouldn't be any life and your back to square one.
_______________________________________________
Viruses don't have or need metabolism. Besides I said:
_________________________
Quote from: Chemist on April 13, 2010, 10:55:41 PM
Quote from: BluePriest on April 13, 2010, 09:37:42 PM
It has to grow to replicate, otherwise itll get infinitly smaller.

There are other ways of self-replication - you just need to create a copy of yourself. We know of self-replicating molecules, and those could have well been an intermediate stage towards life as we know it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Also note that you're missing the point of the original argument:

Viruses dont need metabolism because they infect something else for it to become a virus. Early life couldnt have done this because there was nothing to infect.

And the original arguments point was that it could be simpler. I agreed, however, I also said there were certain requirements necessary still. Metabolism being part of them, as they couldnt replicate without either
1)Growing, so that when they split they wouldnt get infinitely small (which requires some type of metabolism)
2)Infecting something else, which they couldnt do without there being something else to infect.

Now, lets talk about the probabilities of life again. There are 9 planets in our solar system (I dont know if pluto is considered a planet now or not, last I heard it wasnt, but I still am to make things simple) We are the only planet that has life. If life is guaranteed to have happened by chance on earth, then it should have happened on other planets as well. I mean, life would have grown to suit that planet.All the life here grew to suit earth, but that doesnt mean that life couldnt exist on mars that is meant to suit mars. Why is earth, out of all the different galaxies weve found, the only one that we know has life so far?

"A substance such as this is considered an irreducibly complex structure. One Example, is a bacterial flagellum. "

The fact is, Its not!

I saw a documentary from BBC not too long ago about this. They have shown that the parts that makes up the propulsion of such a bacteria is indeed made up from parts that already exist somewhere else. I wish i had put this all to memory but when i heard that i became more convinced that evolution holds true.

Really, Id like to see that. 1 co-option, and the one most often talked about, is 1 precursor of the bacterial flagellum that was a mutation that cause the bubonic plague.  So do you remember any information about it, perhaps a link to info about the video, anything like that? Cause I could easily say that I saw a video that did just the opposite and says that those things you mentioned actually arent the cause. Sources are important to prevent strawman arguments. Which by the way, i have seen a video that shows very scientifically that co-option could not be cause of the bacterial flagellum.

Quote from: BluePriest on April 14, 2010, 02:27:09 PM
Im a FG
I have 50000 cards in my deck.
[...]
Would you ever bet on that deck to win?
______________________________
I wouldn't bet on any god, even though we can't disprove any of them. I believe it makes much more sense to trust the massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution.

This wasnt talking about religion. In  an attempt to be funny (at least I hope thats what it is)  you basically acted like you knew that I had a good point by ignoring the question. Now I know you better than that by now to know that wasnt why, however, I just want to point out that you still didnt answer the question.

i think that covered everything mentioned. If i missed anything, sorry, and im sure someone will be sure to bring it up.

[Delreich]

Im a FG
I have 50000 cards in my deck.
[...]
Now under these rules, I have to draw both cards at the same time, otherwise it doesnt help me at all.

Would you ever bet on that deck to win?

I would bet on it winning at least one game eventually, yes.

[Chemist]

Actually, it has everything to do with it. If life never existed, then life wouldnt have the chance to evolve. It has to do with it because we are talking about things I consider to be scientifically impossible, and the origin of life has everything to do with evolution.

Your statements are analogous to saying that the theory of gravity (and pretty much any and every theory there is) is false because it doesn't explain how the Universe came to be. No Universe - no gravity. Even if you could prove all scientific theories about the origin of the Universe wrong that wouldn't disprove the theory of gravity. In the very same manner disproving abiogenesis wouldn't disprove evolution. If you want to disprove evolution you need evidence against evolution. You don't even need a ton of evidence (like there is for evolution) - just some evidence. Unfortunately for your side of the argument there is no evidence against evolution. Now do you understand why it's so well accepted?

So what is this information that im ignoring? It seems more than anything the people supporting evolution are ignoring things. So let me ask you in case I am being real dense. What is it that Im ignoring?

You asked for fossil evidence and evidence on common ancestry, which reqz has provided and you have ignored. You said the proteins for life couldn't have formed on the early Earth, and I showed you what was wrong with the figures you were using as well as the actual figures - and now you are still saying abiogenesis is unlikely to have occurred.

You think evolution doesn't make sense because you don't understand it (or rather you're misunderstanding it). I've explained to you how evolution works and you still think a rabbit could simply sprout wings - and in a single lifetime at that. That's not how evolution works. I never said it works like that nor could you reasonably make such a deduction from my explanation. PhuzzY LogiK was saying there must be a reason behind you still not understanding the theory you're denouncing here - either you ignored my explanation or you didn't understand it. So which was it? And would you also mind telling me which things "the people supporting evolution" are supposedly ignoring?

Now, lets talk about the probabilities of life again. There are 9 planets in our solar system (I dont know if pluto is considered a planet now or not, last I heard it wasnt, but I still am to make things simple) We are the only planet that has life. If life is guaranteed to have happened by chance on earth, then it should have happened on other planets as well. I mean, life would have grown to suit that planet.All the life here grew to suit earth, but that doesnt mean that life couldnt exist on mars that is meant to suit mars. Why is earth, out of all the different galaxies weve found, the only one that we know has life so far?

Life can emerge on Earth-like planets. Our telescopes still can't pick up any planet that small outside of our solar system, so Earth is the only such example we know of. The Earth is ideal for life, while the other planets in our solar system are far from even being capable of supporting it. It is assumed that Mars used to have oceans so it's actually possible (though not guaranteed) that life existed there at some point in the past, but it would have died out by now. We can't really imagine life without liquid water, so the other planets in our solar system couldn't have given birth to any form of life as we know it. But with 10^22 to 10^24 stars out there there are probably plenty of Earth-like planets in our Universe.

So do you remember any information about it, perhaps a link to info about the video, anything like that? Cause I could easily say that I saw a video that did just the opposite and says that those things you mentioned actually arent the cause. Sources are important to prevent strawman arguments. Which by the way, i have seen a video that shows very scientifically that co-option could not be cause of the bacterial flagellum.

How about this then: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

This wasnt talking about religion. In  an attempt to be funny (at least I hope thats what it is)  you basically acted like you knew that I had a good point by ignoring the question. Now I know you better than that by now to know that wasnt why, however, I just want to point out that you still didnt answer the question.

That question was built on the false presumption that life emerging from the primordial soup was as unlikely as your example. Which means you still haven't read that article I had linked you to (or ignored it). The emergence of life isn't that unlikely just because you say it is.

i think that covered everything mentioned. If i missed anything, sorry, and im sure someone will be sure to bring it up.

You're right on that...

Let me quote you one more time: "Lets see if you can grasp this." 

I'll even put this in all caps for you:
EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT. EVOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT AS FACT.  THIS WAS ADDRESSED ON PAGE 1.

But it is taught as a fact, and people believe it as a fact. That is what the whole point is.

You know you completely missed PhuzzY LogiK's point there?

No, I dont believe it should be taught in school as a fact, as a commonly accepted theory, I have no proble with.

This is a common error.  A theory is not the opposite of a fact.  In truth, calling evolution a theory makes it stronger than a fact, because a theory is a collection of facts that cohere into a consistent explanation.  That is to say, in the hierarchy of scientific knowledge, a theory is above a fact.  I don't mean to offend here, but I am somewhat wary of people who want to influence a science curriculum (i.e., saying what should be taught), but don't understand basic terminology.

Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances. Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have not yet contributed anything with any practical application.

Now, your turn BluePriest. Intelligent design. First, I need to know what type of creationist you are, so I know where I can start my questions.
Earth 6000 years old or Earth 4.54 Billion years old?
God created each "kind" of animal as is or god guided evolution?
Noahs arc or unified theory of geology?
Can you account for your claims without citing the bible as evidence, using faith, or not turning the tables and saying evolution is wrong so ID must be right?

I'm also interested on your stance on ID. Do you think it makes more sense, even though evolution has been shown to be correct experimentally time and again whereas ID can't even make a prediction? Or do you think we should dismiss a nearly perfect theory because it isn't perfect? A nearly perfect tool is very useful. Knowledge of the truth is useful because it allows us to make useful predictions. ID, on the other hand, is completely useless.

One final point here: if you think evolution is wrong, then why do all the predictions the theory makes turn out to be correct?

[BluePriest]

[quote  author=Chemist]
Quote from: BluePriest on April 25, 2010, 03:13:27 PM
Actually, it has everything to do with it. If life never existed, then life wouldnt have the chance to evolve. It has to do with it because we are talking about things I consider to be scientifically impossible, and the origin of life has everything to do with evolution.
_______________________________________________
Your statements are analogous to saying that the theory of gravity (and pretty much any and every theory there is) is false because it doesn't explain how the Universe came to be. No Universe - no gravity. Even if you could prove all scientific theories about the origin of the Universe wrong that wouldn't disprove the theory of gravity. In the very same manner disproving abiogenesis wouldn't disprove evolution. If you want to disprove evolution you need evidence against evolution. You don't even need a ton of evidence (like there is for evolution) - just some evidence. Unfortunately for your side of the argument there is no evidence against evolution. Now do you understand why it's so well accepted?
Quote from: BluePriest on April 25, 2010, 03:13:27 PM
[/quote]

 Life is a precursor to evolution. 1 had to exist before the other could. We are talking about science being the ultimate knowledge when it comes down to it. Which is why that is being discussed.

Quote from: BluePriest on April 25, 2010, 03:13:27 PM
So what is this information that im ignoring? It seems more than anything the people supporting evolution are ignoring things. So let me ask you in case I am being real dense. What is it that Im ignoring?

You asked for fossil evidence and evidence on common ancestry, which reqz has provided and you have ignored. You said the proteins for life couldn't have formed on the early Earth, and I showed you what was wrong with the figures you were using as well as the actual figures - and now you are still saying abiogenesis is unlikely to have occurred.

You think evolution doesn't make sense because you don't understand it (or rather you're misunderstanding it). I've explained to you how evolution works and you still think a rabbit could simply sprout wings - and in a single lifetime at that. That's not how evolution works. I never said it works like that nor could you reasonably make such a deduction from my explanation. PhuzzY LogiK was saying there must be a reason behind you still not understanding the theory you're denouncing here - either you ignored my explanation or you didn't understand it. So which was it? And would you also mind telling me which things "the people supporting evolution" are supposedly ignoring?

I actually never once asked for fossil evidence on common ancestry. I did bring it up as a possibility to talk about once before, but any comment from it I have ignored because I dont want to bring another thing into the table while we are still talking about other thins, as then nothing here will be useful because the topics will be jumping back and forth, back and forth.

Also, I know how evolution supposedly works, taking billions and billions of years. That wing will start off as a little stub, and then get bigger and bigger and bigger until the rabbit can fly. The people talking about mutations are closer to what you said I believe than me.

Life can emerge on Earth-like planets. Our telescopes still can't pick up any planet that small outside of our solar system, so Earth is the only such example we know of. The Earth is ideal for life, while the other planets in our solar system are far from even being capable of supporting it. It is assumed that Mars used to have oceans so it's actually possible (though not guaranteed) that life existed there at some point in the past, but it would have died out by now. We can't really imagine life without liquid water, so the other planets in our solar system couldn't have given birth to any form of life as we know it. But with 10^22 to 10^24 stars out there there are probably plenty of Earth-like planets in our Universe.

That is riddled with assumptions in that post. I once again say, a life form could have come to be on that planet without the means that we commonly think of. We dont know the only ways that life could exist, which is why at 1 point I tried just dropping the randomness of life generating argument until I thought of this.

That question was built on the false presumption that life emerging from the primordial soup was as unlikely as your example. Which means you still haven't read that article I had linked you to (or ignored it). The emergence of life isn't that unlikely just because you say it is.

And it isnt as likely just because you say it is.


And as for the next quote, Im not going to quote, after that first time, from then on I did my best to use the word hypothesis, and I know I didnt use theory from then on.

The link to irreducible complexity, im going to study up on, and will return to this once i have an answer, whether that is to concede that argument, or to point out a flaw.
____________________________________

As for my stance. After much debate with my friends and co-workers, and after reading many books, I have decided that i take a 14.5billion year stance.
I do not believe the bible and Evolution can both be true, God guiding evolution actually goes against the bible.
and Noahs Arc.

Have fun with what points you make before I come here. Try to stick to 1 at a time though. its impossible to have a discussion talking about 5 different things at once.

[Chemist]

Life is a precursor to evolution. 1 had to exist before the other could. We are talking about science being the ultimate knowledge when it comes down to it. Which is why that is being discussed.

And a Universe is a precursor to gravity, yet I wouldn't bring up the theories on the origin of the Universe in a discussion on whether or not the theory of gravity is true. Well, as long as you won't claim evolution makes no sense because you think abiogenesis doesn't - as even if you could disprove abiogenesis that wouldn't disprove evolution.

Also, I know how evolution supposedly works

No you don't:

Say I couldnt swim. Im in the middle of an ocean.
Situation 1)
after being in the water, and hopelessly flailing my arms tons of times, I eventually figured out how to swim.
That is me adapting to the enviroment.

Situation 2)
Some chemical goes into my body that makes it so that I have fins, and can breathe underwater
The enviroment effected me.

The 2nd situation (not exact, but the basic principle of it) is what probably happened with the lizard. And in all honesty, if you want evolution to hold any ground whatsoever, then you need to accept that. The 1st situation, hurts evolution more than it helps it.

Judging from this I suppose you think if an antelope keeps stretching its neck to reach the leaves on higher branches it'll "adapt" and get a longer neck, producing a giraffe-like neck in due time. Once again: that's not how evolution works. (And mutations don't work like they do in comic books either.)

I once again say, a life form could have come to be on that planet without the means that we commonly think of. We dont know the only ways that life could exist, which is why at 1 point I tried just dropping the randomness of life generating argument until I thought of this.

We don't know whether any life completely unlike that on Earth exists. We don't even know exactly what it could be like, so how could we talk about how widespread it is in the Universe? What we do know is that we exist and that the odds of life like ours emerging on a planet like ours can't be that bad. It's a part of this last sentence you're trying to disprove, so I don't see what the absence of a different type of life in our solar system has to do with the "probabiity" of life emerging here. You've talked about independent events before, so you should be able to understand that.

And it isnt as likely just because you say it is.

You were implying that evolution isn't true since abiogenesis isn't true because you had claimed abiogenesis was extremely unlikely to have occurred. So if now you're saying neither of us can know how likely abiogenesis is instead, then your original argument is void.

And as for the next quote, Im not going to quote, after that first time, from then on I did my best to use the word hypothesis, and I know I didnt use theory from then on.

So you still don't know basic terminology because the theory of evolution is a theory. (One class above a theory in my native language, but I don't know think that term exists in English.)

I have decided that i take a 14.5billion year stance.

You mean 4.5 billion years, right?
I won't introduce new points to the argument, but this is from the last post:

Unfortunately for your side of the argument there is no evidence against evolution.

Do you agree or can you provide evidence to the contrary? 

And would you also mind telling me which things "the people supporting evolution" are supposedly ignoring?

I'm also interested on your stance on ID. Do you think it makes more sense, even though evolution has been shown to be correct experimentally time and again whereas ID can't even make a prediction? Or do you think we should dismiss a nearly perfect theory because it isn't perfect? A nearly perfect tool is very useful. Knowledge of the truth is useful because it allows us to make useful predictions. ID, on the other hand, is completely useless.

One final point here: if you think evolution is wrong, then why do all the predictions the theory makes turn out to be correct?

[airframe]

This topic really has low priority as I havent found anything on here that is concrete in the least bit, however, I do want to be sure that I dont leave any room out there, so I am now going to cover things that were mentioned.

Quote from: airframe on April 14, 2010, 06:09:33 PM
One thing I don't understand, is what does the chance of life existing have to do with evolution.
____________________________
Nothing. It's just that creationists don't understand that any better than they understand evolution itself. They think it's about sharks turning into people and whatever stuff creationist propaganda tells them.

Actually, it has everything to do with it. If life never existed, then life wouldnt have the chance to evolve. It has to do with it because we are talking about things I consider to be scientifically impossible, and the origin of life has everything to do with evolution.

Evolution theory comes with a daring presumption that life does exist. The opposite is not very interesting since in the light of this theory, nothing really happens. So, it's limited to a case when life does exist. What is required for this to happen so evolution can take place, that is a completely separate question. I think there are actually a lot of separete theories required to answer that. Theory of evolution does not even try to cover that, it just explains the evolution part.

Edit.

I'm interested hearing thoughts on this.



(http://imageplay.net/)
Pictures are from wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution)

[airframe]

Shameless bumb.

About the bacterial flagellum. At first I was confused by the english word flagellum, but decided I look into it out of curiosity.

So this is what were talking about here:

Flagellum

From wikipedia:
"A tail-like projection that protrudes from the cell body of certain prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, and functions in locomotion."
"The word flagellum is the Latin word for whip."

From online dictionary:
   1. (biology) In protists, a long, whiplike membrane-enclosed  organelle  used for locomotion  or feeding.
   2. (biology) In bacteria, a long, whiplike proteinaceous appendage, used for locomotion.
   3. A whip

Translated to finnish, "siima"

A video explaining what is bacterial flagellum.

&feature=related (

&feature=related)


And finally on bacterial flagellum and intelligent design.

"Ken Miller discusses the evolutionary history of the bacterial flagellum
and how the parts both in groups and alone have function in other processes
than the flagellum which is directly contradicts the idea of irreducible complexity."

(

)
The whole presentation:

(

)

Nicholas J. Matzke:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html)

And the evolutionary model for bacterial flagellum by N.J. Matzke,  (Okay, I admit that I haven't finished reading this one. It's a bit tricky.):
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html#conc (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html#conc)