Evolution VS Intelligent Design

[iNow]

<blushes and bows profusely>

 

I've watched it repeatedly, as I get something fresh each time.

[foodchain]

You know what I'm going to say is off topic like usual, but here I go.

 

Matter had to be created. There's no other explanation, now, How? is another issue, but irrefutably matter had to be created.How else could it come into existence? Something had to be nothing before it became so. Atleast to our knowledge something had to come from something, so where did the first something come from? Mind boggling, only a fool wouldn't think so.

 

homeobox genes like anything else can be understood via evolution as in they happen to be a product of it like anything else. Raising that in conjunction with ID is like saying because there is a missing link currently in understanding the appearance of any species is completely the same line of "garbage" thinking that makes ID anything but a science. You can fit anything you want in an unknown variable, but to satisfy for the ID they don’t have to prove it, imagine how easy this must have been say 150 years ago when a lot of everything we understand now simply did not exist.

 

As far as for where matter came from well we have the big bang, so even in that we have a physical mechanism that does not require any form of ID or its god of the gaps filler to make reality exist. Also I think its simply where you want to look in many cases, if we want to inject some form of personal bias into the whole equation as far as I know we cant destroy energy, or various conservation laws exist. Upon collision a particle and its anti partner for instance can annihilate into what? A photon that can return back into being a particle with mass much like the search for a particle called the higgs boson.

 

Plus the definition of matter is a dodgy one or is not some absolute static reality currently for a definition. Being agnostic none of this matters really as being some answer to a question put forward by supporters of ID overall but again as far as evolution is concerned do you not think that in all the time it has been studied by so many people consistently over the world that if evidence that pointed towards something else then variation and selection were not what allowed for evolution that someone would have come forward with such evidence or mechanism?

 

See this is the whole problem to me. Why does complexity have to equate to anything then what it really means, in that we don’t know everything yet. Complexity is a relative term that does not have to last. I use to look at developmental biology as highly complex, now after learning about such for a long period of time I would have to say its not so complex in regards to simply understanding it, as for the mechanism itself being complex will that’s sort of evolution is it not, being life evolved from what is at least known now a microbial form not nearly as complex.

 

Plus if nothing could gain any level of complexity why would we even have anything in the first place, nothing should exist without direct evidence for a creator because its all rather complex, yet as far as I know science cannot find any evidence for such in a mechanism or a how something works past speculation that never pans out to actual proof of any kind.

 

This to me does not denote an answer to the question but then again ID is a western ideology that deals with a monotheistic point of view or typically it evolved from Christian thinking in particular genesis which points to it being even more of a scam or load of garbage.

 

On top of this if say complexity is true, how could a creator of all of this, which is obviously as complex if not more so exist on its own? that is a complete paradox that for lack of better words is completely ignored by its followers, they put on blinders because they want something that can satisfy various emotional requirements so they can enjoy life, even if its completely wrong and the most disturbing aspect of all of this is that they would "damn" all of humanity to that vary same condition so they can be satisfied, that’s the real problem to me.

[halogirl]

quoted from: carolalyn

"While i already understand that intelligent design theory has not been able to produce lab results, I also know that mathematics is a very real thing, and Intelligent Design theory definitly has the mathmatical evidence.

 

On the topic of Evolution, I do not know if man came from apes or not, it seems likely but the fact is that the australopithecines have never been proven to be any more than ape. We have never found evidence of that ancestor the theory proposes we had. Also there has been much evidence that humans have appeared on the earth much earlier than previous expected. "

 

 

I do respect your opinion on this, though honestly i havn't really seen mathmatical evidence that supports intelligent design, also i think you're confused on one part; with the theory of evolution, we don't beleive we came from apes, the reason that we've found evidence that humans have been here a while, is because both we and apes came from a similar ancestor, we've simply branched off in a different evolutionary direction then they have.

also assuming the theory of evolution is correct, then humans have been here since the beginning, we've simply changed form since then, into more useful and adaptable creatures.

Edited June 11, 2008 by halogirl

[iNow]

I don't care what your math says. ID conflicts with the evidence itself, and makes no testable predictions. 'Nuff said.

 

However, to be fair, perhaps you can share this "math" which proves ID?

[doG]

I also know that mathematics is a very real thing, and Intelligent Design theory definitly has the mathmatical evidence.

 

Explain this then:

 

The basic premise of ID is that life is we know it is too complex to have occurred naturally, that it must have been designed. Now, if you assume this is true it has a serious circular implication. If we are too complex to have occurred naturally then so is our designer. Even more so than us because our designer must be even more complex than we are to understand everything that went into our design that we don't even understand. This kind of implies that our designer's designer must have been even more complex than our designer and so on ad infinitum. That said, where did the first designer come from? Even our own designer? They certainly couldn't have occurred naturally, that would mean that ID fails its own basic premise.

Edited June 11, 2008 by doG
spelling

[ydoaPs]

halogirl, not only did we descent from apes, we ARE apes.

[mooeypoo]

On the topic of Evolution, I do not know if man came from apes or not, it seems likely but the fact is that the australopithecines have never been proven to be any more than ape. We have never found evidence of that ancestor the theory proposes we had. Also there has been much evidence that humans have appeared on the earth much earlier than previous expected.

Uh... the amount of evidence that proves evolution is truly overwhelming. I think you should research it a bit more, or at the very least watch the movie iNow posted.

 

 

I do respect your opinion on this,

I'm going to allow myself to be pesky in this, because it's important: Evolution is not an opinion. It's a conclusion. It's a VERY VERY well based theory (not "just" a theory -- a FULL BLOWN explanation) that is well supported in facts. Many facts from different fields, in fact.

 

though honestly i havn't really seen mathmatical evidence that supports intelligent design, also i think you're confused on one part; with the theory of evolution, we don't beleive we came from apes, the reason that we've found evidence that humans have been here a while, is because both we and apes came from a similar ancestor, we've simply branched off in a different evolutionary direction then they have.

also assuming the theory of evolution is correct, then humans have been here since the beginning, we've simply changed form since then, into more useful and adaptable creatures.

We didn't come from apes, we share a common ancestor with apes. That's a VERY big distinction. It's also proven by genetics (genome information shared between us and various types of apes and other animals, supported the "tree" of changes evolution describes).

 

ID is a nontheory. ID proponents TRY hard to claim it is, but it's not. It's untestable, and it's not giving us any new information or new ways of discovering anything.

 

It also has absolutely no math in front or behind it. I would love to see what you were shown as the math behind ID.. there's no such thing. Try to find it, you'll see that it's either nonexistent, or bad math. It can't be, because ID has no CLAIM behind it other than a negative claim -- Evolution can't happen, so God did it.

 

Oh.. sorry.. not god. (fix) cdesign proponentsists

(watch the movie)

 

~moo

[CDarwin]

CarolAlynn, let me try to dicipher what you mean. You're saying that belief in the action of an intelligent agent creating life is not incompatible evolution per se. Well in that you're quite correct. But A) "Intelligent Design" as a movement claims much more than that, and you have intimated some sympathy with those claims in your statements on human origins, for example, which is what I at least was arguing with; and B) in assuming an intelligent agent to the exclusion of natural explanations for certain mysteries in the origin of life, you risk dangerously curtailing the scientific endeavor. If we assume we've already got an answer, "God did it," then there's not incentive to look for more useful, testable solutions, which is how science advances. "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than "God did it." GDI might be a more appropriate set of initials.

 

I'm probably stating your position too strongly, but the overkill makes my point all the same.

[Reaper]

While i already understand that intelligent design theory has not been able to produce lab results, I also know that...........

 

 

I do respect your opinion on this, though honestly i havn't really seen mathmatical evidence that supports intelligent design...........

 

Halogirl,

 

Next time use quote tags, so that you can avoid confusion among other members. I know you were responding to CarolAlynn (which means that other members should back off...)

 

I don't care what your math says. ID conflicts with the evidence itself, and makes no testable predictions. 'Nuff said.

 

iNow, there is no math in ID, but I'm sure you know this already. Unless CarolAlynn would like to show us otherwise (unlikely though ) ...

Edited June 11, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[iNow]

iNow, there is no math in ID, but I'm sure you know this already. Unless CarolAlynn would like to show us otherwise (unlikely though ) ...

 

They probably talk about probability. They probably misframe the context of the calculations. They probably show the "impossiblity" and how this couldn't ever happen by "chance alone."

 

I'd like to see the numbers so I can decide for myself.

 

 

In the meantime, it's worth pointing out that evolution is NOT a random process, since each generation builds on the success of the generation which came before it.

 

There's a really good special which describes this at a level that practically everyone can grasp. It's called "Climbing Mount Improbable" and is well worth the watch.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800&q=climbing+mount+improbable&ei=VrlGSJeeDaDk4AK_voGSDA

 

 

Enjoy.

[Reaper]

They probably talk about probability.

They probably show the "impossiblity" and how this couldn't ever happen by "chance alone."

 

I object! Numerology is not Applied Mathematics .

 

I'd like to see the numbers so I can decide for myself.

 

There is a very high probability that you will be utterly disappointed.

 

There's a really good special which describes this at a level that practically everyone can grasp. It's called "Climbing Mount Improbable" and is well worth the watch.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800&q=climbing+mount+improbable&ei=VrlGSJeeDaDk4AK_voGSDA

 

 

Enjoy.

 

That's a very good video. I have watched all of Dawkins' "Growing Up In The Universe" series, plus more.

[halogirl]

to: everyone on the last page

i was trying to quote from the original poster Carolalyn, but my computer was acting up.

if you read further into my post you would see that i do not support intelligent design, and i was also suspicious of this so called,"mathmatical evidence" so stop attacking me on it.

 

Explain this then:

 

The basic premise of ID is that life is we know it is too complex to have occurred naturally, that it must have been designed. Now, if you assume this is true it has a serious circular implication. If we are too complex to have occurred naturally then so is our designer. Even more so than us because our designer must be even more complex than we are to understand everything that went into our design that we don't even understand. This kind of implies that our designer's designer must have been even more complex than our designer and so on ad infinitum. That said, where did the first designer come from? Even our own designer? They certainly couldn't have occurred naturally, that would mean that ID fails its own basic premise.

 

 

i was quoting the person who had originally posted that stuff, read further into my post and you'll find my reply.

Edited June 11, 2008 by halogirl
multiple post merged

[mooeypoo]

You know what I'm going to say is off topic like usual, but here I go.

 

Matter had to be created. There's no other explanation, now, How? is another issue, but irrefutably matter had to be created.How else could it come into existence? Something had to be nothing before it became so. Atleast to our knowledge something had to come from something, so where did the first something come from? Mind boggling, only a fool wouldn't think so.

That's a fascinating philosophical question, but here is my take on it:

 

(1) That doesn't mean an intelligent being (or ANY being) created matter, even for the reason that it then creates the problem of who created it.

 

(2) The fact the human brain is limited like that (hence, we assume everything has a beginning) does not mean that's the way things are. It is just as likely that matter always existed, and time itself was created (in the big bang), hence the beginning "started" with time and not with matter, rather than matter has 'popped' into existence, or was created by something else.

 

Just my own opinion, though... as is usually dealing with philosophy (as opposed to science)

 

~moo

 

~moo

[ydoaPs]

You know what I'm going to say is off topic like usual, but here I go.

 

Matter had to be created. There's no other explanation, now, How? is another issue, but irrefutably matter had to be created.How else could it come into existence? Something had to be nothing before it became so. Atleast to our knowledge something had to come from something, so where did the first something come from? Mind boggling, only a fool wouldn't think so.

 

A little birdy told me that mass/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but only changed in form.

[CDarwin]

I'd like to see the numbers so I can decide for myself.

 

Here are some numbers: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[iNow]

Here are some numbers: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 

Sweet find, mate. I haven't been to talkorigins in months and forgot to even check there.

 

That link really puts this whole "it's been proven mathematically" assertion into it's proper context.

[foodchain]

Just for the sake of commentary on this topic we don’t know all the variables that would feed into the probability in the first place, or that science simply has no ascertained that yet. The earth has gone through serious changes some more serious then others, so to say that its mathematically proven in the first place is a farce because of such. Such people should have already won more Nobel prizes then I care to think about for so many different reasons for such math to be correct in the first place.

 

Also if we want to stretch this farce out into the universe, I think with taking the entire universe into consideration that it would be statistically favored that at least one planet in the entire universe would have the right conditions, but this is just speculation as again its hardly like we know exactly what is required to plug into some probability matrix or what not anyways, so again, politics built on less then a factual representation of what’s being talked about.

 

Plus this also deals with biopoiesis and not life in regards to evolution, which we already have again an overwhelming amount of empirical support along with logical or mathematical support that can be shown to be true such as with genetics or more particularly population genetics. Also in labs they can force evolution to occur on say a population of bacteria, this can and has been done numerous times plus speciation has been observed in the real world in regards to the time frame in which we were looking for such. Point blank is evolution is supported empirically from a molecular level to a ecological one, there is no real debate on this.

 

I also don’t think I need to point out that physics does not rely on math only for its endeavors, or that it still requires empirical or experimental verification of whatever topic you would like to bring up, such as relativity or quantum mechanics are not math by themselves. Also history has pointed out on more then one occasion that the use of math by itself cannot suffice as an end all, or in you cant just use math alone.

 

Also if you want to take it to the point of biopoiesis and not just evolution more and more understanding is being gained there also, such as say protobionts, but this is off topic. I would just like to say in closing that at some point in human history the wheel lived in a state of being to complex to exist or even be understood, it’s a foul excuse to use and really is nothing more then your god of the gaps.

[Ophiolite]

Point blank is evolution is supported empirically from a molecular level to a ecological one, there is no real debate on this.

What does concern me is that while, as you say, the reality of evolution should not be in doubt, the precise mechanisms especially for macroevolution and - at the other extreme - the development of eukaryote cellular architecture, remain obscure.

 

My concern in this area is not our ignorance of these matters - that represents an opportunity for research and futue understanding - but the glib way many dismiss these uncertainties as being of little or no consequence. Indirectly, it provides creationists with ammunition that can convince lay persons.

[halogirl]

you know we still havn't seen any mathmatical evidence that supports intelligent design and i would really like to.

[iNow]

Did you check out the link CDarwin shared above? I think that pretty much cuts their argument off at the ankles.

[foodchain]

What does concern me is that while, as you say, the reality of evolution should not be in doubt, the precise mechanisms especially for macroevolution and - at the other extreme - the development of eukaryote cellular architecture, remain obscure.

 

My concern in this area is not our ignorance of these matters - that represents an opportunity for research and futue understanding - but the glib way many dismiss these uncertainties as being of little or no consequence. Indirectly, it provides creationists with ammunition that can convince lay persons.

 

Well I would simply point to while Recapitulation theory or ontogeny expresses phylogeny is not as extreme as say Haeckel originally put forward its very far from being wrong, so for all of biology i think the best place to start showing a layperson which I could consider myself easily would be not only developmental biology but simply phylogenic relationships. it just becomes more difficult when you have to go from say a molecular level to an ecological level because as you would frame it you cant easily pass off so much information in a five minute discussion. Simply put biological systematics cannot be explained in a short burst of online posts. This is why talkorigins is such a good site for instance.

[bored_teen]

i don't necessarily agree with the idea of ID giving way to evolution. i'm Christian, so i'm going to use the Bible for my reasoning. basically, the Bible says God created everything over a period of six days, with man being the last creation. God created Man from the dirt. although, in the Bible, it gives us examples of time dilation between Heaven and Earth, so it might have been six days in Heaven, not on Earth. if that's the case, then the order of Creation suggests that God could have used evolution as the process for creating everything.

[mooeypoo]

i don't necessarily agree with the idea of ID giving way to evolution. i'm Christian, so i'm going to use the Bible for my reasoning. basically, the Bible says God created everything over a period of six days, with man being the last creation. God created Man from the dirt. although, in the Bible, it gives us examples of time dilation between Heaven and Earth, so it might have been six days in Heaven, not on Earth. if that's the case, then the order of Creation suggests that God could have used evolution as the process for creating everything.

I dont mean to be rude, but with due respect to anyone's religious beliefs, they're utterly irrelevant to a scientific discussion.

 

[fix/add] I think I might be misunderstood myself, so I'll elaborate my point: The only way religion "gave way" to evolution is by history... as in, people used to follow creation as if it's science (bad science with no proof and an impossibility to prove it) and then gave way to real science when that showed up.

 

I studied the bible too, for 12 years, and I never could find ANYTHING remotely evolution'ary in it to suggest the author knew about evolution, guessed it, or noticed it.

 

It's still a nice book, I'm just saying it has no room in science.

 

-

Hence the fact ID is unscientific.

 

I... am just not sure what you were trying to say there, bored_teen..? maybe i misunderstood.

 

~moo

[halogirl]

you know this is annoying, why couldn't a "greater entity" have worked through evolution?

[Phi for All]

you know this is annoying, why couldn't a "greater entity" have worked through evolution?

But that's not all ID is content to suggest. It *is* possible that a "greater entity" which is unobservable (by any means we know of) used the physical laws (no omnipotence, please) and the process of evolution to populate Earth with its current biodiversity over billions of years. Possible, but not probable.

 

ID says evolution and the observation and experimentation that makes it one of the most sound theories available is flawed. ID is an attempt to teach religion in public school science classes. THAT is why you are being annoyed with all these objections over Intelligent Design, not because there can be no "greater entity".