Some say that we exist therefore it happened, ie evolution. You can't really argue against that. But I will.
My approach on this matter is if all biological systems came about by evolution then irrefutable evidence would have been all around us in the fossil record and possibly in the living species. This doesn't seem to be the case.
When I say irrefutable I mean positive proof. Blind evolution wouldn't play hide n seek. It wouldn't know how to...
"I'm going to evolve this system but I'm going to hide the pathways from those pesky to-be humans"
unless evolution is intelligent to know that humans would come about and ponder their existance, in which case Evolution is the Intelligent Creator under a different name.
I think evolutionary scientist are selling a hoax. They are too proud to believe in the existence of a creator that is infinately more intelligent than themselves. Religion has also given the creator a bad rap so they shift their disbelief in a creator's existance to an even more incredulous belief system. Ironic i'd say.
What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?
by hooberus 96 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
ghostbuster
-
Narkissos
Ghostbuster
if all biological systems came about by evolution then irrefutable evidence would have been all around us in the fossil record and possibly in the living species. This doesn't seem to be the case.
There is overwhelming evidence, as many Christian believers have readily or reluctantly acknowledged. The fact that the creationist group (pretty noisy in the USA but hardly ever heard in other parts of the world) lead a rearguard fight against it shouldn't prevent you from seeing it.
I suggest you spend a couple of hours on www.talkorigins.org for a start.
-
Abaddon
ghostbuster
Blind evolution wouldn't play hide n seek. It wouldn't know how to...
ghostbuster. I can say with 100% confidence if you had studied evolution you would know just how right and wrong you simultaneously are.
Of COURSE evolution wouldn't "know how to". You are right.
But if you knew enough about the subject, you'd know HOW it works and how it doesn't need to "know". You create a false dilemma.
Question is, are you the sort of person who will say "Golly, that sounds interesting, tell me more".
Or the sort of person who despite NOT knowing enough about evolution to understand the false dilemma you create, won't be interested in learning why it is a false dillema, as you "KNOW" evolution is wrong.
This;
I think evolutionary scientist are selling a hoax. They are too proud to believe in the existence of a creator that is infinately more intelligent than themselves. Religion has also given the creator a bad rap so they shift their disbelief in a creator's existance to an even more incredulous belief system. Ironic i'd say.
... to be honest doesn't give me much hope. It assigns false and ludicrous motives to MILLIONS of people, just on a big fat assumption. And it doesn't address one fact about evolution... but that's because you only know it very superficially if at all.
But, if you really WANT to know, ask. Otherwise, please don't pretend to be able to comment in a knowledgable fashion. It would be like me trying to tell people who worked day in and day out on cars how to repair them using what I'd kid myself was commen-sense.
-
ghostbuster
Abaddon,
I'm putting down what i believe is the most likely. If someone can prove me wrong then great, the truth is what matters.
THe reason I call them hoaxers is because
1. They've tried it in the past
2. They extrapolate too much before they know the full story and so distort the truth and fool people.
3. They talk in terms of facts when it should be in terms of theory
4. THey take results and put erroneous explanations to them
5. They just don't like the idea of a creator it's beneath their intellectual standing
Here's an excert from one scientist bragging about scientific knowledge
----------
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar05.html
Now, those are both very, very complex subjects, and require a lot of study to understand. I mean, to understand basic biochemistry, you do need to spend at least a year of concentrated study on it, and this is after taking a year of organic chemistry, and a year of basic chemistry before. Understanding of general physics and math level where you're comfortable with calculus are also required. Finally, the picture won't be complete unless you take at least some physical chemistry (chemical thermodynamics, kinetics of reactions, nonlinear dynamics, stuff like that).
This is just for biochemistry, mind you. A good understanding of genetics takes at least as much. This is not a matter of intelligence (unless you are some kind of supergenius, who is able to absorb knowledge by staring at the books for prolonged periods of time), there simply are that many facts to keep in mind. I'm sure you could do it, if you put in the required time and effort.
-----
He talks about witnessing protein evolution but he neglects to emphasise that he is working with a ready made complex biological system that has been somehow programmed to react to a complex environment. I've also read another account that refutes these kind of claims
He hasn't stopped to consider that he might not be intellingent enough to know what is really going on with these proteins.
Either it is evolution or it isn't, if it is then this does not preclude a creator that programmed it all and gave it purpose and direction.
In fact thinking about it a creator's hand in it could explain the so called punctuated equillibrium theory that accounts for the missing links. -
Shining One
>Now consider how long scientists agree it takes for speciation or more extensive changes to occur
How long it takes for speciation?
A better question is why did so many organism appear during the 'Cambrian Explosion'? The idea that the longer you have the more likely it is for a mutation to be benficial is without much merit. Mutations are universally detrimental as has been observed. We also mustn't confuse micro with macro evolution.
>....have humans been around observing biological change for a few million years? Or consider how long it takes a human to make a watch, a car, a television set, an atomic bomb. A year, a decade, a century to get the design worked out....faster than an eyeblink in geological/biological time. For nature to take hundreds of million years to get a fairly sophisticated mammalian eye, well it would have to be an unintelligent designer to take soooo long to get the design worked out....indeed, by trial and error (i.e. the blind watchmaker).
Which is a falicious concept to begin with. The eye is useless until it is fully formed and it has no other use in nature before it is fully formed.
>If it would take a single person several million years to invent a design, then your analogy would be valid...but such is not the case. Moreover, it is possible for people today to observe hundreds of millions years of gradual changes in design by examining the material remains of earlier designs....so in a real sense the trial-and-error process of "unintelligent design" can be observed.
Actually the time frame can be taken either way, creationist or evolutionary, depending on the axioms you hold to begin with and the question of whether or not rates of decay have always been static.
Rex -
Shining One
Tetly,
Do you want some positive evidence for intelligent design? All you have to do is look at the microscopic machines that will not work without all of their parts. Look at the astronomical odds that any of this world could have come about by the randomness of the universe. We live in a 'shooting gallery' for comets and asteroids, the outer planets and the moon protect us quite well. Our world orbits in a narrow frame of distance and angle that would not take much change before life would be impossible. It goes on and on and you deny and deny. You seem to be desperate that your new found belief system be validated....
Rex -
Midget-Sasquatch
I agree with Abaddon that the journal you cited hooberus had some thought provoking points.
But overall I didn't find it a persuasive argument for intelligent design. Here's a few of my thoughts on some of the "evidence" they gave against an evolutionary explanation for those new enzymes:
1) It says that transposable elements enhance adaptation of the bacterium, and they seemingly are "designed" to do so. I'm pretty sure that where these transposable elements insert themselves is random (bringing along with themselves copies of other genetic info). So they do aid mutations, but just how "intelligently" is another matter. Also how does a mechanism that promotes adaptation argue against evolution?
2) That all the new enzymes are only on the plasmid and not on the bacterial chromosome isn't that strong an argument for deliberate design. The homology between the genes strongly point to their have arisen as du plications. Duplications usually arise when the strand of DNA is being copied/replicated. So if one came to be on the plasmid, you'd expected the duplicates to stay on the plasmids and not to appear on another DNA strand (i.e. the chromosome) that is copied separately.
3)
Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).
Yes, it would be very unlikely from a frame shift mutation. But it doesn't totally nullify other random processes. To wit: the enzyme of EII' is a very close homologue of EII but is much less effective. Changing just 2 amino acids will bring its enzymatic activity right up to the levels of EII. That can be done with 2 point mutations.
4) B acteria which previoulsy didn't metabolize the nylon oligomers was put through artificial selection in the lab and in a matter of days there were colonies that could. It was supposedly too short a time for random evolutionary processes to account for it. Again, how does that argue against evolution? Also k eep in mind that when bacteria are put into starvation mode, mutation rates are found to increase. Whatever the mechanism behind that, the mutations themselves are random. ie. Couple that with the very short generation times of the bacteria and those days could easily encompass many generations for a sped up evolution to work on.
-
Shining One
Hi Tetly,
>well? what have you to say to that? i'm still waiting...
We tear apart your new belief system because it is as full of holes as you claim scripture is...
Rex -
DanTheMan
All you have to do is look at the microscopic machines that will not work without all of their parts.
I assume that the microscopic machines you are referring to are biological ones? If so, the fact is that these microscopic biological machines have only been observed being created by other microscopic biological machines.
Look at the astronomical odds that any of this world could have come about by the randomness of the universe
That's like saying that there's no possible way that I could shuffle a deck of cards and draw a royal straight flush because the odds against it are so high. The odds against something happening doesn't preclude it from happening. Didn't you know that?
-
Jeffro
We live in a 'shooting gallery' for comets and asteroids, the outer planets and the moon protect us quite well.
This is akin to saying "the planets and moon are there to protect us" but this 'cause and effect' reasoning can be completely turned around to suggest that we are here because the planets and moon protect us".