Round Two: God vs. Darwin

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Lolic

Ah, but the moral freedom it gives the person who can convince himself that it is true! Have we come across a motive?

In general, I find the ID-ers have a tendency to claim that evolutionists vehemently oppose any attempt at disgracing the theory of evolution. Yet I find that most of the ridicule comes from ID-ers themselves.

I particularly like the argument (which can be found for example at your Icons of Evolution site) that evolutionists have never been to the field and seen for themselves. They just preach "learned facts".

How do they know? Most biologists I know spend half their life in the field.

[maddog]

I thought in the field of Paleontology and Antrhopology that these scientists spend a large part of their
time in the field looking for bones and other evidence. Not sure what branch Evolutionists are in...

Maddog

[Fishteacher73]

Originally Posted by Lolic

Question for evolutionists, I have a heart and lungs and a circulatory system. How did these evolve?
- I currently need them to live,
- I couldn't live with half developed organs,
- half developed organs have no functional advantage,
- why and how do you think they evolved?

(Edit: quote shortened by Tormod)

Mutations for evolutionary purposes occur in the gametes or durring embryonic development.

We as humans have either half developed organs or declining organs (The appendix).

There are various cirulatory systems throughout the animal kingdom, and you can see the steps taken from an open cirulatory system to the closed system we have today. From O2/CO2 transfer mechanisms (Book lungs in inescts, gills, lungs, skin transfer, etc) to the various stages of complexity of "blood" (There are variations on blood types (A,B, AB, O, and iron based and copper based blood systems).

How many mutations would it take? To be blunt, as many as it takes... Many people do not seem to think that life is a long term process. In the grand scheme the individual is meaningless. Humans are in the process of change. Think of PE as a scum in rugby. Lots of avtion and slight shifts, but not really any major change. Suddenly the ball shoots out and all of a sudden all hell breaks loose as there is the sudden rush to a new position. But this is on a geologic time scale and not just 90 min.

Again a single cell in an adult going bad is pointless. The average adult has about 10 trillion of them. And we slough them by the million daily. This is why mutations really only count in the embryos or gametes. That one cell will grow into litterally millions.

If evolution doesn't make sense....what do you call ID? Lets just forget about combustion and all hail Prometheus for giving man fire...

How does removing a boogy man in the sky resolve one of personal responsibility? If nothing else it brings out virtue by relying on personal accountability for ones actions as opposed to fear of retribution.

[Tormod]

Admin note: Please try to limit quotes. It is not necessary to quote entire posts.

[Lolic]

Originally Posted by Tormod

In general, I find the ID-ers have a tendency to claim that evolutionists vehemently oppose any attempt at disgracing the theory of evolution. Yet I find that most of the ridicule comes from ID-ers themselves.

I particularly like the argument (which can be found for example at your Icons of Evolution site) that evolutionists have never been to the field and seen for themselves. They just preach "learned facts".

How do they know? Most biologists I know spend half their life in the field.

The "ridicule" would come from ID-ers because they don't believe the evolutionary theory and have evidence for ID. Should we expect the evolutionists to ridicule their own theory?
I would be happy to see open minded scientific inquiry.

The leaders of the evolutionary movement do seem very reluctant to let a ID foot in the door.
- For instance, Dawkins won't debate Demski, but he will critizise his work in writing.
- A scientific society votes against ID without looking at the facts. Please see info below.

Michael Behe had a Phd in biology before he saw the evidence for ID and against evolution.
You can view this on the "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" DVD or Video. If people care about his area, I highly recommend checking this out. Great info, great computer generated imagry of the workings of the cell. A very good presentation of ID by Phd quality people...also a polite, mild look at why evolution won't account for the diversity and complexity we see in life. It's probably available lots of places if you Google the title.

Dr. Mark Eastmon says in his tapes / MP3's (mostly jokingly ) how when he listened to Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith's information on origins and evolution he felt like he wasted 4 years in college. (invalidated what he had been taught)

Here is some interesting non-copyrighted info from the Discovery Institute in Seattle:

What about the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and its resolution against intelligent design?

In 2002 the board of the AAAS issued a resolution attacking intelligent design theory as unscientific. Unfortunately, the process by which this resolution was adopted was itself anything but scientific. In fact, the resolution was more a product of prejudice than impartial investigation. After the resolution was issued, members of the AAAS Board were surveyed about what books and articles by scientists favoring intelligent design they had actually read before adopting their resolution. Alan Leshner, the Chief Executive Officer of the AAAS, declined to specify any and replied instead that the issue had been analyzed by his group's policy staff. Two other AAAS board members similarly declined to identify anything they had read by design proponents, while yet another board member volunteered that she had perused unspecified sources on the Internet. In other words, AAAS board members apparently voted to brand intelligent design as unscientific without studying for themselves the academic books and articles by scientists proposing the theory. It should be noted that a number of the scientists supportive of intelligent design theory are members of the AAAS, so the AAAS board clearly does not speak for all members of that organization.

Is that good science?

I value your thoughts, please tell me what this information means to you.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Lolic

I value your thoughts, please tell me what this information means to you.

It means nothing to me, Lolic. I happen to have the same view of evolution as of all other areas of science: is evolution testable? Yes. Is it verifiable? Yes. Is it the only way to understand nature? No. (Nothing is). Do we understand the entire process? No. (We most likely never will).

The ID movement is indeed a movement. There is, however, no such thing as an "evolutionist" movement. I can see that from an ID perspective it seems as if the scientific commnunity is ganging up against ID views. This is a myth, however, although ID-ers will of course want it to appear otherwise. Everything that can be taken as proof that someone is opposed to ID will be turned against the sender, like in the AAAS case. Some ID-ers are particularly good at making it sound like they are at the receiving end of some horrible persecution from "evolutionists".

Well, I am not even sure what the term "evolutionist" means in this debate. I just assume it means someone who thinks evolution is a natural process. So count me in on that. I do not subscribe to everything that every person who is positive about evolution ever wrote. I have read Darwin. I do not look at evolution as "Darwinism", any more than ID-ers think of their own ideas as "Godism" (although the latter seems to be a more touchy point - the Discovery Institute certainly lists a lot of creationists in their links and books lists). I have also read several other books about how natural history is interpreted - they all are theories and none claim to be the absolute truth.

My point is not to say that ID is not a valid point of view. However, a lot of ID-ers ask questions about evolution which makes it quite apparent that THEY are the ones who have learned their facts from someone else. Looking at the Discovery Institue and the Icons of Evolution sites, for example, you find the EXACT same lists of "proofs" that "evolutionists" supposedly throw around (pepper moths, lung development, eyes etc). Lists of arguments will probably be common from both sides of the argument - much like many other discussions where there are factions.

It doesn't change the simple fact that we can observe evolution happen around us, and that we don't need to go back billions of years to document it - speciation happens while we sit here and type. Some will say that the HIV virus is not a good example because it is too small. Fine. But humans are not. Yet they react to the HIV virus just as evolutionary theory predicts: some will fall prey to it, some will die, some will not. Those who do not die from it can pass on the bits and pieces of our genes that makes us adapted. However, those bits and pieces may mean that the next generation(s) happen to be more receptive to some other threat - which will lead to further selection. What was the "strongest" or "fittest" a few generations ago will not be the same today. That is evolution in a nutshell - a constant struggle for survival at all levels.

Entire organs are not constructed in single generations. No one who has studied biology or zoology at any level has any reason to think so. It takes an extremely long time, depending on which organ and what creature.

I am not going to join in on another debate on ID and evolution. We've had them before and I am fed up of them, because they always end up as flame wars where both sides play ping-pong forever, unwilling to give or take.

This is, however, a science forum. So for any ID discussion to take place here, the science aspects of it must be presented. It is *not* enough to question evolution. Evidence to the contrary must be presented and evaluated.

[IrishEyes]

I am not going to join in on another debate on ID and evolution. We've had them before and I am fed up of them, because they always end up as flame wars where both sides play ping-pong forever, unwilling to give or take.

This is, however, a science forum. So for any ID discussion to take place here, the science aspects of it must be presented. It is *not* enough to question evolution. Evidence to the contrary must be presented and evaluated.

I agree, and I disagree. We have gone through these discussions many, many times. And they do seem to end in flames. And I am also weary of getting involved.

It *is* a science forum. And as such, I enjoy seeing ANY scientific theory questioned. I agree that if an alternate is suggested, some form of 'proof' (for lack of a better word) should be presented. However, I also think that sometimes the best discussions arise from the questions. Often the best part of learning the answer is the journey you take to arrive there. In that spirit, I hope that lack of evidence to the contrary of any accepted idea will not prevent people from continuing their search.

Here's to the journey, my friends...

[Lolic]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

Here's to the journey, my friends...

yes, "to the journey". Resolving conflict in science isn't necessarily easy. As in all areas, people have personal opinions, vested interests, and more that makes it hard. But without a free discussion of the information, the truth is stiffled.

I was once far more on the evolutionary side, but evidence and logical arguements changed my mind. It's been a long trip, but I don't care about any one position per say, I care about the truth.

Here's to science...For signs of ID, one can study the bacterial flagellum. There are 40 parts to this molecular machine, only 10 of which are similar to other existing structures. This leaves 30 pieces comprised of proteins that need to be coded for in the DNA, produced, transported in the proper sequence, and assembled in the proper order. Without one of the 40 parts, the apparatus is without value. Macro evolutionary theory cannot account for this, but this fits the definition of Intelligent Design.

Is this not scientific enough for this site?
This takes a theory (macro evolution),
test it (can macro evolution account for this item),
finds it cannot account for the flagellum,
and finds the flagelum does provide evidence for another theory (ID).

If this isn't worthy of discussion in the scientific community, what is?

If the above information does not make sence, than a little study into "irreducable complexity" and "specified complexity" will probably help a great deal.

[Lolic]

Our DNA/RNA coding system arranges amino acids into specific sequences to form each required protein. Only a specific sequence of amino acids will produce the required result.

Hemoglobin is responsible for both the red color of our blood and for the oxygen chemistry based on our breathing. There is one specific sequence of the amino acids that is hemoglobin. Hemoglobinopathy occurs if even one amino acid is replaced; it is usually lethal. (Sickle cell anemia is one example.)

Considering alternate linear arrangements of these amino acids indicates that there are about 10 to the 650th power permutations possible, but only one of them is hemoglobin.
(The actual number is 7.4 x 10 to the 654th. Some of the amino acid positions may be "neutral," like spaces, which are less significant. in which case the specificity would reduce to 7.9 x 10 to the 503rd.)

A reasonable finite approximation for infinity. The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd. (In speculating about obtaining this precise sequence by 10 to the 500th+ random trials, remember that there have been only about 10 to the 17th seconds in the generally accepted age of the universe.)

Hemoglobin has very good evidence of being skillfully designed.

"Absurd" has a mathematical definition in physics: any probability less than 1 in 10 to the 50th is, by definition, absurd.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Lolic

Macro evolutionary theory cannot account for this, but this fits the definition of Intelligent Design.

Is this not scientific enough for this site?
This takes a theory (macro evolution),
test it (can macro evolution account for this item),
finds it cannot account for the flagellum,
and finds the flagelum does provide evidence for another theory (ID).

If this isn't worthy of discussion in the scientific community, what is?

A Great Hazaah! to Tormod for an excellent post and very closely fits my feelings in the matter.

To Lolic,

How does the growth of this Flagelum and its 40 components demonstrates that "Macro Evolution"
(whatever that is) is inadequate to explain it. Break it down for me, I think I missed something.
No, as stated you do have as of the last post enough for me to see this as credible. So no, it does not
test it, etc.... More details...

In Paleontontology, a series of finds of a birdlike dinosaur (like Archeaterix) was recently found in China
in the Ghobi Desert. I think there was a Discovery show on this. One of these finds had strong evidnece
for feathers. This point now shows this line of Dinosaurs may be the link to birds after all. Isn't this
evolving on some scale ? A need presents itself, some biological niche of organism is selected to fill it.
How is that not understood. This escapes me.

Maddog