Darwin's Influence

[Luigi]

No, what we see in the fossil record is lots and lots of dead things. There is no real evidence that the fossil record shows an increase in complexity. Evolutionary scientists want to believe this but it is untrue. In order to really conclude this simple to complexity, they would have to extract DNA samples from all of the fossils to really see how the language became complex. As far as I know, they do not try to extract DNA from anything older than a few hundred thousand years old. Scientists have proven with skull sizes, that small skulls can come from life-forms that are just as complex as life-forms with bigger skulls.

Perhaps complexity is not the best word. What we observe is older parts of the fossil record having fewer similarities to the types of species in current existence and that as we get closer in time to the present within the fossil record the number of species that are similar to species now living increase and they carry more and more of the attributes of those species now living. The fact remains that the process for replicating and perpetuating life has no observable need for intelligent intervention.

So, I must conclude that just because something may appear to be more complex (bigger skull) this is not scientific evidence that life went from the simple to complex.

True. That just makes it more similar to the current species if we are talking about humans.

Mathematical odds are placed in all measures of science as a tool- a way to analyze data. Odds are placed upon DNA forensics all the time. Personally I believe the odds of nature writing a complex coded language from nothing is like 1/nothing. There are some things you just can't place odds upon because there is no evidence to back up the probability of it actually happening.

If something exists it's probability of occuring has already proved to be greater than nothing. If your statistics suggest that it is impossible then there is something you are clearly missing-and we can't assume that something is an invisible magic guy-that's called god of the gaps.

We have no evidence of the process of the language development (DNA) that evolution says. Lets say for instance that we were to come upon an abondoned wharehouse and that after we went inside we found a sole computer running and on the screen it was performing a program all on it's own. Would we think that it just did it on it's own, or would we conclude that it was only appearing to run on it's own and that actually it was just running a program that some intelligent person caused it to run at some point in the past?

I don't know how many ways I have to say this to you people. Computers, writing, buildings, art and every other distinctive human creation is attributed to human beings because we observe it being produced by human beings. There is no 'complexity equals intelligence' theory in science. All the comparisons to computers or writing to DNA does not change the fact that computers and writing are observed as a creation of human beings and DNA is not.

So in reality we are left with this paradoxial dilemma in a purely naturalistic point of view (from an evolutionists view) that shows the complexity of life being ran by this complex DNA coded program that doesn't really change much over time and when it does it is almost always negative to it's environment. So how could such a wide diversity of life- from ferns and moss, to elephants, starfish and humans come about from what science has concluded doesn't really change enough to cause such diversity?....Oh yea I forgot- it's called millions of years and chance! I forgot those two things are the major tennets of evolutionary principle- both of which cannot be scientifically validated.

What is beneficial versus detrimental is very situational. Sickle cell anemia may hurt your overall chances of survival-unless you live in an area with rampant malaria. But even if there is no evidence that observed mutations are sufficient to explain the speciation of living things there remains no evidence of an intelligent agent creating these mutations.

Does this mean you can't understand it unless it is peer reviewed by your peoples? I am sure glad that we do not hold such standards for the authenticity of our religion by the Smithsonian and like groups.

No. It means I want to invest my research time to delve into articles that are reputable. Every time I have made the time to study intelligent design from organizations promoting it (such as the Discovery Institute) I have found the same old fallacious arguments wrapped in technical jargon and unless I have evidence that there is something substantially different out there I'd rather stick to reputable sources on the subject of biology, genetics, etc or what is posted directly here on MAD where I can directly address the arguments being presented.

[littlechild]

Nature has never been observed to produce writing so I would assume it doesn't. Similarly life propogates and spreads without any apparent intervention of intelligent agents so I don't assume it's diversity is a result of such.

We observe increases in complexity across time in the fossil record with no evidence of intervention from an intelligent agent. We assume that life is reproduced the same way we observe it (ie without intelligent intervention) and extrapolate that these changes in species are occurring incremently over time by the same process we observe.

Somehow it seems unlikely one would have sufficient information to accurately project the correct probability.

What is the basis for such a premise if not observations of humans? We have no observation of any other intelligence besides humans and so your argument has to boil down to human beings create complexity therefore complexity is a result of human-like intelligence yet your argument falls apart because what we really do in science is attribute structures and items which we have observed in nature only being produced by humans as being produced by humans in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Scientists that I have heard speak are perfectly willing to acknowledge there are things they don't know-they just are adamant on where the current evidence stands.

I think it is clear that DNA production (or replication if you will) is done without any apparent intervention of an intelligent agent and that writing is assumed to be human because we have no observation of it being produced by anything but humans.

I asked for peer-reviewed articles from REPUTABLE journals.

Your various statements that life propogates without intelligence seems a bit paradoxical. Life IS intelligent, or how do you see it? And it did have an origin. And one thing we know about physics is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics indicates that the direction of the universe is toward entropy. Everything tends toward decay and death, and greater simplicity. Nothing happens without intelligence. And everything has a cause. What caused humans to appear on the earth? Surely not the dust.

[Mordecai]

Nature has never been observed to produce writing so I would assume it doesn't.

So you must also assume that nature doesn't produce increases in complexity in DNA, since that has never been observed.

We observe increases in complexity across time in the fossil record with no evidence of intervention from an intelligent agent.

To say we have no evidence is not the case. We know those were DNA based life forms, correct? DNA is evidence against Darwinism and for ID. Furthermore, intelligent design would have less gradualism. So between the two, ID is winning.

We assume that life is reproduced the same way we observe it (ie without intelligent intervention) and extrapolate that these changes in species are occurring incremently over time by the same process we observe.

The only process ever observed is deletion or insertion. If that's all Darwinism does, we can't extrapolate from that any increase in complexity. The formation of a new body plan has also never been observed nor anything that extrapolates into that. Statistics do not support Darwinism doing any such things.

Somehow it seems unlikely one would have sufficient information to accurately project the correct probability.

Current scientific knowledge is all we have obviously. It doesn't support your side.

What is the basis for such a premise if not observations of humans? We have no observation of any other intelligence besides humans and so your argument has to boil down to human beings create complexity therefore complexity is a result of human-like intelligence yet your argument falls apart because what we really do in science is attribute structures and items which we have observed in nature only being produced by humans as being produced by humans in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Nonsense. My argument doesn't fall apart at all. It makes perfect sense. Also, "we" do no such thing. "We" look at evidence and extrapolate logically from there. So what is your issue with observation and logic? I'm pretty sure that's a good way to arrive at good conclusions, however tentative.

Scientists that I have heard speak are perfectly willing to acknowledge there are things they don't know-they just are adamant on where the current evidence stands.

Care to present their arguments and evidence? I've read arguments from Darwinists against ID. I think ID wins every time as far as whether it's science or not. I think they fail also in claiming that Darwinists don't have a huge explanatory deficit. Berlinski kills them on that front. Present their arguments, and I'll respond. You can also watch Peter Ward debate Stephen Meyer to get an idea how ID stacks up against Darwinist scientists.

I think it is clear that DNA production (or replication if you will) is done without any apparent intervention of an intelligent agent and that writing is assumed to be human because we have no observation of it being produced by anything but humans.

So what if replication can be done? That's not the issue. The issue is, what is the origin of species. If all you have is replication, you can't show Darwinism having any chance of increasing complexity. That doesn't explain the origin of species, even a little bit. It only explains that creatures reproduce. That's nothing new.

I asked for peer-reviewed articles from REPUTABLE journals.

LOL O.K. The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. isn't reputable?

[Rob Osborn]

I often wonder just how "natural selection" has played out over the years. Science when viewing the past can only make assumptions on if life really evolved over major taxonomy lines. In truth though, we find fossils of animals said to be hundreds of millions of years old and a lot of them look exactly like their predescesors today-

http://www.living-fossils.com/index.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil

Here are some quotes I found regarding these living fossils-

P. Arduini and G. Teruzzi cite Neopilina as an example, PREHISTORIC ATLAS, 1982.

[Rob Osborn]

Here is some good quotes regarding the evolution debate and how the geologic column is dated.-

R. H. Rastal, Cambridge, "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the organisms that they contain." Encyclopedia Britannia, Vol.X, p.168.

Tom Kemp, Oxford, "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" New Scientist, Vol.108, 12/5/1985, p. 67.

J. E. O'rourke, "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.51.

D. B. Kitts, U. of OK., "But the danger of circularity is still present. ...The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation...for almost almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis." Evolution V.28, p.466.

David M. Raup, U. of Chicago;"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity. ...Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found." Field Museum Of Natural History Bulletin, Vol.54, Mar.1983, p.21.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

I have no idea of what you are trying to say here.

There are a dozen different ways of measuring the age of the rocks, and few have anything to do with the organisms in them.

[LeSellers]

Strongly agree, sir.

When they think about it, most people end up agreeing.

There are few more important decisions about raising a child than determining who will teach him, what he will be taught, when he should learn it, and under what conditions. When parents turn over (willingly or no) those decisions to self-serving politicians and bureaucrats, parents have lost most of their "parenthoodness".

Since it is Satan's goal to destroy Father's Plan, and Family is at the core of that Plan, I see all attempts at dictating what children learn apart from their parents' express desires as satanic, irrespective of whether the "provider" sees himself as being altruistic or self-serving.

The claims made by advocates of government-run, tax-funded (grtf, aka welfare) schools are all lies or gross overstatements. But we (speaking as a member of the society, not as myself) buy into it. Just one example: that teaching a child to red is difficult. It is not at all. In the 1800s, most schools required a child be able to read before they'd admit him, reading being too trivial a subject for a teacher to waste his time on. But nowadays, reading is an esoteric, exotic skill that even the best grtf-welfare schools fail to transmit effectively in up to 50% of cases. (But applying a condom to a cucumber is of such import that every child must learn it to be successful.)

I was reading some of the text of an old supreme court decision. It was saying, "Whom you choose to marry is as much a right as choosing which school your children should go to." I am increasingly angered by our totalitarian school system.

Which gets us back to the OP: If a parent wants his child to learn that Darwin was the greatest "prophet" of all time, or that he was mislead or misrepresented, or a charlatan is a concern of neither mine nor yours. As I have no power to force you to submit your child to such teachings, there is equally no legitimate power I can pass along to my "representatives" whereby they may coerce you into that same position.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Keep teaching your child the earth is flat. That way I can still get cheap Blueberries.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/young-children-working-blueberry-fields-walmart-severs-ties/story?id=8951044

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

I have no idea of what you are trying to say here.

There are a dozen different ways of measuring the age of the rocks, and few have anything to do with the organisms in them.

Hey, I'm just quoting those who know that is all.

[Mordecai]

Lehi:

Keep teaching your child the earth is flat. That way I can still get cheap Blueberries.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/young-children-working-blueberry-fields-walmart-severs-ties/story?id=8951044

This is not an argument. I can only assume that you have none, other than cheap shots and knee-jerk reactions.

[Luigi]

LOL O.K. The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. isn't reputable?

I was unaware that was one of your sources since I thought they were all the Discovery Institute and Evolution News. I will have to review them.

I see no justification for using the observation of humans creating writing, computers or writing as an extrapolation to assuming a magical sky daddy, err, intelligent designer, that works beyond our current scientific understanding to manipulate and create DNA. I have no problem with you attacking evolution and finding deficiencies in it and see no reason why such attacks should be excluded from scientific journals or even classroom discussion once such problems are demonstrated scientifically. I do agree with the objection of attributing the unknown, poorly understood or what you would call complex to a non-descript being, particularly when there is no evidence of the type of being you suggest existing at all let alone at the time necessary to accomplish the task of creating life. Even if Darwinism is insufficient to explain life until we have evidence of an intelligence alleged statistical probabilities that suggest life was impossible only means life is not understood sufficiently because the mere fact that we are here reveals the obvious that it possible and we aren't accounting for everything in our statistical probabilities and to attribute that unknown factor that we aren't accounting for to an anthromorphical being is employing god-of-the-gaps reasoning. To me it doesn't have any scientific validity and just seems a ploy to give theists a continuing sense of legitimacy in employing 'god-of-the-gaps' logic. But hey if you can ever offer compelling evidence that there actually was some guy wandering around billions of years ago planting DNA on the planet and stopping by occasionally to mutate the DNA to create new animals you will convert me to deism.

[Luigi]

Your various statements that life propogates without intelligence seems a bit paradoxical. Life IS intelligent, or how do you see it?

Bacteria and viruses are not intelligent. Or do you think that bacteria and viruses go around plotting how to destroy humanity and engage in family planning? Even mult-cellular organisms do not employ their intelligence to replicate their cells or to create their reproductive cells. DNA reproduction in your body does not require you thinking about it.

And it did have an origin. And one thing we know about physics is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics indicates that the direction of the universe is toward entropy. Everything tends toward decay and death, and greater simplicity. Nothing happens without intelligence. And everything has a cause. What caused humans to appear on the earth? Surely not the dust.

Life does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it is not in a closed system. As long as the overall system (ie the universe) gains entropy the 2nd law is not violated. Even if it did violate the 2nd law all it would mean is that the 2nd law is not a law.

[Rob Osborn]

I was unaware that was one of your sources since I thought they were all the Discovery Institute and Evolution News. I will have to review them.

I see no justification for using the observation of humans creating writing, computers or writing as an extrapolation to assuming a magical sky daddy, err, intelligent designer, that works beyond our current scientific understanding to manipulate and create DNA. I have no problem with you attacking evolution and finding deficiencies in it and see no reason why such attacks should be excluded from scientific journals or even classroom discussion once such problems are demonstrated scientifically. I do agree with the objection of attributing the unknown, poorly understood or what you would call complex to a non-descript being, particularly when there is no evidence of the type of being you suggest existing at all let alone at the time necessary to accomplish the task of creating life. Even if Darwinism is insufficient to explain life until we have evidence of an intelligence alleged statistical probabilities that suggest life was impossible only means life is not understood sufficiently because the mere fact that we are here reveals the obvious that it possible and we aren't accounting for everything in our statistical probabilities and to attribute that unknown factor that we aren't accounting for to an anthromorphical being is employing god-of-the-gaps reasoning. To me it doesn't have any scientific validity and just seems a ploy to give theists a continuing sense of legitimacy in employing 'god-of-the-gaps' logic. But hey if you can ever offer compelling evidence that there actually was some guy wandering around billions of years ago planting DNA on the planet and stopping by occasionally to mutate the DNA to create new animals you will convert me to deism.

Are you an atheist or a theist?

[Luigi]

Are you an atheist or a theist?

Atheist.

[Luigi]

This is not an argument. I can only assume that you have none, other than cheap shots and knee-jerk reactions. I realize that to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, you have to believe in Darwinist dogma. Because of that, I will just assume that your juvenile, irrational comments are just a defense mechanism. I won't hold it against you.

Actually the convincing nature of the theory of evolution is evidenced in small part by the fact that it has attracted so many theist advocates, from Kenneth Miller to thesometimesaint.

[thesometimesaint]

Luigi:

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is alive and well. But as you said that only pertains to a closed system. Life on this planet is not a closed system. We are constantly receiving more light and truth from the sun and The Son.

[Mordecai]

I see no justification for using the observation of humans creating writing, computers or writing as an extrapolation to assuming a magical sky daddy, err, intelligent designer, that works beyond our current scientific understanding to manipulate and create DNA.

It's not assumption, and you're oversimplifying. It's inference... except for the "sky daddy" part, which obviously isn't part of ID.

there is no evidence of the type of being you suggest existing at all let alone at the time necessary to accomplish the task of creating life.

As I said, if we found writing that dated back 3.5 billion years, we would say it was the work of a time traveler or an alien, wouldn't we? What else could we say? DNA is a code, and we all know it's a code. The only known phenomenon that can produce codes stems from the ability to predict patterns, i.e. intelligence.

to attribute that unknown factor that we aren't accounting for to an anthromorphical being is employing god-of-the-gaps reasoning

No. ID differs from creationism and creation science in that it uses objectively measurable positive evidence. One can, fairly objectively, identify true complexity and patterns, the combination of which suggests intelligence at work. Also, who says ID suggests anthropomorphism to the designer or designers?

[Mordecai]

Actually the convincing nature of the theory of evolution is evidenced in small part by the fact that it has attracted so many theist advocates, from Kenneth Miller to thesometimesaint.

Similarly, C.S. Lewis was converted to Christianity and Antony Flew was converted to deism (in part by ID).

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

As evolution is accepted by theists and atheists alike yours is not a convincing argument for ID.

[LeSellers]

Keep teaching your child the earth is flat. That way I can still get cheap Blueberries.

A: I don't teach my children the earth is flat. This is, once again, an elitist form of calling me a NAZI. How do you get away with it?

B: My position has nothing to do with strawberries, blueberries, or an angel's kiss in spring. It has to do with statists' controlling the minds of children an din their opposing the parents' wishes, values, and mores. (I have this directly from the words of Horace Mann, John Dewey, and many others who forced grtf, welfare schools down the throats of our forebears. The quotes are myriad, although not always easily accessible.)

Politicians and bureaucrats make lousy teachers, but they can force parents to accept what they would otherwise oppose. That's why Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. M^cKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Spencer Wooley Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and Boyd K. Packer (not to mention dozens of other General Authorities past and present) have all warned us explicitly not to trust government-run, tax-funded (grtf, aka welfare) schools.

No one (no one here, certainly) has ever shown us that this counsel has been reversed. The Family: A Proclamation to the World reiterates that mothers and fathers are primarily responsible for raising their children, and "raising their children" most emphatically includes responsibility for their education.

So, one more time, if a parent wishes his children to learn that this earth is the result of merest chance, that life here originated by sheer accident when lightning struck a mud puddle, that's his right. If, on the other hand, another parent wants his child to learn that God had indigestion and burped the earth with life into existence, his right is no less valid. To force the one child to hear that God is the Origin of life and the universe is tyranny no less than to force the other to parrot that random chance is the only god in our world. And this tyranny is the worst sort because a child's mind is far more malleable than his body.

Again, I demand that you stop calling me a racist. I am not. If you have no other argument in favor of turning over control of your children's minds to officers of the state than to call me a racist, then I suggest that your position has no substance.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

You just keep believing that. I'll keep enjoying those cheap blueberries.

[Rob Osborn]

Mordecai:

As evolution is accepted by theists and atheists alike yours is not a convincing argument for ID.

Help me out here because I still do not get how theistic evolution works. It seems most theistic evolutionists stand by Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis for how life originated. But that premise doesn't allow for a Creator. So how exactly, or more importantly, "where exactly", is the creator involved in the origins of life? How do theistic evolutionists differ from ID'ers?

[Mordecai]

Mordecai:

As evolution is accepted by theists and atheists alike yours is not a convincing argument for ID.

Well, I think Meyer and Behe are convincing. I'm 100% convinced that it's science. I'm also quite convinced that people who compare Darwinism to the law of gravity or the earth being round are engaged in group-think or they're just not that smart or logical. Do you even have arguments that would illustrate why you think that Darwin's explanation for the origin of species is comparable to the earth being round, as far as its persuasive power? I might also point out that atheists typically become deists, when they look at ID... probably because aliens sound kinda silly.

[LeSellers]

You just keep believing that. I'll keep enjoying those cheap blueberries.

I am not a racist. Stop calling me one.

My opposition to governmental control over the minds of children identifies me as the non-racist here. Statists' (those who advocate the state control education, inter alia) are the true racists if we judge by their actions and laws. After all, where are the schools the worst? In those areas where "liberals" and other communists are in control. And whose children are the most injured victims of these grtf-welfare schools? The poor, most notably poor minorities. And who stands in the way of educational freedom? Statists.

It is not us libertarians who advocate freedom in all things

[Nemesis]

Lehi:

Keep teaching your child the earth is flat. That way I can still get cheap Blueberries.

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=8951044

Knock off the cheap shots. This time its a short suspension next time it'll be much longer.

Nemesis