I am just curious as to what thinkatheist has to offer on the possibilities of intelligent design vs abiogenesis.
Remember that ID is NOT religion and doesn't even imply the existence of a deity. It is simply the idea that even the most basic theoretical form of sustained life is so complex, it couldn't possibly have started by itself without any intelligent intervention.
Thank you for your replies :)
with all due respect, you should understand evolution before you take to criticizing it. you come off sounding uninformed, as if you care less about whether evolution is true and more about defending your preconceived faith that it is not.
no one with an understanding of evolution would claim that evolution can be analogized the way you have. evolution by natural selection has two main features. the random mutations and recombination errors that provide the process with variation, and the selection of beneficial traits by the environment that the organism finds itself in. once this is understood, we can see that natural selection is not a chance process. the environment SELECTS which traits afford the organism the best possible chance of survival and reproduction, allowing it to pass its genes on to the next generation, these genes being the ones that gave it the survival advantage in the first place.
Here is a slightly more direct line of though using your analogy. If you were to take 6 marbles and toss them in to a room and let nature take its course, the marbles will come to rest as they lose their kinetic energy and settle in to their steady state. If you do this repeatedly over and over and over through about 2 billion years, you will from time-to-time develop all sorts of cool configurations on the floor; eg perfect circles, straight lines, hexagons, etc. All of nature functions in a state where it tries to achieve the most energy effiecency. Atoms combine it to molecules because it is the most energy efficient state for them to be in. Lighter compounds combine to make heavier compounds because it allows them to form more and more stable structures and to share electrons. Some of them form amino acids as a natural process. Some of these amino acids, like your marbles, spend 100s 1000s or even millions of years bouncing in to each other, trying to find that perfect "fit" that will be the most mutally beneficial for energy conservation. Some of these configurations are larger amino acids, some of them are chains, some of them are proteins. This process continues in the very very small incrimented steps you learned in high school biology, (i hope). As different configurations of proteins continued to combine, some of them found that they were naturally suited for environmental adaptation. The largest majority of the possible combinations just didn't join well, weren't suited for the environment, or, for a myrid of other reasons, just didnt make it. But a miniscule few over an amazingly long period of time managed to take hold.
excellent response. Nature likes to balance low odds with extremely large numbers.
Would you expect to impregnate your wife with a single sperm? No, that's why you deposit about a million at a time.
You are right, it's a silly example. I see what you think you mean, but it's still not very good.
Say you walk onto a primeval planet with oceans of various minerals, each with their own peculiar molecular structure. There are volcanic vents, lightning strikes, meteor strikes, energy of all kinds constantly pumped into this soup. Some of these minerals form up under these conditions to make amino acids. This has been reproduced in labs decades ago. Some of the amino acids begin to form chains, which is what amino acids do.
For millions of years, that's as far as it goes, until one of the chains develops that has the ability to make copies of itself out of all the loose bits floating around it. Is that so mysterious?
Do you conclude that someone intentionally arranged these molecules in this particular configuration? [edited by moderator. -Nelson]
somebody had to lay the flooring.
The flying spaghetti monster laid the flooring
The ONLY thing one needs to support abiogenesis is an appreciation for stupidly long periods of time. Once you grasp just how long 2.5 billion years really is and do some simple math on the frequency of biodiversity and gene mutation, it is perfectly reasonable without any sort of creator at all.
Just because ID doesn’t identify the designer, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t imply a deity. The fact that you even have a designer to begin with does.
Jerod, you are splitting hairs when you say ID is NOT religion. It’s heavily based in religious argument and folklore, mixed with pseudo-science.
While on paper, ID may not specify the designer, in practice it does: Yahweh. Out of all of the possible design theories, how many are being are really being forced in public debate? One. The Christian theory of design. To point to the clever wording and intentional vagueness of the ID description as evidence to the contrary is just a bold attempt to deceive. ID is a Christian scam and not a viable scientific alternative.
I don't know what answers you are fishing for, ID is not science. It has no explanatory value aside from Goddidit, makes no predictions, and cannot be falsified. All IDers can put forth to bolster their "theory" is lame stuff like "I can't understand how something so complicated can exist, therefore God (or possibly aliens) must have done it." What is there to learn from that? It's a dead end.
Also, I'm not a big fan of the complexity argument because complexity is messy. Why should we need a dozen or so different organelles in each cell? Why does the Krebs cycle have to go through so many stages? What is up with the recurrent laryngeal nerve? Biology is so messy, wasteful, inelegant and inefficient. It's almost as if the current batch of critters *gasp* wasn't designed at all (let alone intelligently), but rather came together gradually, over time, from earlier forms.