Intelligent Design (ID) is a concept proposed by some who are unable to accept evolution. They assume that (1) life, with its nearly infinite variety, is far too complicated to be the result of a series of chance events; (2) that only an intelligent being could have created life and (3) that, since evolution does not answer every question about the genesis and progression of life, a totally different scenario should be considered. Although they imagine that the time between the origin of the universe and the present is only several thousand years, so far they have not proposed that we dump the other findings of physics and cosmology just because these disciplines have not answered every question about the universe. 

In fact, life is even more complex than it appears to be. In addition to the innumerable obvious differences among life forms, there is a seeming infinity of tiny but crucial characteristics, so obscure that many of them have only recently been discovered. [For example: the epigenome, thousands of chemical tags distributed along the DNA strands that react to signals external to the cell and turn individual genes on or off.] However, there is a gradual but simple process that would automatically result in a system having all of life’s variety and complexity. That process is 3,500,000,000 years of accumulating adaptations (i.e. those “chance events” which were not harmful) to varied and changing environments, along ever more numerous diverging lines, each adaptation a potential origin for another line (species) or, for simpler organisms in the distant past, a potential origin of a more inclusive group, such as genius, family, etc.

A system composed of interacting parts, each of which is essential for the system’s functioning, is said to be irreducibly complex. Without any of these essential parts, the system is useless. ID advocates claim that, since most organisms contain many such systems, these organisms/systems cannot have come into being [evolved] piecemeal. However, the fact that such systems cannot function without all of their necessary parts is no reason to believe that those parts did not develop concurrently from simpler parts of simpler systems. This happens in animals and plants as they mature from fertilized eggs or seeds into mature individuals; it also happens as species develop. Supporting evidence (ignored by ID advocates) is obvious and plentiful. 

ID (actually ersatz Creationism) is nothing but willful ignorance and defective reasoning in support of childish fantasy. It is based on those three (above) assumptions and on the tsunami of delusional evidence and junk science (such as irreducible complexity) produced to back it up.

All of the observed evidence supports evolution. Evolution is not only a principle of biology, it is absolutely the fundamental purpose of life, which is to survive by adapting to different and inconstant environments, i.e. by evolving.

ID proponents point to the “order of the universe” as evidence for a creator. Order? Black holes; exploding stars; dead and dying stars; cosmic rays; colliding meteors, comets, planets and galaxies; dark matter; dark energy; the paradoxes of quantum mechanics! Most of gravity‘s effects are orderly but, except for these, there is no more order in the universe than there is in a house fire. 

They also argue that the earth is so perfectly attuned to our needs that it must have been created with humans in mind. Perfectly attuned? Myriad horrible diseases (infectious as well as DNA errors like cancers, autoimmune and hereditary); plagues and pestilence; parasites and mosquitoes; lethal poverty; famines; “acts of God” such as hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods, earthquakes, landslides! For a large percentage of humanity life is "a cesspool of misery and suffering." 

Another of the obscure characteristics of life mentioned above is found in chromosomes, those incredibly long, slender molecules that carry the DNA instructions for replication of all living things. Excepting the simplest organisms, for most of their length (over 97% in primates) these molecules contain no instructions at all. Much of this non-coding DNA has packing or regulatory functions. Between genes there are large sections of repetitive sequences (small sequences of nucleotides repeated thousands of times) that may have no purpose and, within genes, there are smaller unused sections called introns that are probably obsolete code. 

More than 99 percent of the species that have inhabited Earth could not adapt, that is evolve, and are extinct. Furthermore, the paleontological record is replete with evidence that every existing species has been modified over time. Many of them contain, in their skeletons or their DNA, vestiges of structures that were needed by their ancestors but are useless in the current version. For example: the human appendix, the shark-like gill slits and the tail that appear in the early stages of the human embryo, legs and pelvic girdle in whales, fossil snakes with leg and hip bones have been found, pythons and boas also have vestigial thigh bones. A complete list would be very long.

        Is this design?         Where is the intelligence?

          Reality is that which, 

          when you don't believe it, 

          doesn't go away.

          -- Peter Viereck & Philip Dick

          When only one source is accepted

          and everything else ignored,

          the magnitude of the stupidity

           is proportional to the depth of study.

          -- GB

Tags: DNA, adaptations, chance, complexity, creationism, environments, epigenome, events, evolution, genome, More…irreducible, non-coding

Views: 754

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

It has been shown that even with 3.5 billion years of evolution the fine tuning necessary to create the harmonious biosphere let along the species it it would be intractable. you are relying on blind random mutation caused by cosmic rays an other mishaps to mindlessly add up over eons to humans, the gods of over the earth. It is intractable to random chance to formulate a simple 8x8 checker board patern on a computer let alone the infinite structures necessary for the structures of life.

No, it hasn't, and there's absolutely no arguing with that.  If it has been 'shown', it hasn't been shown in any reputable scientific manner, since science is not (cannot) be in the business of disproving propositions, only marshaling evidence and creating explanatory frameworks for it. 

What anyone who says that they can show or prove 3.5 billion years to be insufficient for evolution to have arrived at Homo Sapiens is really doing is committing the 'fallacy of incredulity', which is commonly, and more appropriately, referred to as 'a lack of imagination'.  It goes like this: "I, personally, cannot conceive of a way in which this particular thing could be true of the world, therefore it is not true."  Excepting strict logical and mathematical impossibilities (which are often too complex to appeal to the intuition one way or the other, anyways), there is never any reason to rule out an explanation just because our current understanding of the processes involved don't let us explain it perfectly yet.  Evolution by natural selection has incomparably greater explanatory power, regarding the origins of modern life, than any other idea yet proposed, and the fact that we don't understand it perfectly yet is no evidence against it.  Many people thought they had a 'nail in the coffin' with the idea of irreducible complexity, but that's been convincingly argued against, and evidence supporting this counterargument found. 

Unless you yourself are actively involved in investigating the idea that 3.5 billion years is an insufficient time frame, your skepticism is misplaced and harmful, since you presumably wish to promote an inferior (not to say stupider) explanation. 

 Also, besides your misunderstanding of basic scientific procedure, what authority can you site for the idea that 3.5 billion years is insufficient?  I'm sure we'd all be curious.

The intractability of a checker progessively moving about a checker board given random chances has been mentioned in several sources. One source would be "Create Evolution" In this book, it shows that randomness does not give rise to directionality as such the simplest of tasks become intractable. 

so whether we are mapping a checker board or having a checker move about a preexisting one is the same difference mathematically. Berger (1983) and Maynard and Smith (1988) also present this argument.

We are talking in the Hyperbole, the number of complex structures necessary to arrive at man might as well be. Of cause the brain is the  most complex of them all. As a engineer I have delved into the various theories of how it works in as solid state nonetheless. There are theories involving quantum mechanics acting the sheath of the axioms etc. i even posed nonlinear tiling theory combined with Hibert Space ( inspired by; See Quasi-crystals, Roger Penrose, The Emperors New Mind). Bottom Line, this technology is from a realm for above us. not happenstance and mutation. 

Roger Penrose is a pseudo-scientist?, you must be incredibly uninformed. 

Moreover, who mentioned Deepak Chopra. You argumental devise of creating a strawman that does not exist and proceeding to burned it is more akin to high school, please grow up. I suggust you first do some reading. At the very minimium you can wiki Roger Penrose. 

Many engineers in academia find mutation and natural selection the explanation for complex structures that we have no understanding of a naive sellout. You should also read Berger (1983) and Maynard and Smith (1988). Accidents  occuring on a DNA molecule can lead to complex nonlinear circuits that we cannot model mathematically?. Moreover, you ridicule the notion that quantum physics is involve further unscoring how incredibly shallow your awareness of recent scientfic investigation and theories is. I would further conjecture that you have no understanding of the systems of equations necessary to design a functional electronic device let alone a nonlinear circuit beyond our understanding.

Moreover, when the day comes that biologist show evidence of trans phylum evolution as a result of natural selection only then will I acknowledge that the theory is plausible. To date, nothing exists. 

I am going to direct you to a page on site where a biological academician possibly such as yourself, is up in arms that engineers dispute the tenants of evolution and you can read the engineering rebuttal:   Click here 

As a working engineer I resent any generalizations about engineers subscribing to the idiocy of ID.

"Nobody has ever soldered transistors and resistors together randomly and produced a color TV set."

Incorrect. If you randomly apply a mix of components enough times, you will get a combination that is a TV. Basic probability. Remember that TV set like so many technological advancements is based on "accidental discovery". Semiconductors were discovered. Hell, my bass amplifier is accidentally an AM radio, I get Cuban radio on it when the ionosphere is conductive.

You are poor debater, you cannot use,  a shallow knowledge base and insults to leverage your arguments, Also your audience is not so gullible as to take your quote out of context without clicking on the site.  Like a parrot your arkward attempts to mock are revealing a profound lack of underlying apparent intelligence though I hope for your sake that's not the case. I deliberately did not want qualify your unlearned question "what is transphylum evolution with a response." menial inferrence should give you that answer, LOL.

Oh the brutish shallow debator is now threatening me with bodily harm. Yes, I do think that you do descend from Neanderthals. Well before you beat me with your club or slobber all over me, OK uncle, I start giving you what you want but here is a preamble, I will give you the rest later:

Evolution is premised upon the basic propositions of mutation of organisms and environmental natural selection of those mutated organisms for enhanced survival and/or propagation.

Mutations can only be one of three possibilities in terms of natural selection: beneficial, detrimental, or benign.

There is a possibility that a benign mutation could become beneficial at a later time. However, it is an equal probability that it could become detrimental, as well. Consequently, a benign mutation must also ultimately be classed as either beneficial or detrimental.

The premise of natural selection must also be classed as a non-static, probabilistic mechanism, e.g., ice ages come and go, earthquakes disrupt local micro-environments, volcanoes erupt, etc. Consequently, there is a finite probability that a potentially beneficial mutation in one set of environmental natural selection conditions might occur when environmental natural selection pressures dictate that it is detrimental, or a best, benign. Since the geological record indicates the occurrence of environmental disruptions on frequent basis (in relative terms), the probabilities of a change in natural selection pressures must be rated as high. As a result the probability of a favorable mutation remaining favorable becomes even smaller.

The rate of mutation in organisms is "one mutation per locus per 10^5 to 10^6 gametes"(Campbell, 1990, p. 445). This rate must be multiplied by the probability that the mutation is beneficial (vice detrimental or benign) in terms of the natural selection environment at the time of its occurrence. This number, in turn, must be multiplied by the probability that the natural selection environment remains favorable for a long enough period of time for the “favorable” mutation to become established in a large enough population segment to ensure its adequate propagation to enough succeeding generations. Additionally, that probability must be multiplied by the probability that natural selection environment remained favorable even after a species-wide mutation is established.

Of course, the above probabilities are for a single favorable mutation to occur and become species-wide. One must now address the probability that a favorably mutated species undergoes a second favorable mutation and that the second mutation becomes species-wide and so forth until enough favorable mutations have accumulated to result in a completely new species.

Even, given the number of genes and number of alleles per gene in a typical organism, the number of zeroes after the decimal required for probabilities to combine to produce a new species is a number staggeringly small (astronomically small is not an adequate description). Even using the argument of “geological time,” i.e., millions of years for an event to occur, does not drive the probability to a point where more than a few (at best) new species could appear even under the most generous of assumptions.

In summary, evolution driven solely by mutation and natural selection appears to be an extremely implausible (mathematically speaking) explanation of the number different species observable. If mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain the probability of observing the current number of known species, then the theory of evolution must be judged as an inadequate explanation.

Do not think that that there is an established cohesive view for the orgin of Phyla, particulary during the Cambrian explosion.
You can't rest your world view on Darwin even though Darwin was thinking out of the box. However we are untettered to think outside of Darwins box.



In 1979, the Systematics Association published an important volume summarising the fossil evidence for the origins of various major invertebrate groups (House, 1979). It is notable for its juxtaposition of two papers, one Whittington's summary of the phanerozoic fossil record of arthropods (Whittington, 1979; Fig. 1 herein), and the other Jefferies' version of Hennig's views on fossils and systematics (Jefferies, 1979; Fig. 2 herein). These papers stand at opposite ends of the spectrum of the attempts to discover the true relevance of fossils to phylogenetic studies. Whittington's groundbreaking studies of the Burgess Shale led him to conclude that previous attempts to place Cambrian taxa in extant groupings did not fairly reflect their provocative morphology. This insight was quite correct but, under the influence of Sidney Manton (e.g., Manton, 1977) and her strongly polyphyletic views of the origin of the arthropods, Whittington concluded from this that the various arthropods in the Cambrian represented lineages as separate as the modern groups are (chelicerates, insects etc). This view merely reflected the general Zeitgeist of the time, and the problems that systematists had had in trying to assign fossils to systematic positions. The net effect was that, although fossils were generally thought of as providing the answer to the origins of major groups, in practice they tended to shed very little light on them. The sense of unease engendered by this tension between expectation and delivered results culminated in the famous paper by Colin Patterson (1981)—himself a palaeontologist—when he launched a devastating effect on conventional wisdom about the importance of fossils. If fossils were going to contribute to discussions about phylogeny in a serious way, a considerable rethink on how they were dealt with was clearly required. It is a matter of some irony therefore, that a key for this rethink was provided in the same volume on invertebrate origins. Jefferies published here his critical paper that effectively introduced Hennig's views on the systematisation of fossils to the English-speaking world, with some important modifications of his own. In particular, he laid out clearly the fact that as a general feature, extinct organisms always fall outside a systematics established on extant forms (Fig. 2). Of course, this exclusion is a hierarchical one. A fossil can, for example, lie with in the grouping of extant echinoderms. However, its position within the echinoderms will at a certain level never be fully reflected by extant systematics—the only type then available. Whilst this seems surprising, the reason is clear. Extant monophyletic groupings are always morphologically distinct from their extant sister-group, and that distinctness is brought about by subsequent extinction of the lineages (plus its offshoots) that led to each of them, away from their last common ancestor. As random extinctions through time slowly remove lineages, the most basal taxon of a clade will sometimes be the victim, thus widening the path-length between the surviving most basal members of extant sister clades (Fig. 3). The bases of clades are therefore eroded by extinction, and, as only living members of the clade can rediversify, this is a permanent loss. These extinct basal taxa will not possess all of the apomorphies that define the basal node of the surviving clade. It should be noted that this process will occur whether or not basal members of clades are particularly prone to extinction or not; there does not have to be anything “special” about basal taxa. One further aspect about these now extinct basal taxa is that they would have accumulated their own autapomorphies not possessed by the extant taxa. As a result, these basal fossil taxa are bound to differ from the extant clades: they will not be diagnosable as members of those clades; and they will show a confusing mixture of some but not all features of those clades, together with a set of features absent from them. It should be noted that this characteristic mix has been repeatedly noted in Cambrian fossils. For example, Hughes (1975) said of the Cambrian arthropod Burgessia: “what is apparent from this restudy is that Burgessia did possess a mixture of characters …many of which are to be found in modern arthropods of various groups” (Hughes, 1975, p. 434).

Fig. 1. Whittington's diagram of the Phanerozoic diversity of the arthropods, extending Manton's views of arthropod polyphyly to the fossil record. Bold lines represent the known record: dense stipple represents marine habitat, light stipple, terrestrial. From Whittington (1979)

Fig. 2. Jefferies' diagram introducing the “stem” and “crown” group concepts, modified after Hennig, to the English-speaking world, from the same volume as Figure 1. From Jefferies (1979)

Fig. 3. The growth of a stem group. Random extinctions within a group will sometimes remove its most basal member, thus enlarging the phylogenetic distance between it and its closest living relative. As diversification can only take place within surviving lineages, this loss is a permanent one, leading to the sometimes great distinctions between high-level extant groups such as the phyla

Whilst the apparent oddness of Cambrian fossils is no different in kind from that of any other fossils, it was brought to prominence in two different ways. First, the spectacular preservation of the various Cambrian exceptionally-preserved biotas such as the Burgess Shale (Whittington, 1985) and, more recently, Chengjiang (e.g., Hou and Bergström, 1997), Sirius Passet (Conway Morris, 1998) and Orsten biotas (e.g., Walossek, 1993), revealed a great array of unusual taxa, almost unparalled in the subsequent fossil record. Second, these taxa did seem to fall outside conventional taxonomic levels at a greater depth in the taxonomic hierarchy than later fossils tend to. For example, ammonites can be assigned, not just to the Mollusca, but also to the cephalopods, and indeed, are close relatives to the Coleoidea. Many of the Cambrian taxa, conversely, are not even encompassed by the phylum level. Given the hypothesis that the base of an extant phylum will be eroded through time, it is clear that the older a fossil is, the more likely it is to fall outside the phylum-level of classification (i.e., classification at a very broad level). The pattern demonstrated by the Cambrian fauna (early taxa being problematic at high levels in a taxonomic hierarchy) therefore seems to be explicable by recourse to the stem-/crown-group division, rather than to any particular evolutionary mechanism. It is unfortunate, however, that this conceptual framework has been very slow in gaining acceptance, perhaps because of the vigorous espousal of what might be called the “classical view” by Gould (1989). This work did more than any others, perhaps, in promulgating the view that the patterns demonstrated by Cambrian fossils implied rapid appearance of many high-level taxa without precedents; perhaps implying unusual evolutionary mechanisms as a result. Nevertheless, in the last few years, several studies have been published that have made attempts to assign problematic Cambrian taxa to a stem-group placement of an appropriate phylum or group of phyla. These include arthropods (Budd, 1996); protostomes (Conway Morris and Peel, 1995; Conway Morris, 1998; see discussion in Runnegar, 1996); echinoderms (Mooi et al., 1994); cycloneuralians (Budd, 2001a); deuterostomes (Shu et al., 2001) and brachiopods (Williams and Holmer, 2002). The reception of many or all of these attempts has been mixed, and they stand at different stages of maturity. Nevertheless, it seems likely, as these efforts continue, that our view of the phylogenetic pattern of the Cambrian explosion will change dramatically in the next few years.



© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service