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: 717

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.

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.

Which scientific study or studies have shown this?

Sources? Citations? Let's see them.

Otherwise, toss another unsupported claim on the fire.

you are relying on blind random mutation caused by cosmic rays an other mishaps to mindlessly add up over eons to humans,

No, we're not.

To say evolution is random ignores half of the mechanism. Random mutation causes genetic variation, but natural selection-- the process by which some resulting variants survive while others die-- is not random.

For instance, some land animals are more likely to survive and reproduce if they can run swiftly to escape danger. Animals such as horses have evolved feet with hard running surfaces, efficient cardiovascular systems, and strong leg bones and muscles. As they evolved, those with better endurance, harder feet, and stronger legs tended to live longer, and produce more offspring with the same traits in the next generation. The result over time: a swift, powerful, long-distance running animal.

That's natural selection. It's non-random.

[humans] the gods of over the earth.

Are we? What about bacteria? Or insects? They outnumber us by millions or trillions to one.

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.

Ridiculous.

Infinite structures are not necessary to support life on earth. The entire observable universe would be completely filled with the biological structures required. It isn't.

I wonder how long it'll be until the mods shut you down this time, Michael.

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. 

We are talking in the Hyperbole,

Speak for yourself, Michael. So you used an extreme exaggeration that is normally used in fiction rather than science.

the number of complex structures necessary to arrive at man might as well be.

Might as well be what? Infinite? There are about 3.72 × 10(13) cells in the human body. They start out as one egg and one sperm, and "arrive" at man.

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.

You come off as poorly suited for engineering or delving into the complex. You've failed to grasp the most simple mechanism of evolution: natural selection is not random happenstance.

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).

Yes, Michael. It's pretty common for pseudo-scientific crackpots to take refuge in the obscurity of scientific-sounding terminology. Quantum jargon is popular these days (although world-class crackpot Deepak Chopra prefers metaphor to hyperbole).

So is this more wild exaggeration, or are you claiming to possess some actual, special insight into how the brain works that you can clearly explain and support with evidence?

Bottom Line, this technology is from a realm for above us. not happenstance and mutation.

Bottom line, of course you can't.

You're suggesting the brain is "technology" from a "realm" above us? Oh, dear. I hope you don't mean the brain comes from heaven, Michael. Or even that it comes from a "stealth", double-talk, realm-above-us heaven. You know, the kind of heaven that's used to get around moderator bans for proselytizing.

And you do realize I've just explained exactly how and why natural selection is not "happenstance", don't you?

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. 

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.

So, tell me Michael. What does "trans-phylum evolution" mean? Be specific. Why did you choose the phylum level as the standard for plausibility? Why didn't you choose the kingdom level or class level?

Why isn't natural selection within an extant species plausible?

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. 

Oh, goodness, no. I didn't say Roger Penrose is a pseudo-scientist. I'm saying YOU are. You take refuge in the obscurity of pseudo-scientific jargon. Simply put, you have no clear explanation to offer for the existence of life on earth, so it's pure obfuscation from here on out.

This is why you don't answer questions. You don't understand what you're talking about. You're making it up as you go along.

Many engineers in academia find mutation and natural selection the explanation for complex structures that we have no understanding of a naive sellout.

Which engineers? Names? Qualifications? Research?

You should also read Berger (1983) and Maynard and Smith (1988).

If you mean Peter L. Berger, he is a theologian in a department of religion, not an "engineer". I'll need more than just a last name and a year to examine the research you're referring to. How about full names and article titles?

Accidents  occuring on a DNA molecule can lead to complex nonlinear circuits that we cannot model mathematically?.

I have no idea what that means. How does the inability to make a mathematical model disprove gene mutation or natural selection in evolutionary biology? If you can't explain it clearly yourself, then post a link to the actual articles and I'll see what claim the authors are making.

Moreover, you ridicule the notion that quantum physics is involve further unscoring how incredibly shallow your awareness of recent scientfic investigation and theories is.

Don't be silly, Michael. I'm ridiculing your pretense, not quantum physics.

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.

Sure, Michael. I have no understanding of how to design a circuit beyond our understanding. Thanks for offering that conjecture on evolution.

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 

RSS

Atheist Sites

Blog Posts

In Avoidance of Anger

Posted by Pope Beanie on November 27, 2014 at 4:59pm 0 Comments

The plane that never crashed

Posted by Brazillian atheist on November 27, 2014 at 12:17pm 1 Comment

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service