Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
5
11
15
14
12
8
11
9
7
7
10
8
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Answers
specified complexity?
"- Features that appear vestigial and functionless actually serve a function (eg., appendix, coccyx)"
So what, using intelligent design , is the purpose of the appendix?
"- "Junk" DNA does, in fact, have a function."
ID only says that all DNA has to have a purpose, it does not predict what that purpose is or describe a mechanism for how that part of the DNA strand came to be.
"- The alteration of an organism will not always be slow and gradual, or step-by-step."
Where does evolutionary theory say that it will be slow or gradual? Evolution has been observed to act very quickly, sometimes over the course of decades.
"- That which determines the fundamental features of an organism will be logical and ordered (eg. DNA), as opposed to random."
The Theory of Evolution says the same thing... features are not random, they are 'built' on features already present in an organism (A fish cannot give birth to a bird).
"- There is no explanation invoking randomness or chance that can explain specified complexity."
Specified complexity? Can you qualify that further?
"ID would be falsifiable by testing its predictions. Some scientists have already claimed that ID has been falsified and adequately refuted, such as Ken Miller."
Like the bacteria flagellum... which was claimed to be 'irreducibly complex' but has since been demonstrated to be otherwise.
"There is also a paper published in Science (1) that claims that a study by Bridgham and a study by Lenski “solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument”."
You mean the Lenski long term evolution experiment? Where E.Coli bacteria underwent a significant change (gaining the ability to use Citric Acid as a food source) over the span of twenty years? That experiment was a very good example of how a species can change in the presence of environmental pressures... without genetic manipulation from a 'designer'
"Unsurprisingly the very next sentence is contradictory: “Those ‘alternate’ ideas, unlike the hypotheses investigated in these papers, remain thoroughly untested.""
How so? Can you show one recorded demonstration of intelligent design in action? One scientific study that would show the manipulation of a designer?
- MrBook
September 1, 2009 7:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
“So what, using intelligent design , is the purpose of the appendix?”
ID simply predicted that the appendix would have a function. The degree of specificity in our predictions concerning what an intelligence will or will not do is limited due to intelligent agents having freedom in their creation. For example, we can predict that Tom Cruise’s next movie will be an action flick, but we cannot predict the plot of the movie before he agrees to a part.
“Where does evolutionary theory say that it will be slow or gradual? Evolution has been observed to act very quickly, sometimes over the course of decades.”
It is true that evolution ( change over time) has been observed to act quickly, but the theory of evolution has from day one predicted that this change has always occurred step-by-step. The first time this prediction was made using the theory of evolution was in the Origin of Species. However, the Cambrian Explosion demonstrated this prediction to be false even before random natural processes wrote the Origin of Species.
“Specified complexity? Can you qualify that further?”
Specified complexity describes any sort of pattern. Some patterns are specific but not complex (eg., gtgtgtgtg). Some patterns are complex but not specific (eg., ctaagtcg). Some patterns are both specific and complex (eg., gattaca).
“Like the bacteria flagellum...”
Exactly. Ken Miller has claimed to have tested a supposedly untestable claim, a claim that is supposedly religious and has nothing to do with science .
“You mean the Lenski long term evolution experiment?...”
The Lenski study did not show e. coli changing into a different species of bacteria via undirected processes. The bacteria began as e. coli and ended as e. coli. Even if e. coli did change into a different species, the study would not justify inferring that all life changes into new species via non-intelligent processes.
Concerning the paper published in Science, the author claimed that ID is untestable immediately after claiming that it had been tested and refuted. This contradiction was ignored by the reviewers and editors of the journal.
“Can you show one recorded demonstration of intelligent design in action? One scientific study that would show the manipulation of a designer?”
I could remind you of many examples of homo sapiens intelligently altering organisms, but I cannot show you a non-homo sapien live and in-person designing anything. Intelligent Design is inferred from the evidence, much like the intelligent design of pyramids is inferred from the evidence even though no one can actually show me Egyptians building them thousands of years ago. Unobserved entities are allowed in science, such as dark matter/ energy .
- ufcarazy
September 1, 2009 10:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
predictive
"ID simply predicted that the appendix would have a function. The degree of specificity in our predictions concerning what an intelligence will or will not do is limited due to intelligent agents having freedom in their creation. For example, we can predict that Tom Cruise’s next movie will be an action flick, but we cannot predict the plot of the movie before he agrees to a part."
If it cannot make predictions then it is not a viable theory. Remember that the current research into the use of the appendix was done using evolutionary models, not design models.
"t is true that evolution ( change over time) has been observed to act quickly, but the theory of evolution has from day one predicted that this change has always occurred step-by-step."
When evidence was produced to the contrary, that evolution can occur suddenly, the theory was adjusted to reflect that information. In the Modern Synthesis theory it is recognized that significant changes can occur within the span of a few generations.
"The first time this prediction was made using the theory of evolution was in the Origin of Species."
The Origin of the Species is a historical document... there was much that Darwin did not know at that time that we now know, and his original theory has since been supplanted by more modern versions of his theory.
"However, the Cambrian Explosion demonstrated this prediction to be false even before random natural processes wrote the Origin of Species."
I'm not quite sure I follow you... Charles Darwin would not have been aware of the Cambrian explosion, so there is no way he could have included it.
As to the 'Cambrian Explosion'... it took place over the span of ~10 million years, hardly a sudden change.
"Specified complexity describes any sort of pattern. Some patterns are specific but not complex (eg., gtgtgtgtg). Some patterns are complex but not specific (eg., ctaagtcg). Some patterns are both specific and complex (eg., gattaca)."
That is still not very descriptive... can you demonstrate that the sequence gtgtgtg is less likely to occur via random chance then ctaagtcg? Assuming a purely random system (each bit selected randomly) they would have an identical chance of occurring.
"Exactly. Ken Miller has claimed to have tested a supposedly untestable claim, a claim that is supposedly religious and has nothing to do with science ."
It was put forth that the flagellum was irreducibly complex, this was shown to be false (a simple change led to a structure that was different but still functional).
"The Lenski study did not show e. coli changing into a different species of bacteria via undirected processes. The bacteria began as e. coli and ended as e. coli. "
Yet it demonstrated a radical change over the comparatively short span of twenty years.
"Even if e. coli did change into a different species, the study would not justify inferring that all life changes into new species via non-intelligent processes."
One study would not be enough... but when combined with the body of evidence for Evolution it is a very powerful demonstration of the change.
"Concerning the paper published in Science, the author claimed that ID is untestable immediately after claiming that it had been tested and refuted. This contradiction was ignored by the reviewers and editors of the journal."
The experiment was not testing ID, it was testing Evolution... can you describe an experiment similar to the Lenski experiment that could be used to test ID?
"I could remind you of many examples of homo sapiens intelligently altering organisms, but I cannot show you a non-homo sapien live and in-person designing anything."
Why not? What experiment could be performed to show the action of a designer?
"Intelligent Design is inferred from the evidence, much like the intelligent design of pyramids is inferred from the evidence even though no one can actually show me Egyptians building them thousands of years ago."
There is a massive amount of evidence showing that the Egyptians built the pyramids. There is their own records, the carvings on the structure itself, known mechanisms by which the pyramid could be built... is there a similar body of evidence for id?
"Unobserved entities are allowed in science, such as dark matter/ energy ."
Dark matter is observed through its interaction with matter. Dark energy is still rather theoretical in nature, though the universe is expanding at an increasing rate there is no described mechanism for its action.
- MrBook
September 2, 2009 6:38AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response 2
"If it cannot make predictions then it is not a viable theory. Remember that the current research into the use of the appendix was done using evolutionary models, not design models."
ID did make a prediction, and the prediction was accurate. Since the appendix was once used as evidence for evolutionary theory ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html ), I am skeptical that evolutionary theory also found a function for the appendix. Any theory that predicts both A and Not A is no theory at all. So, it seems as though evolutionary theory's ability to predict both function of the appendix and non-function makes it not a theory, but merely a set of observations which themselves need explaining by a genuine scientific theory. Oooh, I know one!!
"When evidence was produced to the contrary, that evolution can occur suddenly, the theory was adjusted to reflect that information."
I agree that theories can be revised. Evolutionary theory needed to be revised because it was wrong, but ID need not be revised because it never made that false prediction. ID predicts that change occurs at different rates. However, a theory can be revised so much that it really isn't a theory anymore but simply a set of observations. Natural selection can explain slow change, but how can it explain the Cambrian Explosion? It is not enough for evolutionary theory to simply admit that this explosion occurred, but evolutionists must explain how random mutation and natural selection can produce this event. In other words, a theory that revises it's prediction must also revise it's explanation, but the explanation offered by evolutionary theory has not been revised. What makes me skeptical that evolutionary theory can be falsified is that evolutionists will simply revise the observational aspects of the theory whenever it is contradicted by evidence and then claim that evolutionary theory can explain that evidence when, in fact, in cannot. Convince me that the theory of evolution is falsifiable (I will play devil's advocate and argue that your examples don't refute the theory).
- ufcarazy
September 2, 2009 10:15AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
original theory
“ID did make a prediction, and the prediction was accurate. Since the appendix was once used as evidence for evolutionary theory ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html ), I am skeptical that evolutionary theory also found a function for the appendix.”
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122544996/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
“Cladistic analyses indicate that the appendix has evolved independently at least twice (at least once in diprotodont marsupials and at least once in Euarchontoglires), shows a highly significant (P
This offers an evolutionary explanation for how the appendix came about… its ‘purpose’ appears to be to act as a ‘holding tank’ for bacteria used in the gut… You say that according to ID the appendix has a purpose, why does ID say it occurred in some species but not others?
“Any theory that predicts both A and Not A is no theory at all.”
The Theory of Evolution never stated that the appendix was a vestigial organ. Scientists used the Theory of Evolution to analyze the data and determine that the appendix was vestigial according to the Evolutionary definition of vestigial (an organ / feature of reduced use, but not automatically useless).
“So, it seems as though evolutionary theory's ability to predict both function of the appendix and non-function makes it not a theory, but merely a set of observations which themselves need explaining by a genuine scientific theory. Oooh, I know one!!”
Yet the occurrence of the appendix has been revised using the Theory of Evolution, and that use is still consistent with the Evolutionary definition of a vestigial feature… which states that to be vestigial it must be of a ‘reduced’ importance, not a useless feature. The appendix is defined as vestigial because it appears to be a reduced part of what was once a large cecum (an organ that is used to process cellulose). The cecum in humans is of a drastically reduced size and the appendix does not contribute to the processing of cellulose (aside from acting as a reservoir for bacteria)… thus compared to the cecum of other primates (and herbivores) it is vestigial.
“I agree that theories can be revised. Evolutionary theory needed to be revised because it was wrong, but ID need not be revised because it never made that false prediction.”
Except bacterial flagellum and the human eye… Can you use ID to show why the appendix only evolved in some species and not all species? How does ID explain the change in cecum size vs. the size of the appendix (as the cecum reduced in size the appendix increased in size)? What specific mechanism does ID propose to explain how new species come about (this being one of the biggest flaws in ID)?
“ID predicts that change occurs at different rates.”
It is all well and good to say “the rate of change is not constant” but that does not explain why the rate of change is not constant, or why it will be different in different situation.
- MrBook
September 2, 2009 4:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID 1
“http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122544996/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 ... This offers an evolutionary explanation for how the appendix came about… “
Simply stating that the appendix evolved and that it’s ‘purpose’ is to act as a holding tank for bacteria in no way explains the appendix, nor does it provide evidence that the origin and/or development of the appendix is due to natural selection and random mutation. Since evolutionists once used the vestigial nature of the appendix as evidence for the theory of evolution , then upon discovery of the appendix being non-vestigial evolutionists cannot then use that same theory to explain it. Otherwise, the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable since it can purportedly explain why its own predictions are wrong and then use that explanation to further support the theory.
“The Theory of Evolution never stated that the appendix was a vestigial organ…”
Every time I have heard evolutionists talk about the appendix and its relation to the theory of evolution, they have told me that it is vestigial, meaning, it has no function. This is what I have been taught since childhood by educators. For the time being I am going to believe them that this is how evolutionists understood the appendix.
“Yet the occurrence of the appendix has been revised using the Theory of Evolution”
The theory of evolution played no role in understanding how the appendix works. That is called medicine , and medical professionals find no use in random mutation and natural selection when studying the function of organs.
“The appendix is defined as vestigial because it appears to be a reduced part of what was once a large cecum…”
‘Appears to be’? First, evolutionists have argued that simply because certain features of the world appear designed does not provide evidence for design. Therefore, the appearance of the appendix being a reduced part of a cecum does not provide evidence that random mutation and natural selection produced the appendix. Second, evolutionists are assuming that the appendix evolved via random mutation and natural selection from the appendix because they think that the theory of evolution must be true, and then using this assumption as evidence for the theory. This is called begging the question.
“Except bacterial flagellum and the human eye… “
I am aware that some claim that it has been proved that these have been used to falsify predictions of ID. I don’t know it they have or haven’t. What I do know, however, is that the claim that these have falsified predictions of ID contradicts the claim that ID does not lead to predictions. So which is it?
“Can you use ID to show why the appendix only evolved in some species and not all species?”
I cannot. Using the theory of evolution, explain why this has been observed. Please be sure to provide evidence for this explanation.
“How does ID explain the change in cecum size vs. the size of the appendix (as the cecum reduced in size the appendix increased in size)? What specific mechanism does ID propose to explain how new species come about (this being one of the biggest flaws in ID)?”
I cannot answer the first question. To answer the second, I hypothesize that since a new species requires new information, then according to ID there should be a transfer of information from one storage unit to another (this second storage unit being DNA). I don’t know if this hypothesis has ever been tested, but testing it would involve determining what entities in the world can store information and what entities can communicate or transfer information. Since information can be stored by many ‘devices’ (eg., hard drives, brains, lasers, DNA, etc.) and since information can be transmitted through various mediums (eg., auditorilly [speech], tactilly [Braille], visually [semaphore], electrically [ internet ], chemically [ants], etc), then ID opens new research avenues by which scientists can discover a mechanism.
“It is all well and good to say ‘the rate of change is not constant’ but that does not explain why the rate of change is not constant, or why it will be different in different situation.”
I agree, but you are responding to a statement that was based on the theory of evolution’s claim that change produce by natural selection and random mutation must be slow and gradual. We now know this claim to be false, whereas ID does not claim that change must be slow and gradual because our experience of intelligently designed things informs us that intelligence can produce things slowly or quickly.
- ufcarazy
September 3, 2009 6:56PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
vestigial pt 1
"Simply stating that the appendix evolved and that it’s ‘purpose’ is to act as a holding tank for bacteria in no way explains the appendix, nor does it provide evidence that the origin and/or development of the appendix is due to natural selection and random mutation."
It's 'purpose' or better stated 'current function' is to act as a holding tank for bacteria. In primates and other mammals the organ called the Cecum is used to hold and digest cellulose, but as diets changed over time (moving to contain less cellulose) the need for such a large Cecum was not as great (it may have become a disadvantage to have such a large organ that was largely unused). As such evolutionary pressures would have favored a drastically reduced Cecum (since cellulose is still part of the diet , even in a reduced amount). Over the span of generations this change in diet would have caused the Cecum to decrease in size until it became vestigial. However even in its reduced capacity it still proved to be of some use... as a holding tank / safe haven for bacteria in the gut.
"Every time I have heard evolutionists talk about the appendix and its relation to the theory of evolution , they have told me that it is vestigial, meaning, it has no function. This is what I have been taught since childhood by educators. For the time being I am going to believe them that this is how evolutionists understood the appendix."
'No function' is not a very good definition of vestigial. Of reduced or no function in comparison to ancestral forms would be a bit better... Which does describe the appendix rather well (it is useless as a cecum but still has some function as a holding tank of bacteria).
Better examples of a vestigial form that is now useless is the coccyx (the human tail), the last remains of the third eye lid (plica semilunaris), or the muscles that move the ear.
"The theory of evolution played no role in understanding how the appendix works. That is called medicine , and medical professionals find no use in random mutation and natural selection when studying the function of organs."
It may not have played a role in explaining how it works, but evolution does explain why we have an appendix instead of a cecum... and why it appears in some animals and not others.
"‘Appears to be’? First, evolutionists have argued that simply because certain features of the world appear designed does not provide evidence for design."
Yes, that is true... just because something may 'appear' to be designed to some does not mean that it was designed. If there is an explanation for how something appeared without involving a designer then without a designer then the burden is on the supporters of ID to show how that feature could only have come about through design.
"Therefore, the appearance of the appendix being a reduced part of a cecum does not provide evidence that random mutation and natural selection produced the appendix."
Not in and of itself, but as part of a larger picture that includes the dietary changes that the homid ancestors it is strong evidence in support of Evolution.
"Second, evolutionists are assuming that the appendix evolved via random mutation and natural selection from the appendix because they think that the theory of evolution must be true, and then using this assumption as evidence for the theory."
That is an interesting way to look at it... I assume that a pencil will fall because of gravity because I think that the theory of gravity is true, there for my assumption that the pencil will fall is proof of the theory of gravity?
- MrBook
September 3, 2009 11:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
vestigial pt 2
"I am aware that some claim that it has been proved that these have been used to falsify predictions of ID. I don’t know it they have or haven’t. What I do know, however, is that the claim that these have falsified predictions of ID contradicts the claim that ID does not lead to predictions. So which is it?"
The claim is not that they falsify ID, but rather that they falsify irreducible complexity... a specific claim of ID.
"I cannot. Using the theory of evolution , explain why this has been observed. Please be sure to provide evidence for this explanation."
The link in my previous post provides some good evidence for how the appendix evolved into its current form. A good breakdown can be found at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/evolution_of_the_appendix.php
The reason why it occurs in some animals and not in others is because the mutation in the gene sequences that control the cecum did not did not mutate to produce one.
"agree, but you are responding to a statement that was based on the theory of evolution’s claim that change produce by natural selection and random mutation must be slow and gradual. We now know this claim to be false, whereas ID does not claim that change must be slow and gradual because our experience of intelligently designed things informs us that intelligence can produce things slowly or quickly."
Evolution as first proposed by Darwin may have required gradual change... but the Modern Synthesis theory, the current form of Evolution, does not mandate slow / gradual change over long periods of time. This is based on observations of species changing quickly in the presence of strong pressures.
ID may claim that the rate of change need not be constant... but it does not describe why the rate of change will be different in some situations.
- MrBook
September 3, 2009 11:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
original theory pt2
“However, a theory can be revised so much that it really isn't a theory anymore but simply a set of observations.”
It remains a theory as long as its predictions remain consistent with the observations.
“Natural selection can explain slow change , but how can it explain the Cambrian Explosion?”
The Cambrian explosion took ten million years, a sizable amount of time… more then enough time for Natural Selection to cause a great deal of change. Which raises another question, why can Natural Selection only explain slow change? Natural Selection is a three fold process: First there must be a variation in a given trait (like a slightly shorter leg), second that trait must be able to be passed down (a shorter leg caused by an accident will not be passed down), and third the trait must have some impact on the fitness of the organism (a shorter leg allowing a creature to fit in smaller burrows). Nothing in that process denotes a set amount of time, or even a range of time, for one feature to become another feature.
So how does ID predict or explain the Cambrian Explosion? What evidence does it use to back it up?
“It is not enough for evolutionary theory to simply admit that this explosion occurred, but evolutionists must explain how random mutation and natural selection can produce this event.”
There is yet to be one firm answer to that question. The Cambrian Explosion is still an area of research
“In other words, a theory that revises it's prediction must also revise it's explanation, but the explanation offered by evolutionary theory has not been revised.”
That would be true if the Theory of Evolution had previously explained the Cambrian Explosion, and then new evidence was found showing that showed that the original explanation was false (or not complete). There is no single view on why the Cambrian Explosion took place, but its occurrence is not countered by the Theory of Evolution.
“What makes me skeptical that evolutionary theory can be falsified is that evolutionists will simply revise the observational aspects of the theory whenever it is contradicted by evidence and then claim that evolutionary theory can explain that evidence when, in fact, in cannot.”
That is how Scientific theories change over time. A theory is either altered to accept new observations, while remaining consistent within itself and with other observations, or if it is found to be inconsistent it is discarded.
“Convince me that the theory of evolution is falsifiable (I will play devil's advocate and argue that your examples don't refute the theory).”
The most obvious falsification would be the direct observation of the original designer making a new design or adjusting an already present design. Another falsification would be the appearance of a species in the fossil record without any possible ancestors… a modern mammal long before the existence of ancestral mammals would be a good example of this, as would the spontaneous appearance of a fungi with animal like mobility (being able to fly under its own power).
Interestingly enough many aspects of Darwin’s original theory have since been falsified… modern Natural Selection theories are radically different in many ways from his original theory of Natural Selection.
Which brings up an interesting question… how would id be falsified?
- MrBook
September 2, 2009 4:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID 2
“It remains a theory as long as its predictions remain consistent with the observations.”
This is where the theory of evolution is not always successful, such as with the appendix and the Cambrian Explosion.
“The Cambrian explosion took ten million years, a sizable amount of time… more then enough time for Natural Selection to cause a great deal of change .”
Explain with evidence please.
“…Nothing in that process denotes a set amount of time, or even a range of time, for one feature to become another feature.”
So, for example, is it unreasonably to infer that an ant-sized insect, being acted upon by natural selection, can evolve into an elephant-sized mammal within 100 years?
“So how does ID predict or explain the Cambrian Explosion? What evidence does it use to back it up?”
I don’t know how other ID theorists would answer this. My answer is the hypothesis I proposed in my response titled “ID 1”.
“There is yet to be one firm answer to that question. The Cambrian Explosion is still an area of research”
That is a very honest answer. Thank you. I must mention that evolutionists have had over 100 years to answer this question and have not been successful. Isn’t it time to try a different approach?
“The most obvious falsification would be the direct observation of the original designer making a new design or adjusting an already present design.”
(Playing devil’s advocate) I am an evolutionist. Design does not disprove the basics of the theory of evolution, which is common ancestry and change over time. Further, claiming to observe a designer is a non-scientific action since intelligent agency cannot play a role in the development of life. To infer intelligent agency is to bring the supernatural into science . Thus, one might believe that a designer has been observed, but appearances can be deceiving. There would have to be a way to scientifically determine that this ‘designer’ has a mind. What scientific methods have demonstrated that this ‘designer’ has a mind?
“Another falsification would be the appearance of a species in the fossil record without any possible ancestors… a modern mammal long before the existence of ancestral mammals would be a good example of this, as would the spontaneous appearance of a fungi with animal like mobility (being able to fly under its own power).”
(Playing devil’s advocate) I am an evolutionist. Claiming that a species appears in the fossil record without any possible ancestors is an appeal to ignorance. Just because we can’t think of what ancestors it had does not mean it didn’t have any. The theory of evolution has been very successful in explaining much in biology, and since nothing can be understood expect in the light of the theory of evolution, then we cannot simply abandon it when faced with these problems. We have to continue using the theory of evolution to solve these problems. After all, what other explanation do we have? Besides, all theories can be revised. It is much better to revise the theory of evolution to incorporate these observations than it is to propose alternative ideas that are religiously motivated. The spontaneous appearance of anything would not be a challenge to the theory of evolution since nothing in that process denotes a set amount of time, or even a range of time, for one feature to become another feature.
“Which brings up an interesting question… how would id be falsified?”
Signature in the Cell contains several predictions of ID. Testing these predictions but failing to find support for them would falsify ID.
- ufcarazy
September 3, 2009 6:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
signatures
“This is where the theory of evolution is not always successful, such as with the appendix and the Cambrian Explosion.”
I’m still not following you… the appendix and the Cambrian Explosion are consistent with Evolution. The exact reason why there is an appendix, and its current function in the body are still under investigation, but there are some strong theories.
“Explain with evidence please.’
An unfortunate limitation of this site is that there seems to be no good way to use HTML tags, make entries using LaTeX, or any of the usual tricks that would make this ‘cleaner’… but we work with what we have…
The fossil record is rather clear, and interestingly enough discoveries made recently (within the last 30 odd years I think…) show that some of the animal life that was thought to appear during the Cambrian Explosion may actually emerged before that time. This links the species that evolved during the explosion to older species, meaning that they did not so much as appear as were a continuation of an evolutionary chain which began far earlier.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v388/n6645/abs/388868a0.html
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146 /annurev.earth.33.031504.103001?journalCode=earth
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm
from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
{Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition. Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed.}
It is also interesting to note that statistically speaking the Cambrian Explosion is not unusual in its diversification. This would show that the diversification was not unique in its quantity, even if the outcome was a number of unique forms.
("Macroevolution And Macroecology Through Deep Time". Palaeontology 50 (1): 41–55 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118531929/abstract )
Interestingly in researching this I came across Dr. Gould’s essay on punctuated evolution vs. gradual evolution ( http://www.fossilmuseum.net/pdf/cambrianexpl/punctuatedequilibria.pdf )
“So, for example, is it unreasonably to infer that an ant-sized insect, being acted upon by natural selection, can evolve into an elephant-sized mammal within 100 years?”
Yes. That would require a statistically improbable number of mutations.
“I don’t know how other ID theorists would answer this. My answer is the hypothesis I proposed in my response titled “ID 1”.”
All you have said is that there would be a ‘transfer of information’… which would be like me saying ‘genes are different in each generation’ without explaining the process of genetic mutation.
“That is a very honest answer. Thank you. I must mention that evolutionists have had over 100 years to answer this question and have not been successful. Isn’t it time to try a different approach?”
Two points… first the Cambrian Explosion is still consistent with Evolution, it is the exact causes that are not known. Second there is the mountains of evidence that support evolution that a counter theory has to overcome.
ID does not have to explain just the Cambrian Explosion, it has to explain everything else in the fossil record and what is observed in laboratories.
- MrBook
September 8, 2009 5:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
signatures 2
“(Playing devil’s advocate) I am an evolutionist. Design does not disprove the basics of the theory of evolution , which is common ancestry and change over time.”
True, but you have never disagreed with species changing over time, just with the level of change required to turn one species into another. The direct observation of the designer in action would show the existence of that designer and the manner in which the designer made its alterations to the genetic structure of living things.
“Further, claiming to observe a designer is a non-scientific action since intelligent agency cannot play a role in the development of life.”
I did not say ‘claim’ I said observed… by that I mean scientifically verifiable proof of the designers actions… like a flying saucer dropping off an entirely new form of life.
“To infer intelligent agency is to bring the supernatural into science .”
Observing the agency in action would remove it from the supernatural realm, making it part of the natural world and thus Scientifically verifiable.
“Thus, one might believe that a designer has been observed, but appearances can be deceiving. There would have to be a way to scientifically determine that this ‘designer’ has a mind. What scientific methods have demonstrated that this ‘designer’ has a mind?”
That is up to the supporters if ID to show as part of a fully descriptive theory.
“(Playing devil’s advocate) I am an evolutionist. Claiming that a species appears in the fossil record without any possible ancestors is an appeal to ignorance. Just because we can’t think of what ancestors it had does not mean it didn’t have any.”
And if we were talking about one species of field mouse that would be true. What I am talking about is a true aberration… a creature that has no place, no possible predecessor in the evolutionary chain. A fungus with the mobility and responsiveness of an animal dated to the mid 1600s would be a possible answer.
“It is much better to revise the theory of evolution to incorporate these observations than it is to propose alternative ideas that are religiously motivated.”
That is true, because a religious argument (without scientific evidence for their beliefs) is supernatural… and thus outside of Science.
“The spontaneous appearance of anything would not be a challenge to the theory of evolution since nothing in that process denotes a set amount of time, or even a range of time, for one feature to become another feature.”
We are talking about something that was completely out of place… a bird long before even the most primitive multi-cellular life existed… or a water breathing mammal.
- MrBook
September 8, 2009 6:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response 2 cont'
"there was much that Darwin did not know at that time that we now know, and his original theory has since been supplanted by more modern versions of his theory."
First, don't make a darwin -of-the-gaps argument. Intelligent causation has no role in science . Second, if conflicting evidence does not refute evolutionary theory, then neither does it refute ID. Why can't ID simply be revised rather than abandoned if there is ever conflicting evidence?
"Charles Darwin would not have been aware of the Cambrian explosion."
There is no evidence that such a being existed. However, the Origin of Species does talk about the Cambrian Explosion as problematic. "The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” - p. 344; "The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” -p. 351.
"can you demonstrate that the sequence gtgtgtg is less likely to occur via random chance then ctaagtcg?"
I never stated that gtgtgtg was less likely to occur than ctaagtcg. Since it contains only two letters instead of 4 it would actually be more likely to occur, but that's not the point. What's-his-face asked me to explain what is meant by specified complexity and that is what I did.
"It was put forth that the flagellum was irreducibly complex, this was shown to be false"
An untestable claim cannot be shown to be false.
- ufcarazy
September 2, 2009 10:15AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
2d6
“First, don't make a darwin -of-the-gaps argument. Intelligent causation has no role in science . Second, if conflicting evidence does not refute evolutionary theory, then neither does it refute ID.”
I’m not sure I follow your “Darwin of the Gaps” bit… the “God of the Gaps” claim arises when creationists claim that when evolution goes from explaining a -> b and d-e to a -> b and c – e that god acted in the gap between the two.
“Why can't ID simply be revised rather than abandoned if there is ever conflicting evidence?”
How then would it be revised?
“There is no evidence that such a being existed. However, the Origin of Species does talk about the Cambrian Explosion as problematic. "The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.”
Yes, that is a problem for evolution as Darwin proposed it… modern formulations of the theory do not suffer from that problem. It should be noted that the ‘roots’ of the Cambrian explosion are found much earlier
“If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” - p. 344; "The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” -p. 351.”
Yet there is no evidence of new species coming into being ‘at once’… Even during the Cambrian explosion there are lines of decent to earlier species as well as lines of decent within the explosion itself.
“I never stated that gtgtgtg was less likely to occur than ctaagtcg. Since it contains only two letters instead of 4 it would actually be more likely to occur, but that's not the point. What's-his-face asked me to explain what is meant by specified complexity and that is what I did.”
Actually under a truly random selection process, where each character was chosen at random from the same list as the other, the chances of the first and second sequences occurring are identical. If I roll a six sided dice once and a 1 comes up then the chances that a 1 will come up on the next roll are still 1 in six. I am also still unclear on your definition of complexity… given the same set of numbers to chose from why is gtgtgt more complex then ctaagtcg? Is catagtcg more complex or less complex then ctaagtcg? What about cgctaagt? Can you offer a rigorous definition of ‘specified complexity’?
“An untestable claim cannot be shown to be false.“
The claim that the flagellum was irreducibly complex (was a feature that in a simpler form was unusable) was refuted… not the claim that it was ‘designed’.
- MrBook
September 2, 2009 5:03PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID 3
“Yet there is no evidence of new species coming into being ‘at once’… Even during the Cambrian explosion there are lines of decent to earlier species as well as lines of decent within the explosion itself.”
Where can I find more info on this?
“ …given the same set of numbers to chose from why is gtgtgt more complex then ctaagtcg? Is catagtcg more complex or less complex then ctaagtcg? What about cgctaagt? Can you offer a rigorous definition of ‘specified complexity’?”
I don’t know how else to explain it. Due to this I will have to refer you to sources that can:
http://www.examiner.com/x-8276-Methodist-Examiner ~y2009m8d2-Intelligent-Design-101--What-is-Specified-Complexity
http://www.discovery.org/a/2177 (see the section "Defining Biological Form and Information")
Signature in the Cell, by Stephen C, Meyer
The Design of Life, by William Dembski and Jonathan Wells.
“The claim that the flagellum was irreducibly complex (was a feature that in a simpler form was unusable) was refuted… not the claim that it was ‘designed’.”
I encourage you to inform other evolutionists that refuting irreducible complexity does not count as evidence against ID because they seem to think it does.
- ufcarazy
September 3, 2009 7:21PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Resp 2 con't again
"Yet it demonstrated a radical change over the comparatively short span of twenty years."
Time is not as relevant in evolutionary theory as is the number of generations that reproduce. Over the span of 20 years Lenski attempted to evolve 40,000 generations of e. coli, which is the equivalent of 1.2 million years for humans (e. coli can create 6.64 generations per day, the equivalent of 166 years for humans). Essentially then, the e. coli had 1.2 million years to change into a new species via natural selection and random mutation. Evolutionary theory claims that the past 1.2 million years of our history has included not just one but at least three examples of speciation via random mutation and natural selection. The e. coli did not undergo any speciation even though it is a much simpler organism. Lenski's study failed to find support for evolutionary theory. It did find support for change over time, but change over time is something that no ID theorist denies.
"can you describe an experiment similar to the Lenski experiment that could be used to test ID?"
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer is the best source I know that you could turn to for an answer.
"What experiment could be performed to show the action of a designer?"
An analysis of the coded language within DNA, as well as any examination of irreducibly complex systems in an organism. It is not the scientific community's belief that we must see a designer designing in order to infer design. Otherwise, you and I would have no idea if Lenski ever designed his experiment since we never actually observed him doing so.
- ufcarazy
September 2, 2009 10:17AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dr. Lenski
“Time is not as relevant in evolutionary theory as is the number of generations that reproduce. Over the span of 20 years Lenski attempted to evolve 40,000 generations of e. coli, which is the equivalent of 1.2 million years for humans (e. coli can create 6.64 generations per day, the equivalent of 166 years for humans). Essentially then, the e. coli had 1.2 million years to change into a new species via natural selection and random mutation.”
And a significant change did occur… similar to a plant eater evolving into a meat eater. But as you pointed out time is not relevant... Evolution does not say that after X number of years a new species will emerge, just that given time mutations within the species will lead to new species being formed.
“The e. coli did not undergo any speciation even though it is a much simpler organism.”
Just because a long period of time is given does not mean that a new species will evolve, just that it can evolve. It takes many pressures to change a population of a given species into an entirely new species.
“Lenski's study failed to find support for evolutionary theory.”
His hypothesis was based of the Theory of Evolution, and his hypothesis was correct… when subjected to environmental pressures a population of E.Coli evolved to metabolize the citric acid. It was not “the” definitive proof of Evolution… but it was another piece in support of Evolution.
“It did find support for change over time, but change over time is something that no ID theorist denies.”
Yet they do deny that small changes over time can lead to large enough differences for an organism to count as a new species.
"can you describe an experiment similar to the Lenski experiment that could be used to test ID?"
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer is the best source I know that you could turn to for an answer.
"What experiment could be performed to show the action of a designer?"
“An analysis of the coded language within DNA, as well as any examination of irreducibly complex systems in an organism.”
How would an analysis of the ‘coded language’ within the DNA show the presence of a designer?
“It is not the scientific community's belief that we must see a designer designing in order to infer design.”
The designer does not ‘have’ to be seen (directly observed) but there does need to be some mechanism for the designer’s actions…
“Otherwise, you and I would have no idea if Lenski ever designed his experiment since we never actually observed him doing so.”
Except the clear records that he kept that detail his experiment… which is what is lacking in the theory if id, that and a mechanism for action.
- MrBook
September 2, 2009 5:06PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID 4
“And a significant change did occur… Just because a long period of time is given does not mean that a new species will evolve, just that it can evolve. ..”
The issue being debated between evolutionists and anti-evolutionists is not that change occurs. It is not that DNA mutates. The disagreement centers on whether random mutation and natural selection can produce new species (and kingdom, phylum, etc.). Evolutionists have tried to use Lenski’s study to demonstrate that they are correct about the point of disagreement, but clearly Lenski’s study does not provide evidence for evolutionists’ position on this issue. If his study does not claim to provide evidence that random mutation and natural selection produce new species, then I am not motivated to discuss it any further.
“How would an analysis of the ‘coded language’ within the DNA show the presence of a designer?”
All our experience of language correlates with an intelligence as its source. For example, I was watching a program – it was either Nova or Nature – about whales. Researchers were analyzing the whale song and discovered that whales have a bona fide language. From this they inferred that the whales were intelligent, and so did I. Another example is Koko, a gorilla who learned sign language. The zoologists who worked with Koko inferred her intelligence. Another example is people with good vocabulary and grammar. We infer that an individual who speaks eloquently is more intelligent that an individual who does not. Since language is detected in DNA, those open to evidence infer that an intelligence is the source of that language.
- ufcarazy
September 3, 2009 7:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
“So what, using intelligent design , is the purpose of the appendix?”
ID simply predicted that the appendix would have a function. The degree of specificity in our predictions concerning what an intelligence will or will not do is limited due to intelligent agents having freedom in their creation. For example, we can predict that Tom Cruise’s next movie will be an action flick, but we cannot predict the plot of the movie before he agrees to a part.
“Where does evolutionary theory say that it will be slow or gradual? Evolution has been observed to act very quickly, sometimes over the course of decades.”
It is true that evolution ( change over time) has been observed to act quickly, but the theory of evolution has from day one predicted that this change has always occurred step-by-step. The first time this prediction was made using the theory of evolution was in the Origin of Species. However, the Cambrian Explosion demonstrated this prediction to be false even before random natural processes wrote the Origin of Species.
“Specified complexity? Can you qualify that further?”
Specified complexity describes any sort of pattern. Some patterns are specific but not complex (eg., gtgtgtgtg). Some patterns are complex but not specific (eg., ctaagtcg). Some patterns are both specific and complex (eg., gattaca).
“Like the bacteria flagellum...”
Exactly. Ken Miller has claimed to have tested a supposedly untestable claim, a claim that is supposedly religious and has nothing to do with science .
“You mean the Lenski long term evolution experiment?...”
The Lenski study did not show e. coli changing into a different species of bacteria. They began as e. coli and ended as e. coli. Even if e. coli did change into a different species, the study would not justify inferring that all life changes into new species via non-intelligent processes.
Concerning the paper published in Science, the author claimed that ID is untestable immediately after claiming that it had been tested and refuted. This contradiction was ignored by the reviewers and editor of the journal.
“Can you show one recorded demonstration of intelligent design in action? One scientific study that would show the manipulation of a designer?”
I could remind you of many examples of homo sapiens intelligently altering organisms, but I cannot show you a non-homo sapien live and in-person designing anything. Intelligent Design is inferred from the evidence, much like the intelligent design of pyramids is inferred from the evidence even though no one can actually show me Egyptians building them thousands of years ago. Unobserved entities are allowed in science, such as dark matter/ energy .
- ufcarazy
September 1, 2009 10:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just a question.
Do you Know that there is a God? You're 100% on this?
- ttut21
September 2, 2009 1:42AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I am confident
I am confident there is a God.
- ufcarazy
September 2, 2009 10:20AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Confident
So ball park here. 51% sure then?
- ttut21
September 7, 2009 1:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
51.6335974802064555% sure.
51.6335974802064555% sure.
- ufcarazy
September 7, 2009 3:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Define God.
I am sure there is a God, but is he sentient?
- mike1948
September 7, 2009 3:56PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.