Originally posted by jaywillJaywill, I don't have faith in that either - but then, that isn't what happened. Brains, neural circuits - in fact any complex organ - don't just spontaneously occur. We're talking about the construction of these things over not millions of years, not tens of millions of years, but hundreds of millions of years - an almost unimaginable timescale. (In fact, I challenge anyone to seriously contemplate this timescale.)
I don't have enough faith the believe that matter randomly organized itself into human brain over millions of years. I think there is an intelligent design behind this creation.
And to think that all the instructions to link up these neurons is in the embryo. The connections are precise, billions of them. This is not throwing up the hands and saying su ...[text shortened]... searcher has proposed - Nils Heribert Nilsson who theorizes "Synthetic Speciation"[/b]
And while the individual steps that go toward the development of any particular part of a species are random - the overall process produces seemingly non-random effects. This is for two reasons:
1. There is constant pressure on evolutionary changes from the environment. Randomness suggest any old thing could happen, but clearly only some things will be viable for a species, and of those, only a very small number will be useful.
2, Evolutionary changes are cumulative. They don't - other than the very first one - start with nothing. They build upon what's already there. (and don't make this an argument about the origins of life - evolution doesn't cover that area.)
As for the embryo containing the instructions for neural connections? I don;t think that's strictly true.
My understanding is that most neural connections are built after the brain has already developed. In fact neural connections are being built and broken down and rebuilt, at least until adolesence.
Originally posted by amannionIn my experience with creationists, I've come to believe that the only random process a creationist understands is one with no autocorrelation and independently identically uniformally distributed errors. Basically, they never get passed white noise processes.
Jaywill, I don't have faith in that either - but then, that isn't what happened. Brains, neural circuits - in fact any complex organ - don't just spontaneously occur. We're talking about the construction of these things over not millions of years, not tens of millions of years, but hundreds of millions of years - an almost unimaginable timescale. (In fact, ...[text shortened]... ral connections are being built and broken down and rebuilt, at least until adolesence.
Originally posted by telerionTrue.
In my experience with creationists, I've come to believe that the only random process a creationist understands is one with no autocorrelation and independently identically uniformally distributed errors. Basically, they never get passed white noise processes.
It's important to remember that the universe is not a random place. It follows rules. Those rules need not be "made" by anyone, but they do exist. Provided that there is order (by which I mean that the rules are not broken), and energy flow through the system, then series of dynamic processes (such as the sorting of gravel on a sea shore) must occur.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI was unaware we found something that can put together life from non-life...when did we find that?
When there is a mechanism which can explain the phenomenon which does not require a designer it is more parsimonious to say it was not done by design. We have that mechanism.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzDoes that mean that if SETI astronomers capture a radio signal from deep space containing, let's say, the first 100 prime numbers that they will count that as an accident?
Its called probability.
Probability, over millions of years and trillions of miles has just by some freakish accident caused the first 100 prime numbers to be radio broadcasted towards the earth. No Intelligence out there, right? Just probability that 100 primes numbers had to be radioed towards our planet sometime. No need to assume by this intelligent design. Right?
Originally posted by jaywillWhat's your point?
Does that mean that if SETI astronomers capture a radio signal from deep space containing, let's say, the first 100 prime numbers that they will count that as an accident?
Probability, over millions of years and trillions of miles has just by some freakish accident caused the first 100 prime numbers to be radio broadcasted towards the earth. No Intelli ...[text shortened]... to be radioed towards our planet sometime. No need to assume by this intelligent design. Right?
SETI and possible signals of intelligent origin have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
Originally posted by jaywillIt's theoretically possible, although overbearingly unlikely. Abiogenesis is far more likely than that. The reason for this is that abiogenic theory starts from a very simple precursor to life - probably an RNA molecule (which can spontaneously form under "early earth" conditions), which evolved and became more complex over time, eventually coming to fulfil all the conditions (none of which are particularly special) that are required for us to call something "alive".
Does that mean that if SETI astronomers capture a radio signal from deep space containing, let's say, the first 100 prime numbers that they will count that as an accident?
Probability, over millions of years and trillions of miles has just by some freakish accident caused the first 100 prime numbers to be radio broadcasted towards the earth. No Intelli ...[text shortened]... to be radioed towards our planet sometime. No need to assume by this intelligent design. Right?
Originally posted by KellyJayNo. I, at least, would not be so disingenious.
Yea right, you mean because you say so to be honest about it.
Kelly
The probability of a replicating, stable, RNA molecule spontaneously forming within an environment the size of the earth given reducing conditions and 50,000 years approximates 1. The fact that you are unwilling to accept this is neither here nor there.
Originally posted by dj2beckerAll you have to do is prove a lack of intelligence and a lack of design.
[b]Well I don't agree that it rules out the possibility because an intelligent designer is not a falsifiable concept.
All you have to do is prove a lack of intelligence and a lack of design.
However, it does totally remove the [b]need for an intelligent designer to explain the current diversity of life.[/b]
How so? Does the evolution m ...[text shortened]... lex and intricate optical system as the human eye can develop through random chance mutation?[/b]
My example of the eye is evidence of bad design and lack of intelligence, however intelligent design can never be formally disproven as you have just demonstrated: somebody can always claim that there was an intelligent decision to make it that way. The onus is then on that person to explain why the intelligent designer designed it so badly. But then of course the ID protagonist can fall back on "we cannot presume to know the mind of Allah/Yahweh/The Flying Spagetti Monster/Zeus/God/The Cosmic Teapot etc etc.
How so? Does the evolution mechanism not consist of an intelligent process?
NO! It's as intelligent as the sorting of pebbles on the sea shore, as has been mentined several times in this thread. Evolution is utterly blind.
What makes you think that that is bad design?
Because it reduces the amount of light hitting the retina and it creates a blind spot. In what way is that good design (without resorting to the unknowability of your favourite deity)?
Experiments have revealed that the retina of the human eye can actually detect one single photon of light in a dark room, something far beyond the range of any engineered optical instruments.
So why do the troops in Iraq and Afganistan bother using night-vision equipment? The amount of the electo-magnetic spectrum that the human eye can percieve is tiny.
--- Penguin (who really must go and do some work now).
3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzOverbearingly unlikely. Yes, the first 100 prime numbers radioed from space. Yes, I agree - overbearingly unlikely.
It's theoretically possible, although overbearingly unlikely. Abiogenesis is far more likely than that. The reason for this is that abiogenic theory starts from a very simple precursor to life - probably an RNA molecule (which can spontaneously form under "early earth" conditions), which evolved and became more complex over time, eventually coming to ...[text shortened]... none of which are particularly special) that are required for us to call something "alive".
Then you mention Abiogenesis. Funny, when I mention abiogenesis or origin of life evolutionists are quick to respond that Evolution does not involve origin of life problems.
Your mentioning of it confirms that it actually does but of late the evolutionists distance themselves from that issue. And when inquisitors raise the issue we usually get - "Oh, you don't understand Evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life."
Observed science tells us that life comes from other life. If you want to talk about what has actually been observed, that's it. Life produces life as far as we have seen. Uniformity would have science first look exhaustively in that direction.
Then you have an interesting chicken and egg problem too. DNA relies on protiens for its production but proteins rely on DNA for their production.
This will keep them busy for awhile deciding which came first, proteins or DNA. One must already be in existence for the other to be made.
I think we better be opened to Intelligent causes. I think like Behe says, we should be willing to follow the eividence where ever it leads. I am not sure that you are willing to follow the evidence to where ever it leads with no subjective bias.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillThen you mention Abiogenesis. Funny, when I mention abiogenesis or origin of life evolutionists are quick to respond that Evolution does not involve origin of life problems.
Overbearingly unlikely. Yes, the first 100 prime numbers radioed from space. Yes, I agree - overbearingly unlikely.
Then you mention Abiogenesis. Funny, when I mention abiogenesis or origin of life evolutionists are quick to respond that Evolution does not involve origin of life problems.
Your mentioning of it confirms that it actually does but that you are willing to follow the evidence to where ever it leads with no subjective bias.
Evolution requires the existance of self-replicating molecules. How those molecules first came about is abiogenesis. This cannot have been influenced by evolution since evolution is purely an inevitable function of:
- self-replicating structures
- heritable physical features of those structures
- random errors in the replication causing changes in the heritable features
- limited resources (which result in competition and hense prevent those less tuned to the current environment from reproducing)
There's probably a better definition of the requirements for evolution but I can't be arsed to find it now!
Abiogenesis was the formation of the self-replicating structures mentioned above, hense occured before evolution got started, hense evolution plays no part in abiogenesis.
Observed science tells us that life comes from other life. If you want to talk about what has actually been observed, that's it. Life produces life as far as we have seen. Uniformity would have science first look exhaustively in that direction.
And when we do look in that direction, we find that each generation has slight differences from the previous one while being mostly similar, and that these differences in heritable features an organisms ability to perform tasks, and that resources are limited and environment changes. Put those observable facts together and you get a process over time where organisms change and adapt to their surroundings. This observable process we have called Evolution. We have a theory that describes how it works. That theory can be tested and has been tested more rigorously than any other is the history of science and it still holds good.
Then you have an interesting chicken and egg problem too. DNA relies on protiens for its production but proteins rely on DNA for their production.
Blatant crib from TalkOrigins coming up:
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication. The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids. A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes.
So no, we don't have a chicken and egg situation.
I think we better be opened to Intelligent causes.
But that's giving up. It's saying "I don't understand it so {deity} must have done it, there's no point in trying to understand it. Fortunately human nature is inquisitive and won't settle for such defeatist arguments or we'd still be living in the trees.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by scottishinnzGiven the conditions of the earth? What faith you have knowing what
No. I, at least, would not be so disingenious.
The probability of a replicating, stable, RNA molecule spontaneously forming within an environment the size of the earth given reducing conditions and 50,000 years approximates 1. The fact that you are unwilling to accept this is neither here nor there.
the conditions of the earth were, and knowing how to form a
replicating stable RNA molecule from what was here back then. Don't
you mean you think you could "maybe" set up the conditions that
might lead to such a thing from occuring? I have to say you sound just
like a ID person stating facts about things that they have nothing
but their beliefs to back them on.
Kelly