Common descent intelligently designed?
david ford
life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
give rise to all of subsequent life?
Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
subsequent life is related by common descent?
If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
1967 Dobzhansky on the problem of evil
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401260957.1a5b69fc%40posting.google.com
Haeckel, Ernst. 1900. _The Riddle of the Universe: At the
Close of the Nineteenth Century_, translated by Joseph
McCabe. (NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers), 391pp. The
first section of the chapter "The Evolution of the World,"
on 233-239:
THE greatest, vastest, and most difficult of all cosmic
problems is that of the origin and development of the
world-- the "question of creation," in a word. Even to
the solution of this most difficult world-riddle the
nineteenth century has contributed more than all its
predecessors; in a certain sense, indeed, it has found the
solution. We have at least attained to a clear view of the
fact that all the partial questions of creation are
indivisibly connected, that they represent one single,
comprehensive "cosmic problem," and that the key to
this problem is found in the one magic word-- evolution.
The great questions of the creation of man, the creation
of the animals and plants, the creation of the earth and
the sun, etc., are all parts of the general question, What
is the origin of the whole world? Has it been _created_
by supernatural power, or has it been _evolved_ by a
natural process? What are the causes and the manner of
this evolution? If we succeed in finding the correct
answer to one of these questions, we have, according to
our monistic conception of the world, cast a brilliant
light on the solution of them all, and on the entire
cosmic problem.
The current opinion as to the origin of the world in
earlier ages was almost a universal belief in creation.
This belief has been expressed in thousands of
interesting, more or less fabulous, legends, poems,
cosmogonies, and myths. A few great philosophers
were devoid of it, especially those remarkable
free-thinkers of classical antiquity who first conceived
the idea of natural evolution. All the creation-myths, on
the contrary, were of a supernatural, miraculous, and
transcendental character. Incompetent, as it was, to
investigate for itself the nature of the world and its
origin by natural causes, the undeveloped mind naturally
had recourse to the idea of miracle. In most of these
creation-myths _anthropism_ was blended with the
belief in the miraculous. The creator was supposed to
have constructed the world on a definite plan, just as
man accomplishes his artificial constructions; the
conception of the creator was generally completely
anthropomorphic, a palpable "anthropistic creationism."
The "all-mighty maker of heaven and earth," as he is
called in Genesis and the Catechism, is just as humanly
conceived as the modern creator of Agassiz and Reinke,
or the intelligent "engineer" of other recent biologists.
Entering more fully into the notion of creation, we can
distinguish as two entirely different acts the production
of the universe as a whole and the partial production of
its various parts, in harmony with Spinoza's idea of
_substance_ (the universe) and _accidents_ (or
_modes_, the individual phenomena of substance). This
distinction is of great importance, because there are
many eminent philosophers who admit the one and
reject the other.
According to this creationist theory, then, God has
"made the world out of nothing." It is supposed that
God (a rational, but immaterial, being) existed by
himself for an eternity before he resolved to create the
world. Some supporters of the theory restrict God's
creative function to one single act; they believe that this
extramundane God (the rest of whose life is shrouded in
mystery) created the substance of the world in a single
moment, endowed it with the faculty of the most
extensive evolution, and troubled no further about it.
This view may be found, for instance, in the English
Deists in many forms. It approaches very close to our
monistic theory of evolution, only abandoning it in the
one instant in which God accomplished the creation.
Other creationists contend that God did not confine
himself to the mere creation of matter, but that he
continues to be operative as the "sustainer and ruler of
the world." Different modifications of this belief are
found, some approaching very close to _pantheism_ and
others to complete _theism_. All these and similar
forms of belief in creation are incompatible with the law
of the persistence of matter and force; that law knows
nothing of a beginning.
It is interesting to note that E. du Bois-Reymond has
identified himself with this cosmological creationism in
his latest speech (on "Neovitalism," 1894). "It is more
consonant with the divine omnipotence," he says, "to
assume that it created the whole material of the world in
one creative act unthinkable ages ago in such wise that it
should be endowed with inviolable laws to control the
origin and the progress of living things-- that, for
instance, here on earth rudimentary organisms should
arise from which, without further assistance, the whole
of living nature could be evolved, from a primitive
bacillus to the graceful palm-wood, from a primitive
micrococcus to Solomon's lovely wives or to the brain
of Newton. Thus we are content with one creative day,
and we derive organic nature mechanically, without the
aid of either old or new vitalism." Du Bois-Reymond
here shows, as in the question of consciousness, the
shallow and illogical character of his monistic thought.
According to another still prevalent theory, which may
be called "ontological creationism," God not only
created the world at large, but also its separate contents.
In the Christian world the old Semitic legend of
creation, taken from Genesis, is still very widely
accepted; even among modern scientists it finds an
adherent here and there. I have fully entered into the
criticism of it in the first chapter of my _Natural History
of Creation_. The following theories may be
enumerated as the most interesting modifications of this
ontological creationism:
I. _Dualistic creation. _-- God restricted his
interference to _two_ creative acts. First he created the
inorganic world, mere dead substance, to which alone
the law of energy applies, working blindly and aimlessly
in the mechanism of material things and the building of
the mountains; then God attained intelligence and
communicated it to the purposive intelligent forces
which initiate and control organic evolution.* [*:
Reinke, _Die Welt als That_ (1899).]
II. _Trialistic creation. _-- God made the world in three
creative acts: (a) the creation of the heavens-- the
extra-terrestrial world, (b) the creation of the earth (as
the centre of the world) and of its living inhabitants, and
(c) the creation of man (in the image and likeness of
God). This dogma is still widely prevalent among
theologians and other "educated" people; it is taught as
the truth in many of our schools.
III. _Heptameral creation;_ a creation in seven days
(_teste_ Moses).-- Although few educated people really
believe in this Mosaic myth now, it is still firmly
impressed on our children in the biblical lessons of their
earliest years. The numerous attempts that have been
made, especially in England, to harmonize it with the
modern theory of evolution have entirely failed. It
obtained some importance in science when Linne
adopted it in the establishment of his system, and based
his definition of organic species (which he considered to
be unchangeable) on it: "There are as many different
species of animals and plants as there were different
forms created in the beginning by the Infinite." This
dogma was pretty generally held until the time of
Darwin (1859), although Lamarck had already proved
its untenability in 1809.
IV. _Periodic creation. _-- At the beginning of each
period of the earth's history the whole population of
animals and plants was created anew, and destroyed by a
general catastrophe at its close; there were as many
general creative acts as there are distinct geological
periods (the catastrophic theory of Cuvier [1818] and
Louis Agassiz [1858]). Palaeontology, which seemed to
support this theory in its more imperfect stage, has since
completely refuted it.
V. _Individual creation. _-- Every single man-- and
every individual animal and plant-- does not arise by a
natural process of growth, but is created by the favor of
God. This view of creation is still often met with in
journals, especially in the "births" column. The special
talents and features of our children are often gratefully
acknowledged to be "gifts of God"; their hereditary
defects fit into another theory.
The error of these creation-legends and the cognate
belief in miracles must have been apparent to thoughtful
minds at an early period; more than two thousand years
ago we find that many attempts were made to replace
them by a rational theory, and to explain the origin of
the world by natural causes. In the front rank, once
more, we must place the leaders of the Ionic school,
with Democritus, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Aristotle,
Lucretius, and other ancient philosophers. The first
imperfect attempts which they made astonish us, in a
measure, by the flashes of mental light in which they
anticipate modern ideas. It must be remembered that
classical antiquity had not that solid groundwork for
scientific speculation which has been provided by the
countless observations and experiments of modern
scientists. During the Middle Ages-- especially during
the domination of the papacy-- scientific work in this
direction entirely ceased. The torture and the stake of
the Inquisition insured that an unconditional belief in the
Hebrew mythology should be the final answer to all the
questions of creation. Even the phenomena which led
directly to the observation of the _facts_ of evolution--
the embryology of the plant and the animal, and of
man-- remained unnoticed, or only excited the interest
of an occasional keen observer; but their discoveries
were ignored or forgotten. Moreover, the path to a
correct knowledge of natural development was barred
by the dominant theory of preformation, the dogma
which held that the characteristic form and structure of
each animal and plant were already sketched in
miniature in the germ (cf. p. 54).
The science which we now call the science of evolution
(in the broadest sense) is, both in its general outline and
in its separate parts, a child of the nineteenth century; it
is one of its most momentous and most brilliant
achievements. Almost unknown in the preceding
century, this theory has now become the sure foundation
of our whole world-system. I have treated it
exhaustively in my _General Morphology_ (1866), more
popularly in my _Natural History of Creation_ (1868),
and in its special application to man in my
_Anthropogeny_ (1874). Here I shall restrict myself to
a brief survey of the chief advances which the science
has made in the course of the century. It falls into four
sections, according to the nature of its object; that is, it
deals with the natural origin of (1) the cosmos, (2) the
earth, (3) terrestrial forms of life, and (4) man.
Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker: Why the
evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design_
(NY: W.W. Norton & Company), 332+15pp. Two
paragraphs on 141:
So, cumulative selection can manufacture complexity
while single-step selection cannot. But cumulative
selection cannot work unless there is some minimal
machinery of replication and replicator power, and the
only machinery of replication that we know seems too
complicated to have come into existence by means of
anything less than many generations of cumulative
selection! Some people see this as a fundamental flaw
in the whole theory of the blind watchmaker. They see
it as the ultimate proof that there must originally have
been a designer, not a _blind_ watchmaker but a
far-sighted supernatural watchmaker. Maybe, it is
argued, the Creator does not control the day-to-day
succession of evolutionary events; maybe he did not
frame the tiger and the lamb, maybe he did not make a
tree, but he _did_ set up the original machinery of
replication and replicator power, the original machinery
of DNA and protein that made cumulative selection, and
hence all of evolution, possible.
This is a transparently feeble argument, indeed it is
obviously self-defeating. Organized complexity is the
thing that we are having difficulty in explaining. Once
we are allowed simply to _postulate_ organized
complexity, if only the organized complexity of the
DNA/ protein replicating engine, it is relatively easy to
invoke it as a generator of yet more organized
complexity. That, indeed, is what most of this book is
about. But of course any God capable of intelligently
designing something as complex as the DNA/protein
replicating machine must have been at least as complex
and organized as that machine itself. Far more so if we
suppose him _additionally_ capable of such advanced
functions as listening to prayers and forgiving sins. To
explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by
invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely
nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the
Designer. You have to say some-thing like 'God was
always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy
way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always
there', or 'Life was always there', and be done with it.
Compare
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://tinyurl.com/ygqj
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
See also Behe in
1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS's "crazy-quilt" prediction;
creationist Behe's call for research on the
intelligent-design-of-common-descent hypothesis
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com
Bobby D. Bryant
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent life is said to
> be related via common descent, is it possible that the original
> organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to give rise to all of
> subsequent life?
Yes. It's also possible that all the replies to your post are posted by
God, who has been faking the entire internet for your private
entertainment.
But I wouldn't bank on either of those speculations.
> Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account for the
> appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all subsequent life is
> related by common descent?
Yes. Why the heck would I suppose otherwise?
> If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
Because intelligence is a property of life, and unless time has the
topology of a Klein bottle, it's pretty stupid to invoke life as the
explanation for life.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
R.Schenck
ford) wrote:
>About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
>life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
>the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
>give rise to all of subsequent life?
>
>Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
>for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
>subsequent life is related by common descent?
>If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
>
>Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins,
yes, because they are the only ones that reject it right?
> reject the
>position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
>If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
>
did you just make this up as a postion of intelligent design? is this
the long retreat comming up to the final leg of its journey? frmo
creation of indiviudal species, to kinds and subsequent evolution, to
interference of a designer at crucial points, to an intelligence setup
the abiogenetic event, to the original ancestor had all subsequent
variation programmed into it. whats the limit of that variation by
the way?
if you think intelligence is needed to account for the appearance of
the first life forms, then why deny that Ahur Mazda did it?
snip
Mike Painter
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401...@posting.google.com...
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
But yes it is possible that the designer of the designer ..... (n times)
designed our intelligent designer to desing the first life form so that the
original life form gave rise to other forms.
They would have flunked out of design school but it is possible...
It is also possible that there is a chocolate cake in orbit around Jupiter.
>
> Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
> for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
> subsequent life is related by common descent?
> If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
*Understand* what a theory is and you will have your answer.
<snip>
Mark K. Bilbo
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
>
> Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
> for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
> subsequent life is related by common descent?
> If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
>
> Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
> If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
Simple. There's no evidence. If there is no supporting evidence, you have
to reject the proposition.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
Bobby D. Bryant
> It is also possible that there is a chocolate cake in orbit around
> Jupiter.
LoL.
In a perfect universe there *would* be, and I posit that one actually is.
Charles & Mambo
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
Absolutely. It is also possible that some of those former dictator heirs
writing you with a request for a multi-million business proposition are
genuine and really need your help taking $200 million out of their country,
for which they'll pay you half.
Since we just don't know, it's probably safe to assume that both of these
stories are correct and act accordingly.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
david ford wrote:
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
>
Sure. It's also "possible" that the designer was a young alien sciecne
student from the planet Mlulkitui who designed life on earth as a junior
class project. <shrug>
But I'd sure like for you to tell me what designed the "intelligence"
that you think designed life on earth, if, as you apparently think,
nothing alive can exist without being designed . . . .
I
d also like to hear what your scientific theory of intelligent design
is. What, precisely, do you think this designer did. What mechanisms,
in particular, do you think it used to do whatever it is you think it
did, and where can we see these mechabnisms in action today.
Or are you just gonna post-and-run. Again.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Ken Shaw
1) The Christian Deity, as defined by the pertinent religious
authorities, qualifies as alive.
2) The socalled "Intelligent Design theory" posits that life cannot have
arisen without the intervention of an intelligence.
3) Many supporters of the putative Intelligent Design theory believe
that the intelligence was the Christian Deity.
4) Assuming that 1 through 3 are correct who designed the Christian
Deity according to ID theory.
Ken
Rv Cloim
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 02:09:02 +0000, Mike Painter wrote:
>
>> It is also possible that there is a chocolate cake in orbit around
>> Jupiter.
>
> LoL.
>
> In a perfect universe there *would* be, and I posit that one actually is.
Unless, of course, we discover that one isn't. In which case it probably
got knocked out of orbit by an asteroid and is now in route to Saturn.
Bobby D. Bryant
Clearly, God designed himself. That's just more proof that he really is
all-powerful.
Al Klein
ford) posted in alt.atheism:
>About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
>life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
>the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
>give rise to all of subsequent life?
Possible, yes. Likely, no.
>Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
>for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
>subsequent life is related by common descent?
>If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
1) No actual evidence of this "intelligence".
2) The original life was most likely even simpler than a virus, and
even we can create viruses.
>Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
>position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
>If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
See #1 above.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
John Wilkins
Dale
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
If you're going to go that far, why stop at the original organism? Why not
go all the way and make the designer really intelligent and say that it
designed the laws of physics and the elements so that life was inevitable?
Glenn
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3c3p10t78cv0efe18...@Pern.rk...
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:41:05 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> ford) posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> >life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> >the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> >give rise to all of subsequent life?
>
> Possible, yes. Likely, no.
>
> >Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
> >for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
> >subsequent life is related by common descent?
> >If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
>
> 1) No actual evidence of this "intelligence".
Don't believe in indirect evidence?
> 2) The original life was most likely even simpler than a virus, and
> even we can create viruses.
Would that be the "common ancestor"?
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3c3p10t78cv0efe18...@Pern.rk...
>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:41:05 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
>> ford) posted in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
>> >life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
>> >the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
>> >give rise to all of subsequent life?
>>
>> Possible, yes. Likely, no.
>>
>> >Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
>> >for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
>> >subsequent life is related by common descent?
>> >If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
>>
>> 1) No actual evidence of this "intelligence".
>
> Don't believe in indirect evidence?
No indirect evidence either.
Glenn
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01....@mail.utexas.edu...
johac
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
To consider that possibility, I would have to see evidence that:
1) A 'designer' exists.
2) That said designer had a mechanism for carrying out the design.
3) That said designer actually carried out the design.
4) That the organism in question was actually the product of said
designer carrying out the design and did not come into existence by some
other mechanism.
So where's the evidence?
<snip massive cuts and pastes>
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Maverick
news:b1c67abe.0401...@posting.google.com:
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
Yes it's possible. And I just decided that it was an intelligently designed
intelligence who did it. Or maybe something more exotic.
Seriously, ask yourself if it's *necessary* to include unnecessary
entities.
> Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
> for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
> subsequent life is related by common descent?
> If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
But of course it was needed. Just as intelligence is needed for *all*
chemical reactions to occur. Right? And gravity, surely the formation of
planets require intelligence except for gravity?
> Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
> If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
I reject it because there's no evidence. And so should everyone.
Michael Bragg
However, a new one should be dragged into Jupiter's orbit shortly,
from the Painter-Bryant-Cloim (PBC) Cloud, a vast field of orbital
chocolate cakes left over from the Big Bake. The PBC Cloud is
somewhere between the outer edge of the Kuiper Belt and Jupiter's
orbital path, and it is a well-known secret among astrophysichefs (who
jealously defend the knowledge from outsiders) that there is always at
least one chocolate cake in Jupiter's orbit.
As a matter of fact, the original message Arthur C. Clarke was going
to have at the end of /2010/ was, "All these chocolate cakes are
yours, except the one near Europa. Attempt no bogarting of that
cake."
==
Michael Bragg
Graham Kennedy
david ford wrote:
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
> Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
> for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
> subsequent life is related by common descent?
> If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
require intelligence to create life.
> Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
> If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
provided no good evidence to support their position.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
Al Klein
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 06:55:48 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>
>> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:3c3p10t78cv0efe18...@Pern.rk...
>>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:41:05 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
>>> ford) posted in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>> >About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
>>> >life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
>>> >the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
>>> >give rise to all of subsequent life?
>>>
>>> Possible, yes. Likely, no.
>>>
>>> >Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
>>> >for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
>>> >subsequent life is related by common descent?
>>> >If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
>>>
>>> 1) No actual evidence of this "intelligence".
>>
>> Don't believe in indirect evidence?
>
>No indirect evidence either.
Except for argument by ignorance.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
John Wilkins
And of course Poole's famous last message: "My God, it's a recipe!"
--
John Chocoholism Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
gen2rev
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in
<pan.2004.02.01....@mail.utexas.edu>:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 02:09:02 +0000, Mike Painter wrote:
>
> > It is also possible that there is a chocolate cake in orbit around
> > Jupiter.
>
> LoL.
>
> In a perfect universe there *would* be, and I posit that one actually is.
I would respectfully suggest that in the perfect universe, *everything*
would be made of chocolate cake.
:d
Jari Anttila
>
> david ford wrote:
>
> > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> > life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> > the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> > give rise to all of subsequent life?
>
> Possible? Sure.
I agree. However, it doesn't seem to have been a very
efficient program because after the appearance of the
first lifeforms, 3.5 billion years ago,
about 2.5 billion years passed without any spectacular change
(multicellular life).
[...]
>
> > Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> > position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
>
> For the same reason; that those proposing the idea have
> provided no good evidence to support their position.
And the way the common descent has happened - jumpy and
uneven, boosted many times apparently by natural
catastrophes (e.g. the Permian and K/T extinctions)
- shows to me no signs of any intelligent guidance.
Jari
David
> Graham Kennedy wrote
> >
> > david ford wrote:
> >
> > > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> > > life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> > > the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> > > give rise to all of subsequent life?
> >
> > Possible? Sure.
>
> I agree. However, it doesn't seem to have been a very
> efficient program because after the appearance of the
> first lifeforms, 3.5 billion years ago,
> about 2.5 billion years passed without any spectacular change
> (multicellular life).
It seems like you may be dissing bacteria here ;-) But remember they
have a spectacular metabolic diversity that rivals any structural
diversity seen in eucaryotes.
david ford
The evidence indicates that known physics can't give rise to the
information seen in living organisms' genetic codes.
david ford
david ford wrote:
> > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> > life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> > the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> > give rise to all of subsequent life?
>
> Sure. It's also "possible" that the designer was a young alien sciecne
> student from the planet Mlulkitui who designed life on earth as a junior
> class project. <shrug>
>
> But I'd sure like for you to tell me what designed the "intelligence"
> that you think designed life on earth,
The intelligence I think designed life on earth never began to exist.
> if, as you apparently think,
> nothing alive can exist without being designed . . . .
>
> I
> d also like to hear what your scientific theory of intelligent design
> is. What, precisely, do you think this designer did. What mechanisms,
> in particular, do you think it used to do whatever it is you think it
> did, and where can we see these mechabnisms in action today.
I leave it to other minds to answer your queries.
david ford
> In article <b1c67abe.0401...@posting.google.com>,
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
>
> > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> > life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> > the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> > give rise to all of subsequent life?
>
> To consider that possibility, I would have to see evidence that:
>
> 1) A 'designer' exists.
Does this work?:
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://tinyurl.com/ygqj
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Einstein thought a super-intelligence designed physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980828014215.21206A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> 2) That said designer had a mechanism for carrying out the design.
If a bizarre, never-before-seen spacecraft landed in your backyard,
would you think it had been designed by intelligence?
Would you insist on first learning the mechanisms of the spacecraft's
construction before concluding it had been designed?
> 3) That said designer actually carried out the design.
Is this a request for evidence derived from the study of history?
> 4) That the organism in question was actually the product of said
> designer carrying out the design and did not come into existence by some
> other mechanism.
Is this a request for evidence derived from the study of history?
> So where's the evidence?
>
> <snip massive cuts and pastes>
Do you think that the sequence/arrangement of letters you cut were the
product of intelligence?
If "yes," upon what basis did you arrive at that conclusion?
Mark VandeWettering
Really? Which evidence is that?
Mark
david ford
>
> > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> > life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> > the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> > give rise to all of subsequent life?
>
> Possible? Sure.
>
> > Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
> > for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
> > subsequent life is related by common descent?
>
> Yes, I do think that.
>
> > If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
>
> Because nobody has ever suggested a good reason why it would
> require intelligence to create life.
In the laboratory, is intelligence required to create life?
> > Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> > position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
>
> For the same reason; that those proposing the idea have
> provided no good evidence to support their position.
What, for you, would constitute evidence for the proposition that the
first lifeform was the product of intelligent design?
david ford
> Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message news:<107566547...@dyke.uk.clara.net>...
> >
> > david ford wrote:
> >
> > > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> > > life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> > > the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> > > give rise to all of subsequent life?
> >
> > Possible? Sure.
>
> I agree. However, it doesn't seem to have been a very
> efficient program because after the appearance of the
> first lifeforms, 3.5 billion years ago,
> about 2.5 billion years passed without any spectacular change
> (multicellular life).
At what point in the earth's history could multicellular life have
survived and thrived-- how many billions of years ago?
4.5 billion years ago? 4? 3.5? 3? 2.5? 2? 1.5? 1? .5 billion
years ago?
> [...]
>
> > > Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> > > position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
> >
> > For the same reason; that those proposing the idea have
> > provided no good evidence to support their position.
>
> And the way the common descent has happened - jumpy and
> uneven, boosted many times apparently by natural
> catastrophes (e.g. the Permian and K/T extinctions)
> - shows to me no signs of any intelligent guidance.
What were the mechanisms responsible for the jumpiness and unevenness
of which you speak?
Man is currently driving to extinction numerous kinds of organisms.
Do you think that man's bringing about mass extinction will eventually
lead to another round of many new kinds of organisms appearing on
earth?
Bobby D. Bryant
Which physics are those?
AC
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> "\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote in message news:<401c6cd8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com>...
> david ford wrote:
>
>> > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
>> > life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
>> > the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
>> > give rise to all of subsequent life?
>>
>> Sure. It's also "possible" that the designer was a young alien sciecne
>> student from the planet Mlulkitui who designed life on earth as a junior
>> class project. <shrug>
>>
>> But I'd sure like for you to tell me what designed the "intelligence"
>> that you think designed life on earth,
>
> The intelligence I think designed life on earth never began to exist.
So, in fact, you don't want the magnifying glass turned on this alleged
designer at all. If life on this planet requires a designer, then a being
intelligent enough to pull it off must certainly be designed as well. If
not, then why not David?
>
>> if, as you apparently think,
>> nothing alive can exist without being designed . . . .
>>
>> I
>> d also like to hear what your scientific theory of intelligent design
>> is. What, precisely, do you think this designer did. What mechanisms,
>> in particular, do you think it used to do whatever it is you think it
>> did, and where can we see these mechabnisms in action today.
>
> I leave it to other minds to answer your queries.
So you, in fact, don't have a theory. Your solution is that we abandon
science and essentially invoke magic as the answer. Is this basically
correct?
>
>> Or are you just gonna post-and-run. Again.
>
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Bobby D. Bryant
> Do you think that man's bringing about mass extinction will eventually
> lead to another round of many new kinds of organisms appearing on earth?
Yes.
Matt Giwer
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
Frankly Sir, I object to being told I am of common descent.
--
If you wish to murder people find your own reasons against
the people next door. Do not depend upon your government
to do it for you. The government may not want you to kill
when you feel like killing. Do it yourself.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3015
Danny Kodicek
"gen2rev" <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:960r109r0i0rb2fo4...@4ax.com...
From
http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com/biscuits/views.php3?values=0&size=1&i
tem=691
"On ingredients lists of some products it says 'anti-caking agent'. Does
this mean everything contains anti-caking agent except cakes? If there was a
world shortage of anti-caking agent, would everything in the universe turn
to cakes?"
I would urge the cancellation of all orders for said anti-caking agent,
allowing cake to proliferate across the known galaxy. However, maybe some
sort of tea sanctuary could be erected, so that a nice cuppa could be still
be enjoyed amongst the goodness?
Nicey replies: Excellent deductive reasoning. Mind you its salt that has
anti-caking agent so that implies that the sea is actually dilute cake.
Danny
Jari Anttila
So maybe the eucaryotes are just some kind of freaky sidebranch
in the universal phylogenetic tree?
As a matter of fact, that's the general impression one gets
from glancing it:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/13/8742.pdf
Jari
Jari Anttila
[...]
> At what point in the earth's history could multicellular life have
> survived and thrived-- how many billions of years ago?
> 4.5 billion years ago? 4? 3.5? 3? 2.5? 2? 1.5? 1? .5 billion
> years ago?
You mean that the intelligent designer saw it
necessary to have 2.5 billion years of prokaryotic
and singe-cellular eucaryotic
soup before anything more advanced could appear?
Of course it couldn't have survived before the conditions
were "right" for it, but that doesn't mean the previous
lifeforms were designed to do the groundwork.
I wonder what characteristics in the current life on Earth
are supposed to create the lifeforms that will exist here
3 billion years from now?
[...]
>
> And the way the common descent has happened - jumpy and
> uneven, boosted many times apparently by natural
> catastrophes (e.g. the Permian and K/T extinctions)
> - shows to me no signs of any intelligent guidance.
> What were the mechanisms responsible for the jumpiness and unevenness
> of which you speak?
At most part it was the adaptation for existing and
changing environments. If environment doesn't change radically,
there's no need for radical changes in life.
For example, adaptive radiations, which can create
a whole lot of new forms in a relatively short time,
do happen usually in cases when a whole new environment
(dry land, air, etc.) is about to be inhabited.
If it hadn't been jumpy but a steady rise in complexity
and diversity, which btw. is a common misconception about
how evolution happens, then it could be easier to imagine
some intelligent mechanisms behind it.
> Man is currently driving to extinction numerous kinds of organisms.
> Do you think that man's bringing about mass extinction will eventually
> lead to another round of many new kinds of organisms appearing on
> earth?
Possibly.
The Permian extinction killed 96% of all species,
which apparently was a remarkable boost for the Mesozoic era.
Jari
Richard Forrest
It is greatly more that the diversity seen in Eukaryotes. New
Scientist published a rather wonderful 'tree of life' a few years ago,
showing plants, animals and fungi as tiny single branches from the
great diversity of bacterial life. A similar figure can be found here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/1/pdf/l_051_35.pdf
RF
Jari Anttila
[...]
> > > Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> > > position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
> >
> > For the same reason; that those proposing the idea have
> > provided no good evidence to support their position.
>
> What, for you, would constitute evidence for the proposition that the
> first lifeform was the product of intelligent design?
>
An intelligent designer could leave behind many kinds
of marks that evolution couldn't possibly do. I suggest that
the Search for ID (SID) adopts the same methods SETI is using;
e.g. try to find some hidden messages from the junk-dna.
There's plenty of it, and its purpose is currently unknown.
That something is, or seems to be, too complex to have
been evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms, is not a definition
for Design.
It's a description for something that hasn't been been
evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms.
But why to call it "designed"?
Jari
david ford
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 06:16:47 +0000, david ford wrote:
>
> > Do you think that man's bringing about mass extinction will eventually
> > lead to another round of many new kinds of organisms appearing on earth?
>
> Yes.
When?
Also, when was the last round of many new kinds of organisms appearing on earth?
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2004.02.02....@mail.utexas.edu>...
>> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 06:16:47 +0000, david ford wrote:
>>
>> > Do you think that man's bringing about mass extinction will
>> > eventually lead to another round of many new kinds of organisms
>> > appearing on earth?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> When?
Over the next few million years or so, depending on what you mean by
"many".
> Also, when was the last round of many new kinds of organisms appearing
> on earth?
Don't know about "last", but mammals have enjoyed a remarkable radiation
over the last ~2% of the history of life on earth.
Bobby D. Bryant
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
> news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [...]
>
>> > > Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the position
>> > > that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > > If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
>> >
>> > For the same reason; that those proposing the idea have provided no
>> > good evidence to support their position.
>>
>> What, for you, would constitute evidence for the proposition that the
>> first lifeform was the product of intelligent design?
>>
>>
> An intelligent designer could leave behind many kinds of marks that
> evolution couldn't possibly do. I suggest that the Search for ID (SID)
> adopts the same methods SETI is using; e.g. try to find some hidden
> messages from the junk-dna. There's plenty of it, and its purpose is
> currently unknown.
The problem with that is filtering out all the "Bible Codes" style of
nonsense.
> That something is, or seems to be, too complex to have been evolved by
> the Darwinian mechanisms, is not a definition for Design. It's a
> description for something that hasn't been been evolved by the Darwinian
> mechanisms. But why to call it "designed"?
Right. And if something has 500 bits of CSI, the correct conclusion is
"has 500 bits of CSI", not "I don't think evolution could do that, so some
intelligent designer (whatever that means) must have done it."
Danny Kodicek
It wouldn't be hard (at least, not for the supposed ability of the Great
Designer In The Sky) to put a SETI-style message in an organism's genetic
code. Of course, any organism from so long ago is gone, so we'd be unlikely
to read the message. But anyway, all this assumes that there was such a
thing as the 'first lifeform', which creates an artificial divide between
the living and the non-living. The first self-replicating molecule wasn't a
'lifeform', and even viruses are pushing at the boundaries of the
definition. Most likely (at least by my layman's reading on the subject),
the seeds of life included at a pretty early stage some kind of collection
of molecules in a protein coat of some kind, much like a virus. Obviously,
we don't know if this was created by some alien designer, but we have no
reason to suppose it was, either.
Terry Pratchett's novel Strata suggests that a world created by designers
would include some 'signature' - a planet designer in the book leaves a
placard in the hand of an artificial dinosaur fossil that reads 'End Nuclear
Testing Now', and another creates a mountain range in the shape of her
initials.
Danny
Jari Anttila
It depends on what do you mean by "new kinds".
Since the birth of the eukaryotic cell
(~1.3 billion years ago, Beck Spring Dolomite ?)
nothing *entirely* new has appeared, but in a branch
that is most closely related to us the last time was
apparently after the unfortunate incident that happened
to the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.
Most of the present mammalian orders (and also a few
that have since then died out) diversified
during the Paleocene and Eocene epochs.
Jari
John Harshman
david ford wrote:
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
Sure it's possible, at least conceptually. But if you ask me it would be
a weird way to work.
> Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
> for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
> subsequent life is related by common descent?
> If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
I reserve judgement. My reasons are not biological.
> Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
> If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
Exactly what do you mean by this? Is this something other than the
assertion that the first cell was designed? Does it require that the
particular sequence of descendant species also be designed? Or just that
there be some general goals of evolution? Or what?
I will be happy to discuss why I don't think either of these
alternatives is likely, if you will clarify.
[snip long Dobzhansky quote, which might be relevant in some way or might not be]
Graham Kennedy
find some unmistakable sign of intelligence within living
things - a message of some sort, perhaps. You would also
need a reason to believe that said sign had been there all
along, rather than having been added recently.
There's a Star Trek episode called "The Chase" which had
this premise. When DNA from various species (Human and
alien) is combined, it creates a sort of computer program
that broadcasts a message from those who created life in
our galaxy.
The science of the episode is not very realistic, but
something like this would be pretty convincing.
It would also be highly suggestive if we discovered some
demonstratably intelligent artifact which contained
proof of the creation of life. I'm thinking along the
lines that if life on this planet was created by aliens
we might find an ancient spacecraft buried somewhere which
had records of the creation of life. You could always argue
that this only proves that the aliens *claimed* to have
created life and may have just lied about it, but I think
it would still be a pretty compelling piece of evidence
in spite of that possibility.
Of course you might be able to prove that life could only
have come into existence through intelligence, but I don't
really see how that would be possible. You'd have to
eliminate every other option, and how could you ever be
certain that you had done that?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
Peacenik
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
No.
--
Peacenik
gen2rev
wrote in <b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>:
[snip]
> If a bizarre, never-before-seen spacecraft landed in your backyard,
> would you think it had been designed by intelligence?
> Would you insist on first learning the mechanisms of the spacecraft's
> construction before concluding it had been designed?
How does one recognize items as spacecraft?
The problem with your statement is that you're assuming your conclusion.
What if *something* landed in my backyard. How would I go about
identifying it as a spacecraft?
[snip]
david ford
david ford:
Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote:
david ford:
> >> > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> >> > life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> >> > the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> >> > give rise to all of subsequent life?
> >>
> >> Sure. It's also "possible" that the designer was a young alien sciecne
> >> student from the planet Mlulkitui who designed life on earth as a junior
> >> class project. <shrug>
> >>
> >> But I'd sure like for you to tell me what designed the "intelligence"
> >> that you think designed life on earth,
> >
> > The intelligence I think designed life on earth never began to exist.
>
> So, in fact, you don't want the magnifying glass turned on this alleged
> designer at all. If life on this planet requires a designer, then a being
> intelligent enough to pull it off must certainly be designed as well. If
> not, then why not David?
As I said before, the intelligence that I think designed life on Earth
never began to exist. It is logically impossible for something that
never began to exist to have been designed.
For instance, if biology never began to exist and yet exists, it is
logically impossible for biology to have been designed. Also, if
material existence never began to exist and yet exists, it is
logically impossible for physics to have been designed.
> >> if, as you apparently think,
> >> nothing alive can exist without being designed . . . .
> >>
> >> I
> >> d also like to hear what your scientific theory of intelligent design
> >> is. What, precisely, do you think this designer did. What mechanisms,
> >> in particular, do you think it used to do whatever it is you think it
> >> did, and where can we see these mechabnisms in action today.
> >
> > I leave it to other minds to answer your queries.
>
> So you, in fact, don't have a theory. Your solution is that we abandon
> science and essentially invoke magic as the answer. Is this basically
> correct?
If scientists believe that a particular radio signal is the product of
intelligence (think of the movie "Contact"), they are not invoking
magic.
If an archaeologist believes that a particular object is the product
of intelligence (perhaps a pyramid, or an object with embossing), the
archaeologist is not invoking magic.
david ford
david ford:
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
david ford:
> > > > Do you think that man's bringing about mass extinction
> > > > will eventually lead to another round of many new kinds
> > > > of organisms appearing on earth?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > When?
> > Also, when was the last round of many new kinds of organisms
> > appearing on earth?
>
> It depends on what do you mean by "new kinds".
Some definitions:
Gould on the notion of species as 'natural kinds'
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309061149130.1109-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
body structure is the basis for calling something of one "kind" versus
another
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990118235404.100720A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
with a followup at
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990124234421.577677C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Ward and Ehrlich & Holm on the word "species"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990112233000.17813A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Ehrlich & Ehrlich on present-day non-appearance of new animal kinds
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9910252319240.1435666-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Mike Painter
An infinite universe or infinite numbers of infinite universes meet this
criteria.
However note that the choice of an un caused as opposed to an infinate
number of causes was arbitrary, and ther is a *lot* that comes next.
If an intelligent designer designed a car with warning gauges on it, would
you expect the low tire warning light would come on some of the time if the
error was in the fuel system?
The human body does this a lot.
There is little intelligence in the "design" of the human bosy.
> For instance, if biology never began to exist and yet exists, it is
> logically impossible for biology to have been designed. Also, if
> material existence never began to exist and yet exists, it is
> logically impossible for physics to have been designed.
>
> > >> if, as you apparently think,
> > >> nothing alive can exist without being designed . . . .
> > >>
> > >> I
> > >> d also like to hear what your scientific theory of intelligent design
> > >> is. What, precisely, do you think this designer did. What
mechanisms,
> > >> in particular, do you think it used to do whatever it is you think it
> > >> did, and where can we see these mechabnisms in action today.
> > >
> > > I leave it to other minds to answer your queries.
> >
> > So you, in fact, don't have a theory. Your solution is that we abandon
> > science and essentially invoke magic as the answer. Is this basically
> > correct?
>
> If scientists believe that a particular radio signal is the product of
> intelligence (think of the movie "Contact"), they are not invoking
> magic.
> If an archaeologist believes that a particular object is the product
> of intelligence (perhaps a pyramid, or an object with embossing), the
> archaeologist is not invoking magic.
A scientist can, just as you do, believe anything he or she wants. Science
does not work this way and more than belief would be required.
david ford
david ford:
> > > > Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> > > > position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
> > >
> > > For the same reason; that those proposing the idea have
> > > provided no good evidence to support their position.
> >
> > What, for you, would constitute evidence for the proposition that the
> > first lifeform was the product of intelligent design?
>
> An intelligent designer could leave behind many kinds
> of marks that evolution couldn't possibly do.
"Evolution" has historically been invoked for all sorts of changes,
including intelligence-directed changes such as the "evolution" of the
automobile.
What are some of the [JA]"many kinds of marks that evolution couldn't
possibly do"?
> I suggest that
> the Search for ID (SID) adopts the same methods SETI is using;
> e.g. try to find some hidden messages from the junk-dna.
> There's plenty of it, and its purpose is currently unknown.
So your answer to the question [df]"What, for you, would constitute
evidence for the proposition that the first lifeform was the product
of intelligent design?" is what-- that some sort of communication in
Japanese or French or prime numbers be extracted from an animal or
plant genome? If "no," what is your answer to the question?
> That something is, or seems to be, too complex to have
> been evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms, is not a definition
> for Design.
> It's a description for something that hasn't been been
> evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms.
> But why to call it "designed"?
If calculations were performed using reasonable assumptions, and the
calculations showed that Darwinian mechanisms couldn't arrive at the
nucleotide-sequences-that-work present in organisms, would you
consider that to be a piece of evidence on the side of the intelligent
design hypothesis?
I don't know about you, but I infer that certain things are designed
all the time. For example, in looking at the sequence of letters and
spaces above-- what I'm replying to-- I infer or that intelligence was
responsible for the arrangement of those letters and spaces, i.e., I
infer that your post was designed. Your post has the appearance of
having been designed, and moreover, it is exceedingly unlikely that
the content of your post could have appeared via totally-mind-less
processes.
We really should do some calculations.
AC
Logic be damned, David (I feel like Bones here). This is just an example of
special pleading. Since your worldview requires that biological organisms
ultimately be designed, but also require that the designer be beyond the
same analysis, you (and most other Creationists I have encountered) simply
wave your hands, declare logic is being violated by asking the question and
seem to think you've scored some sort of point.
If life requires a designer, then so does the designer. All you do is push
the question back, violating Occam's Razor at the same time. Beyond that,
you're just invoking magical solutions to difficult problems.
>
>> >> if, as you apparently think,
>> >> nothing alive can exist without being designed . . . .
>> >>
>> >> I
>> >> d also like to hear what your scientific theory of intelligent design
>> >> is. What, precisely, do you think this designer did. What mechanisms,
>> >> in particular, do you think it used to do whatever it is you think it
>> >> did, and where can we see these mechabnisms in action today.
>> >
>> > I leave it to other minds to answer your queries.
>>
>> So you, in fact, don't have a theory. Your solution is that we abandon
>> science and essentially invoke magic as the answer. Is this basically
>> correct?
>
> If scientists believe that a particular radio signal is the product of
> intelligence (think of the movie "Contact"), they are not invoking
> magic.
> If an archaeologist believes that a particular object is the product
> of intelligence (perhaps a pyramid, or an object with embossing), the
> archaeologist is not invoking magic.
This is this bad analogy rearing its ugly head. In the case of SETI and
archaeology, we are dealing with areas of research explicitely about design.
Even in these sciences there are false positives, and certain kinds of
natural objects (naturally weathered stones that look like heads and pulsars
are good examples) have to be expected.
Living organisms are not radio signals from Epsilon Indi, nor are they the
ruins of abandoned cities. The analogy is faulty.
Bobby D. Bryant
> As I said before, the intelligence that I think designed life on Earth
> never began to exist. It is logically impossible for something that
> never began to exist to have been designed.
> For instance, if biology never began to exist and yet exists, it is
> logically impossible for biology to have been designed. Also, if
> material existence never began to exist and yet exists, it is
> logically impossible for physics to have been designed.
But if you subscribe to the common claim that "complex" stuff must have
been designed, you are contradicting yourself. Special pleading?
Bobby D. Bryant
> If calculations were performed using reasonable assumptions, and the
> calculations showed that Darwinian mechanisms couldn't arrive at the
> nucleotide-sequences-that-work present in organisms, would you consider
> that to be a piece of evidence on the side of the intelligent design
> hypothesis?
No. Setting aside the fact that no one has produced such calculations,
even if someone _did_ produce them, the only logical conclusion would be
that something other than a Darwinian mechanism had done it. You are
suggesting a non sequitur, presumably based on an unspoken false dichotomy
of the "darwininan mechanism OR intelligent design, no other options"
type.
johac
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> johac <jha...@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
> news:<jhachm-3EA230....@news-60.giganews.com>...
> > In article <b1c67abe.0401...@posting.google.com>,
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> >
> > > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> > > life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> > > the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> > > give rise to all of subsequent life?
> >
> > To consider that possibility, I would have to see evidence that:
> >
> > 1) A 'designer' exists.
>
> Does this work?:
> The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
> in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
> http://tinyurl.com/ygqj
> aka
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-10000
> 0%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
> Einstein thought a super-intelligence designed physics
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980828014215.21206A-100000%40
> umbc8.umbc.edu
So, if this superintelligent whatchamacallit designer thingy exists?
Where is it? May we see it? Where is your evidence that it exists?
>
> > 2) That said designer had a mechanism for carrying out the design.
>
> If a bizarre, never-before-seen spacecraft landed in your backyard,
> would you think it had been designed by intelligence?
> Would you insist on first learning the mechanisms of the spacecraft's
> construction before concluding it had been designed?
Of course the alien beings who built the space ship would exist and I
could ask them if and how they constructed it. Now most believe that the
'creator' is a supernatural being. By what mechanisms does the
supernatural, if it exists, operate in the natural world? How does the
non-material interact with the material? How could your god pick up a
pebble, let alone create a universe?
Science in looking for natural explanations of the origin has found many
answers, but there is still a lot that we don't know yet. However, in
none of these findings is there any reported scientific evidence of
supernatural intervention. How come? I'm waiting for some evidence from
your side that will stand up to scientific scrutiny. Where is it?
>
> > 3) That said designer actually carried out the design.
>
> Is this a request for evidence derived from the study of history?
i. e. You don't have any evidence that it did.
>
> > 4) That the organism in question was actually the product of said
> > designer carrying out the design and did not come into existence by some
> > other mechanism.
>
> Is this a request for evidence derived from the study of history?
i. e. You don't have any evidence for your 'designer'.
>
> > So where's the evidence?
> >
> > <snip massive cuts and pastes>
>
> Do you think that the sequence/arrangement of letters you cut were the
> product of intelligence?
> If "yes," upon what basis did you arrive at that conclusion?
Yes. I exist, and I believe that I have at least some intelligence.
That's more than I can say for your mythical designer-god.
>
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
catshark
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 05:49:52 +0000, david ford wrote:
>
>> "Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
>> news:<bvi76j$3...@library1.airnews.net>...
>>> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:b1c67abe.0401...@posting.google.com...
>>> > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent life is said
>>> > to be related via common descent, is it possible that the original
>>> > organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to give rise to all of
>>> > subsequent life?
>>>
>>> If you're going to go that far, why stop at the original organism? Why
>>> not go all the way and make the designer really intelligent and say
>>> that it designed the laws of physics and the elements so that life was
>>> inevitable?
>>
>> The evidence indicates that known physics can't give rise to the
>> information seen in living organisms' genetic codes.
>
>Which physics are those?
Maybe he meant known physiks . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
(BigDiscusser)
action--creating true to His Word about creation of different kinds of
life. Jesus is IN His creation ( Col. Chap 1 v 17) guiding and
directing. Science and the scietific method alone, can show none of
this to you. Keep doing only the "pure" science which can and has
helped mankind. Otherwise, desist from denigrating God, and desist
asking unanswerable questions about who designed Him. Bobby Bryant
said: Clearly God disigned Himself. That's just more proof that He
really is all powerful. How true!! God bless, Jo Jean
I am an 82 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
topics and am a retired RN.
http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
Jesus loves you.
John Chap 1 v 3
Colossians Chap 1 v 16, 17--defeats evolution with ADAPTATION by Jesus
who is IN His creation (not evolution) plus scientifically untouchable
classic morality, equals the DIVINE SYNTHESIS.
MUSLIMS NEED JESUS CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD ALMIGHTY, and follow His Way
of Love with us, worshipping in their own Mosques.
Nick Keighley
> david ford:
> > > > > Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> > > > > position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > > If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
> > > >
> > > > For the same reason; that those proposing the idea have
> > > > provided no good evidence to support their position.
> > >
> > > What, for you, would constitute evidence for the proposition that the
> > > first lifeform was the product of intelligent design?
> >
> > An intelligent designer could leave behind many kinds
> > of marks that evolution couldn't possibly do.
>
> "Evolution" has historically been invoked for all sorts of changes,
> including intelligence-directed changes such as the "evolution" of the
> automobile.
> What are some of the [JA]"many kinds of marks that evolution couldn't
> possibly do"?
in talk.origins "evolution" is taken to mean "evolutionary biology",
unless
stated otherwise. Car design is not evolutionary biology. Car design
shows
signs that is not by a process of common descent. Ideas are borrowed.
For
instance all (most?) manufacturs are introducing engine management
systems.
Evolutionary biology does not work like this. Why can't whales extract
oxygen
from water? Why no photosynthesing mamals?
> > I suggest that
> > the Search for ID (SID) adopts the same methods SETI is using;
> > e.g. try to find some hidden messages from the junk-dna.
> > There's plenty of it, and its purpose is currently unknown.
>
> So your answer to the question [df]"What, for you, would constitute
> evidence for the proposition that the first lifeform was the product
> of intelligent design?" is what-- that some sort of communication in
> Japanese or French or prime numbers be extracted from an animal or
> plant genome? If "no," what is your answer to the question?
well you're the one who's trying to prove it. But yes that sort of
thing
would be interesting. I'd expect some sort of proof that such patterns
were unlikely to arise by chance.
> > That something is, or seems to be, too complex to have
> > been evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms, is not a definition
> > for Design.
> > It's a description for something that hasn't been been
> > evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms.
> > But why to call it "designed"?
>
> If calculations were performed using reasonable assumptions, and the
> calculations showed that Darwinian mechanisms couldn't arrive at the
> nucleotide-sequences-that-work present in organisms, would you
> consider that to be a piece of evidence on the side of the intelligent
> design hypothesis?
but such calculations havn't been done. If wishes were horses then
beggers
would rise.
> I don't know about you, but I infer that certain things are designed
> all the time. For example, in looking at the sequence of letters and
> spaces above-- what I'm replying to-- I infer or that intelligence was
> responsible for the arrangement of those letters and spaces, i.e., I
> infer that your post was designed. Your post has the appearance of
> having been designed, and moreover, it is exceedingly unlikely that
> the content of your post could have appeared via totally-mind-less
> processes.
>
> We really should do some calculations.
go on then
--
Nick Keighley
gen2rev
wrote in <b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>:
> AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> david ford:
> Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote:
> david ford:
>
> > >> > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> > >> > life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> > >> > the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> > >> > give rise to all of subsequent life?
> > >>
> > >> Sure. It's also "possible" that the designer was a young alien sciecne
> > >> student from the planet Mlulkitui who designed life on earth as a junior
> > >> class project. <shrug>
> > >>
> > >> But I'd sure like for you to tell me what designed the "intelligence"
> > >> that you think designed life on earth,
> > >
> > > The intelligence I think designed life on earth never began to exist.
> >
> > So, in fact, you don't want the magnifying glass turned on this alleged
> > designer at all. If life on this planet requires a designer, then a being
> > intelligent enough to pull it off must certainly be designed as well. If
> > not, then why not David?
>
> As I said before, the intelligence that I think designed life on Earth
> never began to exist.
And your reason for believing that the designer never began to exist
is...?
[snip the rest]
R.Schenck
> In studying evolution the scientists ARE seeing God in
> action--creating true to His Word about creation of different kinds of
> life.
then why are the kinds so plastic as to grade into on another?
>Jesus is IN His creation ( Col. Chap 1 v 17) guiding and
> directing. Science and the scietific method alone, can show none of
> this to you.
wtf says it can?
> Keep doing only the "pure" science which can and has
> helped mankind.
you mean like evolution? ok kewl.
> Otherwise, desist from denigrating God, and desist
> asking unanswerable questions about who designed Him.
yer the one with the unanswerable questions, trying to decide where
nature stops and god starts.
AC
(BigDiscusser) <JOJ...@webtv.net> wrote:
> In studying evolution the scientists ARE seeing God in
> action--creating true to His Word about creation of different kinds of
> life. Jesus is IN His creation ( Col. Chap 1 v 17) guiding and
> directing. Science and the scietific method alone, can show none of
> this to you. Keep doing only the "pure" science which can and has
> helped mankind. Otherwise, desist from denigrating God, and desist
> asking unanswerable questions about who designed Him. Bobby Bryant
> said: Clearly God disigned Himself. That's just more proof that He
> really is all powerful. How true!! God bless, Jo Jean
I would be willing to leave your god alone if you didn't feel the need to
push him into science. But as you seem very keen to force everyone to
accept your form of Christianity, I for one will continue to demand that
your god be treated with the same sort of rigour you seem to want to put
evolution under.
That's the way it is Jo Jean. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Jari Anttila
(Quotes from external links marked by ":")
> jaria...@hotmail.com (Jari Anttila) wrote:
> david ford:
> Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> david ford:
>
> > > > > Do you think that man's bringing about mass extinction
> > > > > will eventually lead to another round of many new kinds
> > > > > of organisms appearing on earth?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
> > > When?
> > > Also, when was the last round of many new kinds of organisms
> > > appearing on earth?
> >
> > It depends on what do you mean by "new kinds".
>
> Some definitions:
> Gould on the notion of species as 'natural kinds'
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309061149130.1109-10000
0%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
: (Gould) :
:
: Common sense dictates that the world of familiar, macroscopic
: organisms presents itself to us in "packages" called species.
: All bird watchers and butterfly netters know that they can
: divide the specimens of any local area into discrete units
: blessed with those Latin binomials that befuddle
: the uninitiated. Occasionally, to be sure, a package may
: become unraveled and even seem to coalesce with another.
: But such cases are noted for their
: rarity. The birds of Massachusetts and the bugs in my
: backyard are unambiguous members of species recognized
: in the same way by all experienced observers.
:
: Interestingly, Gould continues by observing that
: "This notion of species as 'natural kinds' fit splendidly
: with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age."
Those tenets, like the Linnaean systematics with Latin binomials,
were based on classical essentialism, which was an appropriate way
to classify living things before it was noted how much they actually
have variation within one species.
Darwin first made that notion when studying livestock breeding,
and the further knowledge about genetic variation gathered after
Darwin has made the essentialist view obsolete.
Pre-Darwinian and even the Darwinian "common sense"
dictated some other obsolete tenets too, e.g. that waves
and particles are completely different things
with no similar properties.
Linnaeus didn't consider species as 'natural kinds'
in a traditional creationist manner because he later
assumed they were mutable within a genus level.
> body structure is the basis for calling something of one "kind" versus
> another
>
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990118235404.100720A-100000
%40umbc8.umbc.edu
: I do not believe in macroevolution, i.e.
: non-intelligence-directed
: vertical change, i.e. blindwatchmaking sorts of changes.
: I do not believe that a dog can become a cat over
: millions of years. Nor can a horse become a cow, nor
: a reptile a bird. A peach tree can't become an
: oak, and a land animal can't become a whale.
: A chimpanzee can't become a human, and a flying squirrel
: can't become a bird.
(nobody believes in that phylogeny)
The concept of "new structure" is illusory and
speculative, because there would be no way telling
if one particular structure has appeared from scratch or
descended by gradual modification from some other structure
were there no known ancestral forms.
Consider for example, the mammalian middle-ear bones
that have evolved from synapsid jaw bones.
That's a well-documented case of gradual modification,
e.g. :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2
but that's only because the synapsid-therapsid fossils are
so numerous. Otherwise one could make a claim that mammalian
ear is a completely new structure that couldn't possibly
have evolved step-by-step from something else.
Or how about the tetrapod legs if one forgets the
lobe-finned fishes from Silurian to Devonian?
So, every known history of some "new" structure is a
gradual modification, either by intensifying its existing
function or shifting from one function
to another. Nowhere, in the known fossil record,
is there any appearance of new structures with no
evolutionary history at all,
or with an evolutionary history incompatible with
the Darwinian evolution.
Gaps are unknown history, as I explained above.
BTW, what new organs or structures does a human have
that a chimp hasn't?
Or with respect to the correct phylogeny:
what's the "kind"-level difference
between _Homo sapiens_ and _Australopithecus 'Lucy' afarensis_?
: When taken together, Darwin's theories of natural
: selection and of common descent predict the gradual,
: step-by-step arrival of ever-more- different organisms
: with the passage of ever-more time. If the predicted
: transitional fossil sequences existed, then paleontologists
: wouldn't be able to classify things.
: Fossil organisms would blend into
: each other, making classification very difficult.
This claim assumes that the change driven by natural
selection should always be continuous and even,
or at least directed.
I don't understand why it should.
Darwinian selection can be either directional, stabilizing
or disruptive, depending on how the average fitness
of a population relates to the optimal fitness
set by environment. Therefore selection
can either make the differences accumulate into
a certain direction or prevent them from
accumulating altogether, depending on circumstances.
That's what makes evolution unpredictable and jumpy.
: However, in contrast
: to prediction, clear divisions exist in the
: fossil record, and for evidence I offer the fact
: that Darwin (and us) was (are) able to quite
: easily classify fossil organisms studied.
: Some things take more
: pictures to describe because there is more variation
: in them, while other things require only one picture
: to identify them, but
: paleontologists can still easily classify these things.
This is mostly due to the unevenness of the fossil
record. Classification is easy when there are large
chronological gaps between successive species in the
same phyletic line, which is usually the case.
But if we are looking at some relatively short-lived
phylogenetic branch, e.g. the hominids in the
last 4 million years, classification
becomes quite difficult.
It's like the coastline (at least in some parts of
the world). It's usually easy to point it out
from a small-scale map, but a large-scale map from
the same area can make you confused.
: As further evidence that divisions exist in the
: fossil record, I offer the fact that we are able
: to divide up the geological record into eras,
: periods, and epochs on the basis of the types
: of fossils found therein.
Right. Many, if not the most, of the geological
periods coincide with some global catastrophe that
had a drastic impact by emptying
innumerous ecological niches at once,
and therefore giving room
for a new adaptive radiation of some
particular group of species.
About extinctions:
http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/tablecont.html
That's another reason why evolution does not
predict a "gradual, step-by-step arrival of
ever-more-different organisms with the
passage of ever-more time."
: In making the classifications of fossil organisms,
: we look at body structure. That is the basis
: for the classification of fossils, since
: there is no such thing as mating two fossils
: and seeing if they are
: capable of reproducing to see if we can
: call them separate "species" or
: separate "kinds.""
The basis for the classification of fossils is cladistics,
in which fossils are classified according to
their shared derived structures.
A closest clearly defineable match for a "kind"
is a clade, which includes the creature that first
had some distinct feature (e.g. four limbs),
and all the subsequent species who inherited it.
e.g. all vertebrates from _Acanthostega_
to _Homo sapiens_ can unambiguously be classified
to the same kind, tetrapods.
But these "kinds" are nested.
>
> Ward and Ehrlich & Holm on the word "species"
>
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990112233000.17813A-100000%
40umbc9.umbc.edu
: Ehrlich, Paul R. and Richard W. Holm. "Patterns and
Populations"_Science_
137: 652-7 (1962). On 653:
Seems to me a rather old source in this context,
especially to judge the modern phylogenetic methods.
The reason why "a reproductively-isolated population"
is so beloved definition for species for evolutionists
is that it's the only objective barrier between
different gene pools. Once two populations become
isolated reproductively,
there will be no exchange of genes between them any more,
no matter whether they are two closely related and almost
indistinguishable sister species or e.g. cows and whales.
After reproductively-isolated speciation the genetic difference
between the populations can only increase.
So it's quite operational, at least in genetics.
> Ehrlich & Ehrlich on present-day non-appearance of new animal kinds
>
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9910252319240.1435666-10
0000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
: In the sentence in question, Ehrlich & Ehrlich
: use the word "species"
: in the sense of "kind"-- they aren't using
: the "a reproductively-isolated population" definition.
: Ehrlich, Paul and Anne Ehrlich. 1981. _Extinction: The Causes and
: Consequences of the Disappearance of Species_ (NY: Ballantine
Books),
:
: For a very long period-- well over 100 million
: years-- the mammals were an obscure group of
: small animals living in terror of carnivorous
: dinosaurs which preyed upon them in long-ago
: twilights. But then at the end of the Mesozoic era,
: about 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs suddenly
: disappeared. The time
: of the mammals had arrived, and a relatively few
: species of our obscure ancestors proliferated into
: a group that is represented today by over 4,000 species
: .....This process involved not
: only changes within a single line but
: also, obviously, the splitting of lines-- that
: is, _speciation_.
It involved an adaptive radiation, which was mentioned earlier.
: The exact mechanisms of speciation are not fully
: understood, in part because speciation tends to
: be a very slow process [their
: talk of slowness is a bow toward gradualism].
Mechanisms of speciation are quite well understood if
"species" is a a reproductively-isolated population.
All that is needed is some barrier which prevents two
populations from interbreeding, after which their
genetic distance can only increase.
This mostly happens in an allopatric isolation.
But if one uses some nebulous concept for "species",
it's no wonder why "speciation" is not fully understood either.
: Biologists have not been able to observe the
: entire sequence of one animal species being
: transformed into two or more. (Note that we
: carefully limit these examples to animals.
: The situation in plants is much more complicated,
: but in ways not germane to this book.)
: Biologists _have_ been able to observe innumerable
: examples of animal and plant species that appear
: to be in various stages of splitting.
: [this last 'species' appears to be closer
: to 'a reproductively-isolated population' than to 'a kind']
Because it's not clear what do they mean by "species"
here and what amount of transformation would constitute
a birth a new "kind"-species, the description above
is nonsensical.
Regards
Jari Anttila
Jari Anttila
[...]
> >
> > An intelligent designer could leave behind many kinds
> > of marks that evolution couldn't possibly do.
>
> "Evolution" has historically been invoked for all sorts of changes,
> including intelligence-directed changes such as the "evolution" of the
> automobile.
"Evolution" is still used to describe some events that
have nothing to do with either design or biological evolution;
e.g. the stellar "evolution", in which case a more appropriate
word might by stellar *development*
(btw. that is the Finnish phrasing for it: "tähden kehitys")
> What are some of the [JA]"many kinds of marks that evolution couldn't
> possibly do"?
Marks that serve no other purpose than being signs from the
Designer. The problem in using complexity in this context
is that both design and evolution can create complex structures.
Besides, complexity is not a very reliable mark of design
because at least human designers tend to make things
as simple as possible to serve their intended purpose.
>
> > I suggest that
> > the Search for ID (SID) adopts the same methods SETI is using;
> > e.g. try to find some hidden messages from the junk-dna.
> > There's plenty of it, and its purpose is currently unknown.
>
> So your answer to the question [df]"What, for you, would constitute
> evidence for the proposition that the first lifeform was the product
> of intelligent design?" is what-- that some sort of communication in
> Japanese or French or prime numbers be extracted from an animal or
> plant genome? If "no," what is your answer to the question?
My answer is yes, but I leave the details for those who
are going to work with SID. I'm not an expert for SETI either.
The Human genome has 75% of extragenic material with
no known purpose. If _Homo sapiens_ was designed,
or its evolution from apes intelligently modified,
it's very likely to contain a message from the one who did it.
> > That something is, or seems to be, too complex to have
> > been evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms, is not a definition
> > for Design.
> > It's a description for something that hasn't been been
> > evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms.
> > But why to call it "designed"?
>
> If calculations were performed using reasonable assumptions,
That seems to be one main obstacle between the ID-people and
Darwinists, i.e. what assumptions are reasonable.
> and the calculations showed that Darwinian mechanisms couldn't
> arrive at the nucleotide-sequences-that-work present
> in organisms, would you
> consider that to be a piece of evidence on the side
> of the intelligent design hypothesis?
That would indicate that some other mechanisms than Darwinian
should be found. It would be a negative evidence for
Darwinian viewpoint but not a positive one for ID.
>
> I don't know about you, but I infer that certain things are designed
> all the time. For example, in looking at the sequence of letters and
> spaces above-- what I'm replying to-- I infer or that intelligence was
> responsible for the arrangement of those letters and spaces, i.e., I
> infer that your post was designed.
Yup. Because it doesn't have any ancestral forms from
which it could have been evolved, and I don't know any
evolutionary mechanisms to do that either.
A similar case would have been if a complex multicellular
lifeform had appeared on Earth with not even
hypothetical ancestors.
Regards
Jari
Jari Anttila
[...]
> in talk.origins "evolution" is taken to mean "evolutionary biology",
> unless
> stated otherwise. Car design is not evolutionary biology. Car design
> shows
> signs that is not by a process of common descent. Ideas are borrowed.
> For
> instance all (most?) manufacturs are introducing engine management
> systems.
> Evolutionary biology does not work like this. Why can't whales extract
> oxygen
> from water? Why no photosynthesing mamals?
>
Indeed, it's a quite weak argument for design to propose that
common descent is intelligently designed, because
a hierarchic common descent is a poor schema for design (any humanly
understandable, at least), but the only one that evolution can follow.
If there has been any intelligent guidance in common descent,
it has for the most part been ineffective.
It falls into the same pit as progressive creationism in general:
why has the creator/designer stupidly mimicked evolution?
Whales have many far-stretched adaptations that make them excellent divers
but a decent pair of gills would still be much better.
Jari
Chris Krolczyk
> In studying evolution the scientists ARE seeing God in
> action--creating true to His Word about creation of different kinds of
> life.
That sentence is so incoherent it doesn't even really deserve
a "wrong" in response.
> Jesus is IN His creation ( Col. Chap 1 v 17) guiding and
> directing. Science and the scietific method alone, can show none of
> this to you.
You're such a broken record on this subject of what the
"scientific method can show" that there are times whether
I wonder if you're a 'bot.
> Keep doing only the "pure" science which can and has
> helped mankind.
Problem is, you don't get to define what "pure" science
is, Jo Jean. I wish you'd get that fact through that
thick skull of yours.
> Otherwise, desist from denigrating God, and desist
> asking unanswerable questions about who designed Him.
Make us.
That's right, go ahead and complain to any of our ISPs
about how we've resorted to denigration of *anyone*,
much less you or your deity. See how far you get.
Just keep in mind that such an action is going to
put you further along the road of net.kookery than
you'll ever want.
-Chris Krolczyk
Mike Painter
> jaria...@hotmail.com (Jari Anttila) wrote:
> david ford:
>
> > > > > Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> > > > > position that intelligent design is responsible for common
descent?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > > If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
> > > >
> > > > For the same reason; that those proposing the idea have
> > > > provided no good evidence to support their position.
> > >
> > > What, for you, would constitute evidence for the proposition that the
> > > first lifeform was the product of intelligent design?
> >
> > An intelligent designer could leave behind many kinds
> > of marks that evolution couldn't possibly do.
>
> "Evolution" has historically been invoked for all sorts of changes,
> including intelligence-directed changes such as the "evolution" of the
> automobile.
> What are some of the [JA]"many kinds of marks that evolution couldn't
> possibly do"?
To anybody with any knowledge of what evolution is, the reason for using the
word is clear.
There is no true evoltion involved in car design.
I would say, however, that the use of the word in that context is far more
appropriate than the use of the word "theory" for what are vague ideas such
as ID.
> > I suggest that
> > the Search for ID (SID) adopts the same methods SETI is using;
> > e.g. try to find some hidden messages from the junk-dna.
> > There's plenty of it, and its purpose is currently unknown.
>
> So your answer to the question [df]"What, for you, would constitute
> evidence for the proposition that the first lifeform was the product
> of intelligent design?" is what-- that some sort of communication in
> Japanese or French or prime numbers be extracted from an animal or
> plant genome? If "no," what is your answer to the question?
Evidence of intelligence if you want intelligent design and evidence of
design if you want design.
When I find that clock in the sand I see that it is clearly designed.
When I see the stupidity of parts of the human body and how easy most of it
coould be fixed I see neither design nor intelligence.
What part of the body is most essential to maintain life? The heart. What
part of the body dies almost immediately without a blood supply? The heart.
Almost every hair on our body has a little muscle attached to it. Useless
for all practical purposes. Move those muscles to the arterial system to
supply perstolic motion if the heart stops beating and we have a simple
backup so we can continue to live if the heart needs to repair itself. Gosh,
I forgot, it really can't do that. I guess the IDiot who did the design used
up the self repair quota when it allowed crabs to regrow claws.
>
> > That something is, or seems to be, too complex to have
> > been evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms, is not a definition
> > for Design.
> > It's a description for something that hasn't been been
> > evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms.
> > But why to call it "designed"?
>
> If calculations were performed using reasonable assumptions, and the
> calculations showed that Darwinian mechanisms couldn't arrive at the
> nucleotide-sequences-that-work present in organisms, would you
> consider that to be a piece of evidence on the side of the intelligent
> design hypothesis?
If the calculations don't give a result of one, they are wrong. Please try
to remember that only the IDiots and the godbots think randomness is all
that is involved.
I would have done better in chemistry if it were true.
>
> I don't know about you, but I infer that certain things are designed
> all the time. For example, in looking at the sequence of letters and
> spaces above-- what I'm replying to-- I infer or that intelligence was
> responsible for the arrangement of those letters and spaces, i.e., I
> infer that your post was designed. Your post has the appearance of
> having been designed, and moreover, it is exceedingly unlikely that
> the content of your post could have appeared via totally-mind-less
> processes.
>
> We really should do some calculations.
Certainly. Show that your side of "we" can do that.
Start with n dice. Throw them and leave all the 6's.
Throw the remainder.
Repeat until you have 10^5 sixes.
What is n?
dkomo
>
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:42:09 +0000, Ken Shaw wrote:
>
> > What if anything is wrong with these statements:
> >
> > 1) The Christian Deity, as defined by the pertinent religious
> > authorities, qualifies as alive.
> >
> > 2) The socalled "Intelligent Design theory" posits that life cannot have
> > arisen without the intervention of an intelligence.
> >
> > 3) Many supporters of the putative Intelligent Design theory believe
> > that the intelligence was the Christian Deity.
> >
> > 4) Assuming that 1 through 3 are correct who designed the Christian
> > Deity according to ID theory.
>
> Clearly, God designed himself. That's just more proof that he really is
> all-powerful.
>
Well, some of us believe that the universe is self-organizing and
designs itself, and don't believe in a Wizard of OZ who works the
levers from behind a cosmic curtain. Does that mean that the universe
is all-powerful?
Perhaps Godel, Escher and Bach (and Hofstadter) were right: recursion
is the secret behind the universe. Remember the Escher print of the
two hands drawing themselves?
dkomo
>
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3c3p10t78cv0efe18...@Pern.rk...
> > On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:41:05 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> > ford) posted in alt.atheism:
> >
> > >About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> > >life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> > >the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> > >give rise to all of subsequent life?
> >
> >
> > >Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
> > >subsequent life is related by common descent?
> > >If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
> >
> > 1) No actual evidence of this "intelligence".
>
> Don't believe in indirect evidence?
The argument from incredulity isn't indirect evidence:
Wooooooowwwww...life is soooooooooooooooooooo complex! It couldn't
possibly have originated from mindless processes. It had to have been
designed by an Intelligence.
Oh, and that book written by the goatherders 2000 years ago -- that's
not indirect evidence either.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
david ford wrote:
>
> As I said before, the intelligence that I think designed life on Earth
> never began to exist.
So it's not there?
It is logically impossible for something that
> never began to exist to have been designed.
It is also logically impossible for something that nevcer began to eixst
to, well, exist.
> For instance, if biology never began to exist and yet exists
If it never began to exist, moron, then it does NOT exist.
Unless it began to exist at some point.
, it is
> logically impossible for biology to have been designed. Also, if
> material existence never began to exist and yet exists, it is
> logically impossible for physics to have been designed.
>
>
You're blithering again, Ford.
> If scientists believe that a particular radio signal is the product of
> intelligence (think of the movie "Contact"), they are not invoking
> magic.
> If an archaeologist believes that a particular object is the product
> of intelligence (perhaps a pyramid, or an object with embossing), the
> archaeologist is not invoking magic.
>
Why not. Why are they not invoking magic. Be specific.
I am setting a trap for you. I am telling you this beforehand because I
think you're too stupid to avoid it anyway. Unless you just evade and
avoid my question . . . . . Which makes my point just as well.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
(BigDiscusser)
circumstances and enviorment in which they live. God bless, Jo Jean
(BigDiscusser)
have it too"--at least that has been my experience. Also plenty to give
away if any one wants and needs it. God bless, Jo Jean
R.Schenck
(\(BigDiscusser\)) wrote:
>Yes Aaron, I am glad to say that with God, one can "eat his cake and
>have it too"--at least that has been my experience. Also plenty to give
>away if any one wants and needs it. God bless, Jo Jean
>
good thing there are plenty of throat tubes and plungers to allow for
force feeding to eh?
Bobby D. Bryant
> Yes Aaron, I am glad to say that with God, one can "eat his cake and
> have it too"--at least that has been my experience. Also plenty to give
> away if any one wants and needs it.
I thought he only did fish.
AC
(BigDiscusser) <JOJ...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Yes Aaron, I am glad to say that with God, one can "eat his cake and
> have it too"--at least that has been my experience. Also plenty to give
> away if any one wants and needs it. God bless, Jo Jean
I'm so glad you think this way. So, where did you god come from? Who made
this being?
Tom McDonald
> Variations in species is just God and Jesus' way of adapting them to the
> circumstances and enviorment in which they live. God bless, Jo Jean
>
Yes, and as that variation continues through time, new species
are formed. Over a longer time, as variation continues, new
higher taxa are formed, each step creating a new creature, better
adapted to the new environment and circumstances than its
ancestor would have been.
It is wonderful to study God's creation using the tools of
evolutionary biology. I praise God for His wisdom, and His
splendor shown in the creatures of the Earth.
Tom McDonald
Mike Painter
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in message
news:102114o...@corp.supernews.com...
that if it existed it could not have done it right the first time.
God so lived man that he gave the crab the ability to regrow a claw.
Richard Forrest
> would include some 'signature' - a planet designer in the book leaves a
> placard in the hand of an artificial dinosaur fossil that reads 'End Nuclear
> Testing Now', and another creates a mountain range in the shape of her
> initials.
>
> Danny
No, no, no - it wasn't a dinosaur. It was a *plesiosaur* - much more interesting!
RF
Bennett Standeven
> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
> give rise to all of subsequent life?
>
If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that "intelligence"
created a organism whose genome programmed it to mutate and evolve
into other species, and that all life on Earth today was produced by
this simple program. The problem as I see it is that there is no way
the program could "know" what environments would appear in the future,
and hence no way that it could react by producing species adapted to
those environments.
Of course, the program could get around this by introducing random
mutations and relying on natural selection to ensure their success,
but in that case I don't see that we can call its output "designed".
> Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
> for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
> subsequent life is related by common descent?
> If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
I think "intelligence" is not needed to account for the first
lifeform(s). (dunno if this is a "yes" or a "no".) My grounds are that
I have never seen any evidence that abiogenesis cannot occur
spontaneously under suitable circumstances.
>
> Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
> position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
> If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
>
Yes. The "Tree of Life" shows no signs of intelligence; instead it
shows blind opportunism.
Dick C
Maybe Jo Jean worships Marie Antoinette.
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@localnet.com
Bobby D. Bryant
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote in talk.origins
>
>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:50:06 +0000, (BigDiscusser))) wrote:
>>
>>> Yes Aaron, I am glad to say that with God, one can "eat his cake and
>>> have it too"--at least that has been my experience. Also plenty to
>>> give away if any one wants and needs it.
>>
>> I thought he only did fish.
>
> Maybe Jo Jean worships Marie Antoinette.
Or maybe that recently mentioned something in orbit around Jupiter.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> Evidence of intelligence if you want intelligent design and evidence of
> design if you want design.
> When I find that clock in the sand I see that it is clearly designed.
> When I see the stupidity of parts of the human body and how easy most of it
> coould be fixed I see neither design nor intelligence.
> What part of the body is most essential to maintain life? The heart. What
> part of the body dies almost immediately without a blood supply? The heart.
> Almost every hair on our body has a little muscle attached to it. Useless
> for all practical purposes. Move those muscles to the arterial system to
> supply perstolic motion if the heart stops beating and we have a simple
> backup so we can continue to live if the heart needs to repair itself. Gosh,
> I forgot, it really can't do that. I guess the IDiot who did the design used
> up the self repair quota when it allowed crabs to regrow claws.
That just bears repeating. <g>
(Forget the heart, I'm still trying to get the IDers to explain
hemorrhoids.)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 05:45:45 +0000 (UTC),
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> "\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote in message news:<401c6cd8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com>...
>> david ford wrote:
>>
>>> > About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
>>> > life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
>>> > the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
>>> > give rise to all of subsequent life?
>>>
>>> Sure. It's also "possible" that the designer was a young alien sciecne
>>> student from the planet Mlulkitui who designed life on earth as a junior
>>> class project. <shrug>
>>>
>>> But I'd sure like for you to tell me what designed the "intelligence"
>>> that you think designed life on earth,
>>
>> The intelligence I think designed life on earth never began to exist.
>
>
> So, in fact, you don't want the magnifying glass turned on this alleged
> designer at all. If life on this planet requires a designer, then a being
> intelligent enough to pull it off must certainly be designed as well. If
> not, then why not David?
No, no. He said it never began to exist.
<g>
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 06:02:26 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford)
> wrote in <b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>:
>
> [snip]
>
>> If a bizarre, never-before-seen spacecraft landed in your backyard,
>> would you think it had been designed by intelligence?
>> Would you insist on first learning the mechanisms of the spacecraft's
>> construction before concluding it had been designed?
>
> How does one recognize items as spacecraft?
>
> The problem with your statement is that you're assuming your conclusion.
> What if *something* landed in my backyard. How would I go about
> identifying it as a spacecraft?
>
> [snip]
And how do we know this hasn't already happened?
(Well, there's a lot of stuff in my backyard I don't know what the hell it
is)
KelvynT
>Variations in species is just God and Jesus' way of adapting them to the
>circumstances and enviorment in which they live. God bless, Jo Jean
>
Why don't they just keep the environment stable and save the hassle?
Kelvyn
Eros
... and bread.
Would you like fries with that?
EROS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Support the Superstition Equality Amendment!"
gen2rev
<y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in
<pan.2004.02.04....@hoo.com-amikchi>:
> And so upon Tue, 03 Feb 2004 00:19:40 +0000 didst gen2rev speak thusly:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 06:02:26 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford)
> > wrote in <b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> If a bizarre, never-before-seen spacecraft landed in your backyard,
> >> would you think it had been designed by intelligence?
> >> Would you insist on first learning the mechanisms of the spacecraft's
> >> construction before concluding it had been designed?
> >
> > How does one recognize items as spacecraft?
> >
> > The problem with your statement is that you're assuming your conclusion.
> > What if *something* landed in my backyard. How would I go about
> > identifying it as a spacecraft?
> >
> > [snip]
>
> And how do we know this hasn't already happened?
>
> (Well, there's a lot of stuff in my backyard I don't know what the hell it
> is)
Better yet, I recall an X-Files episode where a group of cockroches are
found to be tiny robots of alien design.
Mark K. Bilbo
I *love that episode.
Especially Muldar welcoming the roach to earth...
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
david ford wrote:
>
>
> In the laboratory, is intelligence required to create life?
>
>
In my freezer, is intelligence required to create ice?
How about in the Antarctic?
Are IDers REALLY this damn stupid? REALLY?????? Or do they just do an
excellent job of playing dumb (and not answering any questions)?
Mike Painter
>
>
> david ford wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > In the laboratory, is intelligence required to create life?
> >
>
>
>
>
> In my freezer, is intelligence required to create ice?
>
> How about in the Antarctic?
>
>
>
>
>
> Are IDers REALLY this damn stupid? REALLY?????? Or do they just do an
> excellent job of playing dumb (and not answering any questions)?
The IDiots seem to be just a more dishonest version of fundie. They figure
that if they can sneak in ID, then they can "discover" it must be a god and
propose their version.
david ford
[snip]
AC in "Re: Sickness & cancer against creation hypothesis?" on 1 Feb
04:
> No David, I do not keep score of my posts. My views, I think, are perfectly
> clear. I do not see any reason that, given the right conditions,
> self-replicating molecules that evolved into primitive life could not have
> arisen as part of explainable natural processes.
What are the [AC]"right conditions" for the appearance of
[AC]"primitive life"?
To illustrate, given the "just-right conditions" that all the
molecules in a stone statue's hand move to one side, and then all the
molecules move to the other side, a stone statue's hand will wave, so
to speak.
About these [AC]"natural processes," upon what grounds do you believe
that they themselves were not created/set-up by intelligence/mind?
How long a period of time do you think was available for [AC]"natural
processes" to give rise to [AC]"primitive life"? I might have to
disagree.
> Once primitive organisms
> evolved, then evolution as we know it now could occur. Given 3.5 billion
> years, multicellular life evolved, generation by generation, each only
> slightly different from the last.
I am under the impression that not much happened in terms of
lifeforms' appearances between 3.9 billion years ago and 543 million
years ago, and then boom, the Cambrian explosion of a variety of
lifeforms burst on the scene within 10 million years starting 543
million years ago.
Is it really the case that you think that [AC]"multicellular life
evolved, generation by generation, each only slightly different from
the last" during the last 3.5 billion years (which would of course
cover the period of the Cambrian explosion)?
> As an atheist, of course, I do not accept that any higher power(s) were
> involved. This is not a scientific opinion, but just my own world view.
What is a [AC]"scientific opinion"?
Do you think Sagan's assertion that "THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER
WAS OR EVER WILL BE." has been demonstrated through the tools and
methods employed by scientists? [See Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4.
Caps in original.]
> Since I have met a number of Christians, Jews, Hindus and pagans who also
> accept that life developed due to natural processes, I can say that though
> the basic notion of my world view, that there are no gods, is different than
> their's, we all accept that life requires only the right starting conditions
> and ingredients to get going.
How much time/effort has the Christian, Jew, or Hindu you know that is
the most familiar with the topic of the origin of life put into
studying the topic?
(If the answer is: The time/effort needed to cover the topic in a
portion of a standard high school biology book chapter, then I would
say in response that the Christians, Jews, and Hindus you've met
aren't in a position to know solid grounds for [AC]"accept[ing] that
life requires only the right starting conditions and ingredients to
get going," and moreover, were ill-informed by their high school
biology textbooks.)
What, in your view, are the three best lines of evidence in support of
the claims that life:
can come from non-life [AC]"as part of explainable natural processes,"
and
[AC]"requires only the right starting conditions and ingredients to
get going"?
> Now maybe we're all wrong, David, and maybe you're right. However, if you
> are, then all the biologists might as well just throw in the towel, head to
> the nearest temple, mosque, church or synagogue, reject empericism and find
> the magic incantation that works best.
If someone happened to come across an incantation that when said
caused life to appear from not-life, origin-of-life researchers would,
I suspect, be extremely interested in learning more about the
incantation.
[AC]"all the biologists" We are talking about the origin of life.
Only a small proportion of biologists are engaging in origin-of-life
studies, and the number so engaged declines as the years pass. A
younger generation of bright, eager, optimistic biologists is not
filling the shoes of the fading generation of origin-of-life
researchers. The intelligent design hypothesis and its proponents had
little to do with this situation. The situation's cause is that the
difficulty of just how life can come from not-life involving known
physics and chemistry becomes ever-larger the more that is learned of
biology, with formerly-promising lines of research turning out to be
dead ends and with rampant speculation chasing too-few facts.
Other scientists are wasting large amounts of hard-earned taxpayer
dollars searching for extraterrestrial intelligence. Contrary to many
high school biology textbooks, it is far from easy to get life from
not-life, and this means that there are not little green men
populating our universe just waiting to be contacted.
> After all, that's all you've done.
> I'm not even sure why you bother quote mining 80 year old books.
And I'm not particularly interested in discussing my motives or
reasons for doing most anything that I do.
> Why not
> just declare science wrong, God did it by powers beyond our imagining and go
> in that direction? Why feign to us that you have science on your side? Is
> it that important that you make it look like any researcher, no matter
> qualifications or actual belief, appear to be on your side of the road?
Regarding your last question, did you have anyone in mind? If so,
present the name, and I'll tell you some points where I agree with and
disagree with that person.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
david ford wrote:
> About these [AC]"natural processes," upon what grounds do you believe
> that they themselves were not created/set-up by intelligence/mind?
The same conditions that allowed this "intelligence/mind" to appear, I
suppose. <shrug> Or isn't your "intelligence/mind" alive?
Do you actually have a scientific theory of "intelligent design" to
offer? Or do you just want us to take your religious word for it.
Mike Painter
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com...
> Is it really the case that you think that [AC]"multicellular life
> evolved, generation by generation, each only slightly different from
> the last" during the last 3.5 billion years (which would of course
> cover the period of the Cambrian explosion)?
No, that is your impression.
>
> > As an atheist, of course, I do not accept that any higher power(s) were
> > involved. This is not a scientific opinion, but just my own world view.
>
> What is a [AC]"scientific opinion"?
> Do you think Sagan's assertion that "THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER
> WAS OR EVER WILL BE." has been demonstrated through the tools and
> methods employed by scientists? [See Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4.
> Caps in original.]
Again a basic lack of education shows here. The next time you use the
argument from cause rememebre this comment.
>
> > Since I have met a number of Christians, Jews, Hindus and pagans who
also
> > accept that life developed due to natural processes, I can say that
though
> > the basic notion of my world view, that there are no gods, is different
than
> > their's, we all accept that life requires only the right starting
conditions
> > and ingredients to get going.
>
> How much time/effort has the Christian, Jew, or Hindu you know that is
> the most familiar with the topic of the origin of life put into
> studying the topic?
Many have spent the majority of their adult life doing so.
The majority of people in the world are desists and the almost overwhelming
advaces made, especially in the early years were christians of protestant
sects.
How can you claim anything but vague ideaas if you are not aware of this.
> (If the answer is: The time/effort needed to cover the topic in a
> portion of a standard high school biology book chapter, then I would
> say in response that the Christians, Jews, and Hindus you've met
> aren't in a position to know solid grounds for [AC]"accept[ing] that
> life requires only the right starting conditions and ingredients to
> get going," and moreover, were ill-informed by their high school
> biology textbooks.)
>
> What, in your view, are the three best lines of evidence in support of
> the claims that life:
> can come from non-life [AC]"as part of explainable natural processes,"
> and
> [AC]"requires only the right starting conditions and ingredients to
> get going"?
It is here with no evidence of a super natural source.
>
> > Now maybe we're all wrong, David, and maybe you're right. However, if
you
> > are, then all the biologists might as well just throw in the towel, head
to
> > the nearest temple, mosque, church or synagogue, reject empericism and
find
> > the magic incantation that works best.
>
> If someone happened to come across an incantation that when said
> caused life to appear from not-life, origin-of-life researchers would,
> I suspect, be extremely interested in learning more about the
> incantation.
Absolutley. It's called science. Most of us consider prayer to be an
incantation and we know the results of that. Considering the results
compared with the promises it is not going to be highly researched.
Given a headache and the choice between ten million people praying
spoecifically for it's remission and an aspirin, I'll take the aspirin.
I'll bet you do also.
>
> [AC]"all the biologists" We are talking about the origin of life.
> Only a small proportion of biologists are engaging in origin-of-life
> studies, and the number so engaged declines as the years pass. A
> younger generation of bright, eager, optimistic biologists is not
> filling the shoes of the fading generation of origin-of-life
> researchers. The intelligent design hypothesis and its proponents had
> little to do with this situation. The situation's cause is that the
> difficulty of just how life can come from not-life involving known
> physics and chemistry becomes ever-larger the more that is learned of
> biology, with formerly-promising lines of research turning out to be
> dead ends and with rampant speculation chasing too-few facts.
Evidence for this or is it another of your opinions?
>
> Other scientists are wasting large amounts of hard-earned taxpayer
> dollars searching for extraterrestrial intelligence. Contrary to many
> high school biology textbooks, it is far from easy to get life from
> not-life, and this means that there are not little green men
> populating our universe just waiting to be contacted.
Large amounts? I doubt that the average taxpayer puts ten cents a year into
such research.
>
> > After all, that's all you've done.
> > I'm not even sure why you bother quote mining 80 year old books.
>
> And I'm not particularly interested in discussing my motives or
> reasons for doing most anything that I do.
>
> > Why not
> > just declare science wrong, God did it by powers beyond our imagining
and go
> > in that direction? Why feign to us that you have science on your side?
Is
> > it that important that you make it look like any researcher, no matter
> > qualifications or actual belief, appear to be on your side of the road?
>
> Regarding your last question, did you have anyone in mind? If so,
> present the name, and I'll tell you some points where I agree with and
> disagree with that person.
>
You. You accept technology that has a scientific basis and refuse to accept
the science.
You probably can't even tell us what the flaw in the above statement is and
I am not talking about your denial of it.
david ford
david ford:
>> If calculations were performed using reasonable assumptions, and the
>> calculations showed that Darwinian mechanisms couldn't arrive at the
>> nucleotide-sequences-that-work present in organisms, would you consider
>> that to be a piece of evidence on the side of the intelligent design
>> hypothesis?
>
> No. Setting aside the fact that no one has produced such calculations,
> even if someone _did_ produce them, the only logical conclusion would be
> that something other than a Darwinian mechanism had done it. You are
> suggesting a non sequitur, presumably based on an unspoken false dichotomy
> of the "darwininan mechanism OR intelligent design, no other options"
> type.
Good point. What options are there besides:
a) the neo-Darwinian mechanism
b) intelligent design
david ford
david ford:
Jari Anttila <jaria...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> An intelligent designer could leave behind many kinds
>>> of marks that evolution couldn't possibly do.
>>
>> "Evolution" has historically been invoked for all sorts of changes,
>> including intelligence-directed changes such as the "evolution" of
the
>> automobile.
>> What are some of the [JA]"many kinds of marks that evolution
couldn't
>> possibly do"?
>
> in talk.origins "evolution" is taken to mean "evolutionary biology",
> unless stated otherwise.
So if I'm told in talk.origins that "All of biology is the product of
evolution," I'm being told "All of biology is the product of
evolutionary biology"?
> Car design is not evolutionary biology. Car design
> shows signs that is not by a process of common descent. Ideas
> are borrowed. For instance all (most?) manufacturs are introducing
> engine management systems.
> Evolutionary biology does not work like this. Why can't whales extract
> oxygen from water? Why no photosynthesing mamals?
[NK]"Ideas are borrowed" Evolutionary thought has invoked the
incorporation/borrowing if you will of genetic material, i.e. has
invoked transposition to "explain" particular aspects of certain
organisms. If particular whales could extract oxygen from water, or
if particular mammals could conduct photosynthesis, evolutionary
thought would "explain" these circumstances as being the result of
transposition.
[NK]"Why can't whales extract oxygen from water? Why no
photosynthesing mamals?" Well, perhaps the necessary mutations did
not appear, or the necessary mutations appeared but were not
incorporated into organisms that went on to reproduce.
What are some more of the [JA]"many kinds of marks that evolution
couldn't possibly do"? The situations you have presented thus far
don't withstand scrutiny.
>>> I suggest that
>>> the Search for ID (SID) adopts the same methods SETI is using;
>>> e.g. try to find some hidden messages from the junk-dna.
>>> There's plenty of it, and its purpose is currently unknown.
>>
>> So your answer to the question [df]"What, for you, would constitute
>> evidence for the proposition that the first lifeform was the
product
>> of intelligent design?" is what-- that some sort of communication
in
>> Japanese or French or prime numbers be extracted from an animal or
>> plant genome? If "no," what is your answer to the question?
>
> well you're the one who's trying to prove it. But yes that sort of
> thing would be interesting. I'd expect some sort of proof that such
> patterns were unlikely to arise by chance.
[NK]"that sort of thing would be interesting" But not conclusive, for
you.
[NK]"I'd expect some sort of proof that such patterns were unlikely to
arise by chance." What sort of proof would you accept in support of
the claim that the arrangement of letters and spaces in the post
you're reading now wasn't the product of chance, and was the product
of intelligent design?
>>> That something is, or seems to be, too complex to have
>>> been evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms, is not a definition
>>> for Design.
>>> It's a description for something that hasn't been been
>>> evolved by the Darwinian mechanisms.
>>> But why to call it "designed"?
>>
>> If calculations were performed using reasonable assumptions, and
the
>> calculations showed that Darwinian mechanisms couldn't arrive at
the
>> nucleotide-sequences-that-work present in organisms, would you
>> consider that to be a piece of evidence on the side of the
intelligent
>> design hypothesis?
>
> but such calculations havn't been done. If wishes were horses then
> beggers would rise.
[NK]"but such calculations havn't been done" Maybe. I'll take
another look at what I have, and perhaps post in a new thread some say
Salisbury material.
>> I don't know about you, but I infer that certain things are
designed
>> all the time.
What about you-- do you frequently infer that certain things are
designed?
>> For example, in looking at the sequence of letters and
>> spaces above-- what I'm replying to-- I infer or that intelligence
was
>> responsible for the arrangement of those letters and spaces, i.e.,
I
>> infer that your post was designed. Your post has the appearance of
>> having been designed, and moreover, it is exceedingly unlikely that
>> the content of your post could have appeared via totally-mind-less
>> processes.
>>
>> We really should do some calculations.
>
> go on then
I recall seeing some calculations for the origin of life question.
If calculations were performed using reasonable assumptions, and the
calculations showed that known processes of physics and chemistry
couldn't account for the genetic information in a minimally-complex
living organism, would you consider that to be a piece of evidence on
david ford
david ford:
>> About the original organism(s) from which all subsequent
>> life is said to be related via common descent, is it possible that
>> the original organism(s) was designed by intelligence so as to
>> give rise to all of subsequent life?
>
> Sure it's possible, at least conceptually. But if you ask me it would be
> a weird way to work.
Does [JH]"weird way" translate into "exceedingly unlikely"? What are
2 instances you are aware of from your everyday life of things that
are [JH]"weird way[s] to work"?
>> Do you think intelligence isn't in any way needed to account
>> for the appearance of the first lifeform(s) to which all
>> subsequent life is related by common descent?
>> If "yes," upon what grounds do you think that?
>
> I reserve judgement. My reasons are not biological.
What is the main not-biological reason for your reservation of
judgment?
>> Do you, like Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins, reject the
>> position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent?
>> If "yes," upon what grounds to you do so?
>
> Exactly what do you mean by this? Is this something other than the
> assertion that the first cell was designed?
Proposition 1: the first lifeform was designed.
Proposition 2: the first lifeform was designed and was designed so as
to give rise to all of subsequent life.
> Does it require that the
> particular sequence of descendant species also be designed? Or just that
> there be some general goals of evolution? Or what?
Good question.
1. One variety of the intelligent design of common descent hypothesis
is that the first (designed) lifeform(s) was programmed to give rise
to the particular organisms we see in fossil record, when we see them
appear in the fossil record.
2. Another variety of the intelligent design of common descent
hypothesis is that the first (designed) lifeform(s) was endowed with
the capability of transforming into all of subsequent life, which it
subsequently did, but not programmed to give rise to particular
organisms at particular times.
Varieties 1 and 2 of the intelligent design of common descent idea can
involve goals. For #1, a goal is the production of particular
organisms at particular times. For #2, one goal might be to wait and
see what interesting organisms show up with a minimum of oversight.
> I will be happy to discuss why I don't think either of these
> alternatives is likely, if you will clarify.
>
> [snip long Dobzhansky quote, which might be relevant
> in some way or might not be]
There was a URL to a Dobzhansky paragraph, a long Haeckel quote, and
two paragraphs worth of Dawkins allegations. I take it you read
little if any of the material. 'Tis your loss.
david ford
david ford:
>> What, for you, would constitute evidence for the proposition that
the
>> first lifeform was the product of intelligent design?
>
> It wouldn't be hard (at least, not for the supposed ability of the Great
> Designer In The Sky) to put a SETI-style message in an organism's genetic
> code. Of course, any organism from so long ago is gone, so we'd be unlikely
> to read the message.
The message could, though, conceivably be transmitted from one
organism to the next, until that kind of organism goes extinct.
Wondering out loud: what, if anything, gets transmitted from one
organism to the next with high fidelity, until that kind of organism
goes extinct?
> But anyway, all this assumes that there was such a
> thing as the 'first lifeform', which creates an artificial divide between
> the living and the non-living. The first self-replicating molecule wasn't a
> 'lifeform', and even viruses are pushing at the boundaries of the
> definition. Most likely (at least by my layman's reading on the subject),
> the seeds of life included at a pretty early stage some kind of collection
> of molecules in a protein coat of some kind, much like a virus. Obviously,
> we don't know if this was created by some alien designer, but we have no
> reason to suppose it was, either.
Where does the origin of the DNA-RNA-protein system fit into this
picture?
I thought that viruses can't replicate in the absence of a cell's
machinery to hijack. If this is in fact the case, I don't see how
viruses can be [DK]"pushing at the boundaries of the definition" of
lifeform.
> Terry Pratchett's novel Strata suggests that a world created by designers
> would include some 'signature' - a planet designer in the book leaves a
> placard in the hand of an artificial dinosaur fossil that reads 'End Nuclear
> Testing Now', and another creates a mountain range in the shape of her
> initials.
Making a fake dinosaur and putting in its hands a plaque about nuclear
testing sounds like a stunt the Coalition to End Nuclear
Proliferation, Use, and Testing (CENPUT) would do. I don't see the
high probability of such a misinterpretation being avoided. IOW, this
situation does not seem effective in relaying a message that the world
was designed.
Also, I am a bit dubious of the initials in mountains option. The
earth is 4.5 billion years old, and any initials fashioned out of
mountains would be long-ago degraded.
What characteristics of the placard reading "End Nuclear Testing Now"
lead you to believe that it was designed?
david ford
david ford:
>> What, for you, would constitute evidence for the
>> proposition that the first lifeform was the product
>> of intelligent design?
>
> Off the top of my head, I would say that you would have to
> find some unmistakable sign of intelligence within living
> things - a message of some sort, perhaps.
What are some messages that would fit the bill, for you?
> You would also
> need a reason to believe that said sign had been there all
> along, rather than having been added recently.
So perhaps a message that, without it, we couldn't see the
organism today-- the living organism we see today wouldn't
have, no _couldn't_ have, existed. Interesting. Wondering
out loud: what message-type sequences, if any, exist in
organisms such that if the message-type sequences were not
present in the first created kind of that organism, we could
not be looking at that kind of organism living today?
> There's a Star Trek episode called "The Chase" which had
> this premise. When DNA from various species (Human and
> alien) is combined, it creates a sort of computer program
> that broadcasts a message from those who created life in
> our galaxy.
What are some characteristics of this broadcast message?
> The science of the episode is not very realistic, but
> something like this would be pretty convincing.
>
> It would also be highly suggestive if we discovered some
> demonstratably intelligent artifact which contained
> proof of the creation of life. I'm thinking along the
> lines that if life on this planet was created by aliens
> we might find an ancient spacecraft buried somewhere which
> had records of the creation of life. You could always argue
> that this only proves that the aliens *claimed* to have
> created life and may have just lied about it, but I think
> it would still be a pretty compelling piece of evidence
> in spite of that possibility.
There are many religions with supposed accounts of the
creation of life. Some of those accounts are written records.
Are any of those written records [GK]"a pretty compelling
piece of evidence"? Or do we need to find a spacecraft, in
addition to records of the creation of life?
I note that you consider an alien spacecraft a
[GK]"demonstratably intelligent artifact." What
characteristics of a spacecraft lead you to conclude that
intelligence was responsible for its appearance?
Suppose aliens created life on earth, or brought life to earth.
Did the aliens begin to exist? If "yes," how did the aliens
originate?
> Of course you might be able to prove that life could only
> have come into existence through intelligence, but I don't
> really see how that would be possible. You'd have to
> eliminate every other option, and how could you ever be
> certain that you had done that?
By [GK]"prove," do you mean "demonstrate with 100%
certainty"? If "yes," then practically nothing has been
"proved."
Regarding your implication that in order to [GK]"prove" that
life originated as a result of the input of intelligence, I must
first [GK]"eliminate every other option," I'm reminded of
this comment:
Huxley, Thomas H. 1860. "The Origin of Species" in
_Darwiniana: Essays by Thomas H. Huxley_, Volume II of
the 9-volume series "Collected Essays By T. H. Huxley"
(New York: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1968; originally
published in 1893 by Mc Millan & Co.), 475pp., 22-79. Two
paragraphs on 58-9:
Or, lastly, let us ask ourselves whether any amount of
evidence which the nature of our faculties permits us to
attain, can justify us in asserting that any phaenomenon
is out of the reach of natural causation. To this end it is
obviously necessary that we should know all the
consequences to which all possible combinations,
continued through unlimited time, can give rise. If we
knew these, and found none competent to originate
species, we should have good ground for denying their
origin by natural causation. Till we know them, any
hypothesis is better than one which involves us in such
miserable presumption.
But the hypothesis of special creation is not only a mere
specious mask for our ignorance; its existence in
Biology marks the youth and imperfection of the
science. For what is the history of every science but the
history of the elimination of the notion of creative, or
other interferences, with the natural order of the
phaenomena which are the subject-matter of that
science? When Astronomy was young "the morning
stars sang together for joy," and the planets were guided
in their courses by celestial hands. Now, the harmony
of the stars has resolved itself into gravitation according
to the inverse squares of the distances, and the orbits of
the planets are deducible from the laws of the forces
which allow a schoolboy's stone to break a window.
The lightning was the angel of the Lord; but it has
pleased Providence, in these modern times, that science
should make it the humble messenger of man, and we
know that every flash that shimmers about the horizon
on a summer's evening is determined by ascertainable
conditions, and that its direction and brightness might, if
our knowledge of these were great enough, have been
calculated.