Does complexity require intelligent design?

1) The ToE has nothing to say on the subject of morality, so a decline in morality has nothing to do with the ToE.2) When there was no ToE and people and Gods were thought to have the highest authority there was much much less morality in general. That is if you measure lack of morality by people robbing, torturing, and killing each other. What exactly is your measuring stick for morality?3) How come if animal life is found to be equal in importance to human life, that inherently lowers the importance of human life, instead of raising the importance of animal life. It seems to me the ToE makes life much more important as something to appreciate being around (given all the extinction going on).4) What on earth does the suicide rate and abortion have to do with the ToE? Okay I call your bluff and would like to see the stats, as well as the reason they mean anything regarding the ToE.5) How can we be said to be callous toward new life when due to medical procedures coming well after the ToE, we have greatly decreased infant mortality as well as death in child birth... not to mention our respect for old life by extending health and life into later years?6) Even if I accepted your claim of harm, why is it irreversible?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Here's some things I think are accurate.1 Nothing Darwin predicted would be found in the fossil record was.2 The cambrian explosion exploded the myth of evolution and scientists have been trying to patch it back together.3 There is not one uninterrupted record of evolution from one order to another. There are large gaps in every "line."4 Current theory that beneficial mutations are the mechanism of change ignore the fact that beneficial mutations are extremely rare, far outnumbered by harmful ones.

That would work theoretically for a large population. I don't see that there is enough time for that to have worked allowing for smaller gene pools and other setbacks.Why would their be a higher reproduction rate for the benefited population? I'll see if I can find those statistics.

quote:

---

The law of cause and effect is based on observation. There was no one around to observe either the beginning of the universe or evolution.

---

Irrelevant."Observation" in science doesn't have to mean "somebody saw an event with their own eyes". It often means "observed the evidence left behind by an event". This is called "inference" and is what most of science is based upon.Nobody has ever directly observed the existence of electrons, for example, but we have inferred their existence with experiments and instruments.Also, we actually have and do directly observe evolution happening every day, both in the lab and in the field.Are you absolutely SURE you were familiar with the evidence for evolution before you rejected it? Cause you seem to be making an awful lot of typical mistakes regarding the scientific method and Evolution that we have commonly seen in people who have no knowledge of either subject.

quote:

---

What is scientifically wrong with postulating the existence of an unknown thing?

---

Postulating is fine, but what parameters are you setting for the abilities or effects of this unknown thing? What result could ever occur or evidence be found which would falsify your hypothesis?If you say that no event or condition or evidence, if found, would ever cast any doubt whatsoever that your unknown, unseen entity exists, then it is unscientific. It explains everything, so explains nothing.

quote:

---

Of course it's impossible to "prove" an event that we didn't witness, and is not repeatable,

---

Of course we can, and it's done every day in science. It's that thing called "inference" I mentioned before.The thing scientists rely on is evidence. Events leave evidence that can be observed.

quote:

---

but we can speculate as to the probabilities and or mechanisms that may have caused it.

---

...and that is exactly what scientists do, and they also infer the causes and mechanisms from evidence left behind by the event.

quote:

---

The fact is that you don't require that. The human race has apparently been successful.

---

Then why did people invent binoculars and telescopes if they didn't need to see something several miles away?Apparently, you completely missed my point.The human eye is a wonderous thing, but it is not perfect as you said it was.If it was, we wouldn't have to use telescopes, binoculars, goggles, corrective glasses, and corneal transplants to improve or fix what was lacking in human eye design, now would we?The human evolutionary advantage has always been to be the great generalists and problem solvers. We use technology and the ability to pass on complicated learned information to future generations to make up for physical mediocrity compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.Just to be clear, the following was the main point from my last post:

quote:

---

1 I do not concede that no eye is "perfect". It seems as if the intended argument here is that we are still evolving to some higher form of life.

---

Do you concede that the human eye is "good enough" rather than perfect?

quote:

---

Here's some things I think are accurate.

​

1 Nothing Darwin predicted would be found in the fossil record was.

---

False.Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence.However, Darwin doesn't really write that much about fossils. He deals with things like inheritance, variation, artificial and natural selection, and why we see the distribution of species around the world (biogeography).So, what do you mean? Which specific predictions of the fossil record are you talking about?

quote:

---

2 The cambrian explosion exploded the myth of evolution and scientists have been trying to patch it back together.

---

False. Creationist Claim CC300

quote:

---

3 There is not one uninterrupted record of evolution from one order to another. There are large gaps in every "line."

---

What do you mean by "uninterrupted"?Do you require every single generation to have been fossilized?Similarly, if we do not have a complete geneology of your family all the way back to Adam and Eve, does this mean that it isn't possible that you exist, or because you can't show me evidence that your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great granfather existed, it means that you didn't have one?

quote:

---

4 Current theory that beneficial mutations are the mechanism of change ignore the fact that beneficial mutations are extremely rare, far outnumbered by harmful ones.

---

False. We fully understand that beneficial mutations are rare. However, most mutations are neutral WRT fitness, and some are harmful.Additionally, mutations alone are not the mechanism of change. Mutation PLUS selection is the mechanism of change. It is CRUCIAL to never, ever forget that they work hand in hand to drive evolution.Are you SURE you understood Evolutionary Theory before you rejected it?Please answer the following questions:1) If an offspring has a harmful mutation that is fatal, will it be more or less likely to reproduce and pass on the harmful mutation?2) If an offspring has a less harmful, but still somewhat harmful, mutation that makes it sickly or weak in some way or unable to mate successfuly, will it be more or less likely to reproduce and pass on the harmful mutation, and will any of it's offspring likely live to be able to also reproduce?3) If an offspring has a neutral mutation that has no effect upon the success of it's survival and reproduction, will it be more or less likely to reproduce and pass on it's neutral mutation, and will any of it's offspring with the mutation likely live to be able to also reproduce?4) If an offspring has a beneficial mutation that has a beneficial effect upon it's survival and the success of it's reproduction, will it be more or less likely to reproduce and pass on it's beneficial mutation, and will any of it's offspring with the mutation likely live to be able to also reproduce?5) Which sort of offspring mentioned above is the most likely to survive and successfuly reproduce, thus passing on it's mutation to future generations, thus spreading that mutation throughout the population?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-20-2005 08:50 PM

Within a small number of years of the publication of "The origin.." a reptile bird transitional was found. About the only major thing Darwin got wrong (and maybe it shoudn't be called "major" ) is the idea that the rate of change would be constant.Care to supply a list of predictions that he made that didn't pan out? Your information about the Cambrian "explosion" is, at best, out of date. Please explain how this exploded evolutionary theory. It is interesting that you suggest that it is a such a problem. Perhaps you could detail the facts as you understand them? Things like the currently understood duration of the Cambrian time frame, what is now known about pre-Cambrian life and just how you see all this as a problem for evolutionary theory.It seems that you are again, demonstrating that you don't actually have all your facts straight. How small a gap do you need? Certainly not every individual. Has "kind" moved up to order now? Last I looked on creationist sites it was family. Define "large gap" please. Two issues here:
1) How do you know that the number of any kind of mutations are? It is pretty clear that significantly harmful ones are also fairly rare. Something less than half of all human fertilizations perhaps? And certainly are only a small percentage of all humans born. Yet we all carry a number of mutations. Perhaps mostly neutral but I don't think we have a good measure of that.
2) As noted elsewhere if the harmful ones are weeded out (and that maybe why a large number of fertilizations spontaneously abort but I don't think that is known) then even a small number of beneficial ones can add up.Perhaps you need to show your calculations for this assertion since it is the kind of thing done for genetics.

quote:

---

About the only major thing Darwin got wrong (and maybe it shoudn't be called "major" ) is the idea that the rate of change would be constant.

---

Except that Darwin didn't claim that at all.http://pages.britishlibrary.net/...gin_6th/origin6th_15.html 6th Edn. The Origin of SpeciesDarwin's biggest mistake was his ideas on heredity - and it turned out that Mendelian ideas were more helpful to Darwin's theory than his own, wrong, ideas.This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-21-2005 05:43 AM

Actually it is the reverse that is true. Within smaller populations positive mutations will have a greater effect (grow faster). That's just math, 1 in a million makes a smaller impact than 1 in ten. Okay, I have two problems with this.First is how you can say there is not enough time. We are talking many millions of of years, with at least 10K years for reasonable changes within a species to form another (which may still look pretty similar). Within less than 15 years, the family with HIV resistance and the plant with extra hardiness have both done quite well relative to the rest of the populations.Second, if you are rejecting the ToE, I assume you are excepting YEC? If so then how do you have trouble with evolutionary time frame for forming species diversity, and yet have no problem with a less than 6K timetable for all current species diversity (that is given the flood, all life fanning out an diversifying)?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

How would such a mutation spread through a population? It's quite obviously selected against.We know, from the fact that only a few people related by ancestry have this resistance, that the resistance stems from a beneficial mutation.People are asking you to perform a kind of "thought experiment", like "hey, hypothetically, what if you had a source of both good and bad mutations and a mechanism that would favor the good ones by eliminating the bad ones." But here's the thing - it's not hypothetical. You've already agreed that there's a source of mutations that provides both good and bad ones, in unequal proportions; now unless it's your assertion that no organism ever dies, or that death is always a random occurance that has nothing ever to do with an organism's traits, then you agree that we have that selective mechanism, as well.And apparently you see the truth in the idea that if you have all and take away most, you still have some. So what's the hold-up? We've come to an agreement that the basic mechanisms of evolution favor beneficial mutations and eliminate the negative ones.

If man is merely the product of mutations in animals, rather than the special creation of God, morality is just an abstract concept, with no standard, or guidelines of behavior, from an authoritative source. If one were to use the 2 laws that Jesus gave, there would be a lot less robbing, torturing and killing. If every animal is just the product of random mutations {including man}, doesn't that make our existence just a random event in the universe with no meaning? The human race and everything it accomplishes, no more meaningful than a petri dish of bacteria. The World Health Organization estimates that in the year 2000 approximately one million people will die from suicide. A global mortality rate of 16 per 100,000. One death every 40 seconds.
The WHO further reports that:
In the last 45 years suicide rates have increased by 60% worldwide. Suicide is now among the three leading causes of death among those aged 15-44 (both sexes). Suicide attempts are up to 20 times more frequent than completed suicides.
Although suicide rates have traditionally been highest among elderly males, rates among young people have been increasing to such an extent that they are now the group at highest risk in a third of all countries.{from world health organization website}
I already gave you the reason, but that's unsubstantiated. It's a conclusion I've drawn. Over 40 million abortions since 1973, most {99%} of them because it's inconvenient for the mother to bear the child. Many abortions performed at a stage when the baby is capable of survival outside the womb. Have you ever read a detailed description of a partial birth abortion? Often performed in the last month of pregnancy, if that isn't callous indifference to life, I don't know what is.Recently the US infant mortality rate has gone up, and Japan has a lower rate than we do.Of course the ones we legally kill aren't counted.I said irreparable, not irreversible. The trend could be reversed, but the damage to our society is done.

quote:

---

If man is merely the product of mutations in animals, rather than the special creation of God, morality is just an abstract concept, with no standard, or guidelines of behavior, from an authoritative source.

---

Or, you could look at it from another point of view and say that while morality is just an abstract concept, this only means that the standards we use must come from our social and practical reality. Thus we should strive for the most compassionate and altruistic morals because they bring desirable/good results.Using an external source is no excuse to ignore the results of your actions. Flipside: Non-Christians can, and often do, follow the teachings of Jesus because they bring good things even if they do not agree with his divinity.

Morality is only a concept when one is free to decide, otherwise one is simply obeying a superior. A good example are criminals, while what a person does may be illegal (and thus criminal) it may also be morally correct.For theists with a strict code of behavior there is only law, not morality.In any case, even assuming theist doctrine is morality, there is no sense that because there is no one standard morality from an authority, morality flies out the window. At least there is no logic to it.There are some good reasons for humans to speculate on and adopt moral codes, for example personal and social harmony and improvement. You may not like practical reasons for adopting moral codes, but they are there.My question to you is if you found out definitively tomorrow that there was no God, would you suddenly go berzerk? This didn't answer my question. If robbing, torturing, and killing are measures of immorality then once again I point out to historical fact that times of following religious law (God as highest authority) have been equal or more immoral than recent times. Our existence would have come about randomly, yes. That does not however remove one iota of meaning. We give meaning to our lives, not the universe. Uhhhh, the ToE's been around for more than 45 years. It might also be mentioned that our knowledge (recording of stats) of suicide has improved so that could be part of growing numbers.Regardless, you seem to be jumping to a pretty far fetched conclusion, especially as you gave no stats regarding ToE that might provide a connection. My own theory would have to do with increased pressure on young people. This is not consistent with info provided by earlier, by a person against abortion none the less. I'm not going to call you a liar, but this looks pulled out of a hat to me.Again, the ToE was before 1973, and interestingly enough makes no claims that could reflect on abortion. I think what you want to look at is developmental biology, that deals with understanding what is growing inside a pregnant woman.Frankly, whether the ToE was correct or not, if human procreation was as it used to be believed it was (tiny fully developed people simply growing larger) then I'd probably be against abortion. Its developmental biology which showed we are not dealing with "people" when we look at zygotes and fetuses, not the ToE.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Does morality need an authoritative source?Most atheists live extremely moral lives; many more so than Christians - atheists believe/realize that the only impact they have on the universe is in this life, and they make the most of it. They don't just play nice so that they can get into Heaven.Atheists also don't place the responsiblity of their sins on some guy who was executed 2000 years ago. Without personal responsibility, why follow moral laws? All will be forgiven... Right - except for all the robbing, torturing, and killing done in His name. Are we to forget progroms, crusades, and holocausts? Thanks for the stats, but you've got no correlation whatsoever to the Theory of Evolution.Perhaps I prefer to blame the rise in suicide rates on:
- Fundamental Christianity
- Television
- The Holocaust
- Overpopulation
- Superficial materialism
- The Germ Theory of Disease
- Cell phone useThose are my reasons, they are as substantiated as yours. So I suppose your solution would be to ban the Theory of Evolution from public fora, so that society could heal?Ridiculous. Give a single piece of evidence correlating the Theory of Evolution to suicide and abortion; otherwise stop blaming a scientific theory for all of the ills of the world.

According to your definitions of terms, yes I concede. as long as you maintain that telescopes etc, are necessary. Corneal transplants and corrective lenses are repairs to damaged or deficient eyes. Annie Oakley could hit a quarter thrown into the air with a 22 rifle, without corrected vision.