Does complexity require intelligent design?

I'm not so sure that the telescope etc. comparison is something I like so much. What I might point out is compared to the eye of an eagle:

quote:

---

All eagles are renowned for their excellent eyesight, and the bald eagle is no exception. They have two foveae, or centers of focus, that allow the birds to see both forward and to the side at the same time. Bald eagles are capable of seeing fish in the water from several hundred feet above, while soaring, gliding, or in flapping flight. This is quite an extraordinary feat, since most fish are counter-shaded, meaning they are darker on top and thus harder to see from above. Fishermen can confirm how difficult it is to see a fish just beneath the surface of the water from only a short distance away.

​

...
Eagles, like all birds, have color vision. An eagle's eye is almost as large as a human's, but its sharpness is at least four times that of a person with perfect vision. The eagle can probably identify a rabbit moving almost a mile away. That means that an eagle flying at an altitude of 1000 feet over open country could spot prey over an area of almost 3 square miles from a fixed position.

---

from: http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle2.htmlThat is a hint of how imperfect our eye is. But only by comparing ourselves to something occupying a different niche does this show up. We are indeed "good enough" as long as we don't try to compete with eagles.from:http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/agarman/bco/fact4.htm

quote:

---

In darkness, cats eyes are able to function in approximately one-sixth of the light needed for human vision. However they must also be able to function well in daylight...

---

In one niche we are 1/4 as good as eagles, in another 1/6 as good as the cat that is nudging my shoulder for attention as I type.

Are you referring to microevolution? Perhaps we are not on the same page here. I don't consider adaptation {minor changes in animals such as growing a longer thicker coat in a cold climate} to actually be evolution. True, since macro evolution has no evidence to support it, the faithful are calling adaptation and variation within a species, evolution. I've had some tell me that if you breed two different types of dogs together, say a lab and a poodle, the labradoodle you end up with is a new species. If that's true, then every time two mongrel dogs mate sucessfully, a new species is born. My dictionary has two meanings, similar organisms with the capability of interbreeding only among themselves, and, a group having in common certan attributes. Adapt, to become adjusted to a condition or environment. Strangely, I can't find microevolution in the dictionary. Biochemist Ernst Chain, who shared a Nobel Prize for his work on penicillin, declared: "To postulate... that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. ... These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many..."
[Ernst Chain, Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society]
I guess other people more intelligent than I must be making the same mistakes. Funny, I don't remember saying anything like that. So the background radiation that led to the hypothesis of the big bang theory, apparent order instead of chaos in the universe {especially in our solar system}, the impossibility of abiogenesis, the apparent sudden appearance of completely developed complex organisms in the fossil record, and the anomaly of water actually becoming less dense when it freezes, are some of the evidences that I use to infer an intelligent creative force.

I can't find a date for your Chain quote.Ernst Chain won the Nobel Prize in 1945. He died in 1979.I wonder what he would think about the mounds of genetic evidence confirming evolution revealed since his death? Such evidence was essentially non-existent when he made his infamous quote.However, that doesn't really matter. Arguments from authority are worthless in science, except perhaps for examining historical context. If Ernst Chain had produced scientific evidence refuting evolution theory, that would be one thing - but he did no such thing. What, specifically, do you use to infer intelligent creative design within these concepts?Why are these not simply the result of natural law? More importantly, what was the intelligent creative force that created the intelligent creative force that created these things?If you don't have specific evidence of design, you've simply made a laundry-list argument from incredulity.(Not unlike the Chain quote above, which is also an argument from incredulity.)

quote:

---

Are you referring to microevolution?

---

I am referring to evolution, which is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

quote:

---

Perhaps we are not on the same page here. I don't consider adaptation {minor changes in animals such as growing a longer thicker coat in a cold climate} to actually be evolution.

---

Does it involve the change in allele frequencies in populations over time?If it does, it is evolution.

quote:

---

True, since macro evolution has no evidence to support it,

---

So, what would you say if the trees of life which were based upon morphology of existing species and fossils were shown to be very nearly identical to the trees of life which were later drawn using only genetic similarities between species?Would you consider this evidence of long time scale evolution.

quote:

---

the faithful are calling adaptation and variation within a species, evolution.

---

Does it involve the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?If it does, it is evolution.

quote:

---

I've had some tell me that if you breed two different types of dogs together, say a lab and a poodle, the labradoodle you end up with is a new species. If that's true, then every time two mongrel dogs mate sucessfully, a new species is born.

---

Well, those people would be wrong.You still have a dog.One of the definitions of "species" is the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

quote:

---

My dictionary has two meanings, similar organisms with the capability of interbreeding only among themselves, and, a group having in common certan attributes. Adapt, to become adjusted to a condition or environment. Strangely, I can't find microevolution in the dictionary.

---

That's because the term is one only anti-science religious folks such as yourself use as as a way to artificially separate short- and long-time scale evolution.In reality, there is no difference.Tell me, what is the barrier that stops many, many small changes in a population from accumulating over time?How much change is "too much" for evolution to be responsible for? Where, exactly, does evolution stop? Please provide an example of a species where this barrier to change in it's allele frequencies has been observed.

xevo-Do you accept that DNA-based paternity testing is valid?

What is that, exactly? That's because it's a made-up word.You've made it pretty clear that you think adaptation is "microevolution", whatever that is, but I'm curious what "macroevolution" is to you. What's the least amount of change that would represent macro-, not microevolution? It's difficult to refute this statement since I don't know what "macroevolution" is, exactly. But there is this page: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"29+ evidences for macroevolution" How is that anomolous, exactly? It's a direct and obvious consequence of the fact that water is a polar molecule. That's not a particularly unique or unusual situation. It's only "anomolous" in a kind of saturday-afternoon Mr. Wizard sort of way.

Nice line of questioning... beat me to the punch.

---

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

Ok, never say never, Let me take one more stab at this...For me, many of the discussions on this forum devolve into either overly technical discussions of eye formation and ark water line stress tests, or faith vs. proof standoffs that end the discussion.I have read all the posts with interest, but this isn't really the discussion I was looking for.There were two posts, I think Xevolutionist made both but I could be wrong, that are more on track for me:"...What is scientifically wrong with postulating the existence of an unknown thing..."Two things are. One, does it fit the evidence that you have, and two can this postulate be tested? For example, I leave a chicken sandwich on the counter, I walk away. I come back and the chicken sandwich is gone. I did not observe what happened, so I speculate. Maybe the dog ate it, or maybe an unseen, previously unknown intelligent force ate it, and left no proof of his/her/its existence.Now, is the second idea possible, sure, I can't prove otherwise. But, does it follow from empirical data, and does it best fit the evidence I do have? No. Once we get into complete speculation, all bets are off... We can speculate on new technology, new life forms, and new laws of physics. But, how could we test any of these theories? If a theory can neither be proved or disproved, it's useless, even if it's right."...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..."I have suggested before that ID is proposed by people that have an idea who the ID is, and or his/her/it's motives. This is a case in point. Essentially this says, "I can not prove that there is an ID, but without one the world has no absolute moral authority..." Postulating the existence of a non-proven in order to support a scientific theory is fine. But to postulate one in order to provide emotional comfort is not science.Can anyone provide me with an example of a line of scientific inquiry that was based in observable reality, but that ultimately led conclusively to the need for an ID?And for what it's worth Morality is an abstract concept... There are some pretty barbaric things happening in the world, but local customs consider them moral.Citizzzen

---

The message is ended, go in peace.

I thought that concept was pretty good although I didn't realize that some old dead guy named Aristotle came up with it.

That many transitional forms would have to be found to validate his theory, and later before he died, he predicted that they would be found in abundance. 150 + years later and we're still waiting. Before then, there is no trace in the fossil record of anything apart from single-celled creatures and a few very primitive multicellular ones. All animal phyla emerged completely formed and all at once, in the very short period of time represented by the Cambrian explosion. (Five million years is a very short time in geological terms!)
The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belong to very different creatures, such as snails, trilobites, sponges, jellyfish, starfish, shellfish, etc. Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. These structures are at one and the same time very advanced, and very different.
Richard Monastersky, a staff writer at ScienceNews magazine states the following about the "Cambrian explosion," which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:
A half-billion years ago, ...the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures.57
The same article also quotes Jan Bergstrm, a paleontologist who studied the early Cambrian deposits in Chengjiang, China, as saying, "The Chengyiang fauna demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today."58 Not at all. But since there is an accumulation of many small changes over an extremely long period of time, wouldn't there be literally thousands of generations, each with many characteristics of the preceeding form and the "improvements" of the new? Also there wouldn't be just one of each type but whole population groups, thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, increasing the probability of preservation by fossilization or tar pits, wouldn't there? This should give us a relatively complete record, not the dozen or so {radically different in form}fossils with huge gaps that are supposed to be evidence of whale evolution. 1 less
2 less and no
3 no effect and should not influence
4 more lkely to reproduce and pass on benefits, same with living offspring
5 example 4 above would apparently have an advantage, but brings up some questions. For example:1 What if the beneficial mutation prevents the organism from breeding with the other, unaffected members of the group? {Appearance radically different as an example} There would then be a much higher likelyhood of the very small population group {only able to mate with siblings or parent} being wiped out.

Then it can't very well be classe as beneficial, can it? By definition, a beneficial mutation is one that raises the ability to pass the mutation on to offspring.This message has been edited by Coragyps, 03-25-2005 08:20 PM

Are you referring to Archaeopteryx? Hasn’t it definitely, especially with recent research, been found to be a bird? Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features that immediately identify it as a bird. It had perching feet. Several of its fossils bear the impression of feathers. These feathers were identical to those of modern birds in every respect. The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different from those of flying birds.And Texas Tech researchers have found bird fossils in rocks that predate Archaeopteryx by 75 million years.It’s sometimes hard for me to accept that some striking evidence has been found due to the instances where outright fakes are accepted by the scientific community, often for many years before being exposed as fakes. Here is a recent one: What about the Colin Paterson quote that no transitional fossils existed? As the curator of one of the largest museums containing at that time more than a million fossils, well after Darwin’s death, wouldn’t he have been well informed about such things?Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show the gradual transition from simple life forms to the complex species that exist today. The Cambrian explosion however, revealed the sudden appearance in the fossil record of mammals, birds, reptiles, etc, already completely developed. Darwin recognized this was a problem for his theory, and predicted that as more fossils were discovered, transitional forms would be found in abundance. Most scientists agree that none exist. With thousands of beneficial mutations over millions of years required for the evolutionary process to take place, there should be at least one relatively complete and obvious record of at least one species transformation into another. And why not orders? According to the theory, elephants evolved from euglena, or their equivalent, didn’t they?By large gaps, I mean that there should be an orderly, logical procession, unambiguous and widely accepted, that does not require interpretation, or speculation.For instance, the whale evolutionary record is usually used as an example of a relatively complete fossil record, yet there are no examples of the walking land mammal to the swimming mammal, and there is even disagreement as to which species is the ancestor of the whale. Robert Carroll acknowledged that it is not even possible to identify a single ancestral species.That is what I call a "large gap".Also I do not give very much credence to species whose provenance is a jaw fragment with three teeth, or one arm bone. Why should I have to do furnish calculations about a well established area of investigation and research?One has only to search for examples and compare the findings. There are many examples of persistent harmful mutations [Parkinson’s, cystic fibrosis, sarcopenia, many cancers, sporadic pulmonary lymphangioleiomyomatosis, and thousands of others] and very few beneficial ones. Why are these harmful ones hanging around for hundreds of years if "most of them spontaneously abort"? One article I read said there are over 4,500 known disease causing mutations.Even the yeast colonies and e coli cultures that supposedly improved through mutations are still yeast and e coli. They have not evolved into different bacteria.Paleontologist Kurt Wise observed:
Of carefully studied mutations, most have been found to be harmful to organisms, and most of the remainder seem to have neither positive nor negative effect. Mutations that are actually beneficial are extraordinarily rare and involve insignificant changes. Mutations seem to be much more degenerative than constructive (2002, p. 163, emp. added).The late Hermann J. Muller, Nobel laureate in genetics, said: Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences (1950, 38:35, emp. added).Evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky candidly admitted that favorable mutations amount to less than 1% of all mutations that occur (see Davidheiser, 1969, p. 209). Dr. Dobzhansky even remarked that most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors... (1955, p. 105).C.P. Martin, also an evolutionist, wrote in the American Scientist: Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.This message has been edited by xevolutionist, 03-29-2005 12:55 PM

Where in the world are you getting such total misinformation?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar already nearly had a stroke over the above statement (or he at least pulled a muscle rotflol). See the following link to see what the Cambrian Explosion actually was.Evolution: Library: The Cambrian Explosion

From your quotes: So? Beneficial mutations are rare. Good thing natural selection is around to help maintain the beneficial and get rid of the detrimental - rarity of beneficial mutations would only be a problem for evolution in the absence of natural selection. I know this concept has been explained to you before, so I'm not sure why you are still arguing this fallacy. This absolute statement has been refuted. See the thread Beneficial Mutations for a start.