Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 91 of 304 (390381)
03-20-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 6:46 PM


It is design flaws that show evolution...
IC,
I really hope you stick around and try to at least understand what is being said here. You really have got to understand how insulting it is for those of us who have dedicated our lives to evolutionary theory to have someone wave it all away as lies or ignorance. Especially from people who haven't yet demonstrated any deeper understanding of what they so flippantly dismiss.
Think of it this way... I say I don't believe the Bible because I don't believe that Zeus could turn into a swan. If I made that statement in a Christian debate forum, it would be laughable right? I would be trying to dismiss a concept that I clearly do not understand. To show me how I am wrong would require you (the Christian) to catch me up on my knowledge even before debate could begin. Many, if not most, creationists that come to EvC making equally ridiculous statements regarding biology.
Now onto your topic. For me the best examples of evolution can be seen in the imperfect, flawed design of the human body. Specifically those that exist because of ancestry. One of my favorites is the notochord. The notochord is a cartilaginous rod that runs down the back of primitive chordates. It is also found in the early larvae of the rest of the chordates and their relatives.
In vertebrates the notochord develops early in the embryo then is absorbed. In primitive chordates the notochord serves as support for the body, a function lost in vertebrates as the skeletal system serves this function. Sometimes in vertebrates, even in humans, the notochord does not completely absorb. When this happens it is usually fatal to the embryo. When non-fatal the result is severe birth defects usually involving brain and spinal development.
My point here is that the notochord is a vestige from early chordate evolution. It is true that the notochord triggers body alignment, somite (segment formation), and neural development (It has been years, but I think it triggers the Sonic Hedgehog, SHH cascade). However, these functions are carried out by other structures as well.
What is important is that the function of the notochord does not neccesitate the growth and development of the full notochord. That is, this complicated structure develops, creates a few proteins (most redundant), then goes away. It simply just does not make sense as design but makes perfect sense given the evolutionary history of vertebrates. Evolution works on the raw material on hand. So from an evolutionary view it is 'easier' build a structure already in the genome and then dismantle it than it would to develop unique structures for a particular function.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 6:46 PM ICdesign has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 92 of 304 (390382)
03-20-2007 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by GDR
03-20-2007 12:01 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
quote:
We all come to these things with are own blinkers on.
Bullshit. Don't try to equate the scientific, critical approach to claims and data with the the religious, cherry-picking approach that you use.
quote:
I maintain that the incredible complexity of the design, with or without flaws, indicate ID.
There is no evidence-based, rational reason to maintain this.
It is a faith-based position.
quote:
Neither of us can prove ourselves right. We have just come to different conclusions.
My position is that there is no rational basis to conclude ID.
Occam's Razor is violated when an IDer is invoked.
However, if you want to hold a religious view that an IDer exists, then that's fine.
But it isn't rational.
quote:
Incidentally it seems to me that if we had evolved totally naturalistically that it would be unlikely that we would be having this discussion as I would think that it would be unlikely that we would evolve in such a way that we would have such widely differing opinions on something as basic as why we exist.
That is a classic example of a fallacy called the Argument from Incredulity.
Just because you believe or disbelieve something doesn't make it true or false.
There is no practical scientific difference between:
"Evolution is God's (or the IDer's) method of designing life"
and
"Evolution is a wholly naturalistic process."
quote:
I must be missing something here, but this is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along only to have you come back and try to make the latter scientific. I agree with this quote completely.
Both of the options explain the same thing. The first just invokes God for no impirical reason.
The second statement IS scientific. The first violates Occam's Razor.
quote:
I believe that a designer makes more sense than completely naturalistic happenings. I completely agree though that there is no scientific evidence to support my position, but there is no scientific evidence that support the naturalistic position either.
Uh, the "naturalistic position" is solely and completely derived from the scientific evidence, GDR.
Going beyond the science and invoking a designer is not rational and violates Occam's Razor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 12:01 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 1:23 AM nator has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 93 of 304 (390383)
03-20-2007 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by nator
03-20-2007 12:18 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
nator writes:
Why don't you see evolutionary forces creating the first cell?
What specific justification do you have for this position?
But you can't just pull this out in isolation. It is the whole package. You asked earlier why I believe that an IDer exists. I'll repeat what I said earlier.
Because there is something rather than nothing.
Because of the complexity of all life.
Because of the complexity of our world and the universe.
Because I have consciousness.
Because I have self awareness.
Because we have a moral code.
Because love exists.
Etc.
It is all things combined that in my view leads me to the view that an IDer exists. Once I come to this conclusion then it seems likely that the IDer had something to do with the first cell.
nator writes:
What I actually see is you making rather bold claims about what science understands and what science is capable of, and then quickly backing down and retreating to "it's all just opinion" when you are asked to support those bold claims.
I don't accept that. I have not suggested that I know what science is capable of, and I am prepared to accept science as readily as anyone else. I am not prepared to accept as science however that which does not have a scientific basis. For example we can go back to the Dawkins/Collins debate. As near as I can tell they are in complete agreement on the scientific aspects of evolution but they disagree completely on the non-scientific aspects such as why evolution occurred at all. It is a matter of opinion whether we agree with Collins or Dawkins.
nator writes:
What you don't seem to do, however, is learn a whole lot about evolutionary theory. Sorry, that's how I see it.
I accept that as true but I don't see it as being germane to the discussion. I am not disputing evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory explains how we evolved which is fine by me. What we are discussing is why evolution happened at all, which is not a scientific discussion.
nator writes:
The point, though, is that there is no reason other than your wish to hold a religious belief in God, to conclude that life, the Universe, or anything was or is intelligently designed.
It isn't my wish, (once again your patronization doesn't add to the discussion), to hold a religious belief. I hold my beliefs because I'm convinced that my beliefs are essentially correct. Can I prove it is a lab? No. Can I prove it mathematically? No. The same holds true for the Atheist.
As for why I disagree with your contention that there is no reason to believe in an IDer; I have already stated them in this post and earlier as well. They are reasons to believe as I do whether you accept them as being reasonable or not.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by nator, posted 03-20-2007 12:18 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by sidelined, posted 03-20-2007 7:31 AM GDR has replied
 Message 102 by nator, posted 03-20-2007 9:13 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 94 of 304 (390384)
03-20-2007 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
03-20-2007 12:34 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Sheesh. You write one little post on this forum it becomes a full time occupation.
nator writes:
Don't try to equate the scientific, critical approach to claims and data with the the religious, cherry-picking approach that you use.
We either believe in an IDer or we don't. When we consider why life exists at all, or where the first cell came from we naturally approach it from our previous beliefs. I also don't accept that I'm cherry picking anything and I haven't argued any particular religious position. I am only arguing the Theistic position which could be anything from Deism to Islam.
nator writes:
There is no evidence-based, rational reason to maintain this.
It is a faith-based position.
I agree that it's a faith based position. We all have views on things that can’t be proven scientifically.
Frankly I believe that when we observe the natural world, and examine our own nature that it isn't rational to believe that this all happened by chance when we can't even begin to explain why anything even exists at all.
nator writes:
Occam's Razor is violated when an IDer is invoked.
wiki writes:
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
You are suggesting that by saying that evolution theory is a directed process I am making evolution less simple than if it is non-directed. I don't agree. Evolutionary theory exists in exactly the same manner whether it is directed or not. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with it.
nator writes:
Uh, the "naturalistic position" is solely and completely derived from the scientific evidence, GDR.
What scientific evidence is there that proves that there is no IDer who either set in motion or is directing the evolutionary process?
nator writes:
Going beyond the science and invoking a designer is not rational and violates Occam's Razor.
I don't agree that it violates Occam's Razor and it is my belief that a designer is a more rational conclusion than the lack of one, for the reason that I've already given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 03-20-2007 12:34 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2007 4:18 AM GDR has replied
 Message 101 by nator, posted 03-20-2007 8:29 AM GDR has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 304 (390389)
03-20-2007 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by GDR
03-19-2007 8:54 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
My point is that I am not prepared to debate anatomy.
I merely pointed out that it seems to me that if we have non-directed evolution occurring that is largely based on "survival of the fittest" then the flaws should have been bred out of us by now.
Now look at those two statements. In the first one, you say you won't debate anatomy; in the second, you say that if Darwinian evolution was true, certain anatomical features would have been bred out.
You are offering as evidence for your hypothesis the facts in a subject which you are "not prepared to debate", in which you say you are "singularly unqualified", and which you say "ain't your field".
And how did you come across these facts about anatomy? Why, because your opponents just mentioned them to you. Apparently, through sheer idiocy, they spoon-fed you the facts which, if analysed by someone such as yourself, who is "singularly unqualified", turn out to support Creationism.
Oh come on!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by GDR, posted 03-19-2007 8:54 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 10:37 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 304 (390390)
03-20-2007 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by nator
03-20-2007 12:05 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
The moment that an ID supporter points to a poor design feature as proof that we were intelligently designed, I'll eat my hat.
Eat your hat.
That argument has been put forward again and again: I call it the Argument From Undesign.
My favorite version of the AFU was a spiel about how we couldn't have evolved from monkeys by natural selection because a prehensile tail would be useful for holding a coffee cup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 03-20-2007 12:05 AM nator has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 304 (390391)
03-20-2007 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by GDR
03-20-2007 1:23 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Frankly I believe that when we observe the natural world, and examine our own nature that it isn't rational to believe that this all happened by chance ...
Good. It is indeed irrational to believe that the natural world "all happened by chance".
This is why no-one believes this.
What scientific evidence is there that proves that there is no IDer who either set in motion or is directing the evolutionary process?
Exactly the same amount of evidence that proves that there is no weather god who set in motion or is directing the lightning.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 1:23 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 10:42 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 98 of 304 (390401)
03-20-2007 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Lithodid-Man
03-19-2007 10:25 PM


Re: If starfish could talk...
Lithodid-Man writes:
seastars, like all good deuterostomes (echinoderms, chordates, and a few others) have a complete digestive system with a mouth on the oral surface and an anus on the aboral surface.
My mistake, I should have looked it up. The upside of it is that, even talking seastars know better than to talk out of their arses, like creationist are wont to do. (As am I, apparently.)

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-19-2007 10:25 PM Lithodid-Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-20-2007 8:08 AM Parasomnium has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 99 of 304 (390403)
03-20-2007 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by GDR
03-20-2007 12:50 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR
But you can't just pull this out in isolation. It is the whole package. You asked earlier why I believe that an IDer exists. I'll repeat what I said earlier.
Because there is something rather than nothing.
Because of the complexity of all life.
Because of the complexity of our world and the universe.
If the Ider exists what accounts for the level of complexity that the Ider exhibits by way of the design this Ider is capable of generating?
Since complexity is the reason you give for the belief in an Ider, how then do we explain the complexity of the Ider? Is there another Ider to account for this one and so on ad infinitum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 12:50 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 10:50 AM sidelined has replied

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 100 of 304 (390408)
03-20-2007 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Parasomnium
03-20-2007 6:34 AM


Re: If starfish could talk...
parasomnium writes:
My mistake, I should have looked it up. The upside of it is that, even talking seastars know better than to talk out of their arses, like creationist are wont to do. (As am I, apparently.)
There is a very funny joke embedded in all of this. During embryonic development all deuterostomes (echinoderms like seastars as well as chordates like ourselves) develop an anus and a mouth like proper invertebrates but then the anus and mouth invert so that the anus becomes the mouth and vice versa. So really we are all speaking out of our arses, from an invertebrate perspective.
Edited by Lithodid-Man, : Changed bio slang "invert" to "Invertebrate" to avoid confusion with "invert" used above to mean swiched positions

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Parasomnium, posted 03-20-2007 6:34 AM Parasomnium has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 101 of 304 (390411)
03-20-2007 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by GDR
03-20-2007 1:23 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
quote:
You are suggesting that by saying that evolution theory is a directed process I am making evolution less simple than if it is non-directed. I don't agree. Evolutionary theory exists in exactly the same manner whether it is directed or not. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with it.
Which is simpler:
Evolutionary theory, as observed, operates through purely naturalistic mechnanisms.
or
Evolution, as observed, operates through purely naturalistic mechanisms, but there is in addition an undetectable, invisible God-like intelligence that is so powerful that it can design life and even create it out of nothing at all.
Evolution is explained in either case, but adding the IDer is unecessary and doesn't add anything to our understanding of nature.
In fact, it only raises many more questions, such as:
What is the nature of the IDer?
What are the specific mechanisms by which the IDer affects the world?
If an IDer exists, what predictions can be made to verify it's effects on the world?
What designed the IDer?
What designed the designer of the IDer?
and so on.
Occams razor is violated when you tack an IDer on to evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory doesn't require an IDer.
I'm sorry you don't agree, but you are, indeed, violating Occam's Razor.
Which is fine, for a personal religious belief.
But it isn't rational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 1:23 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 11:00 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 102 of 304 (390412)
03-20-2007 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by GDR
03-20-2007 12:50 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Why don't you see evolutionary forces creating the first cell?
What specific justification do you have for this position?
quote:
But you can't just pull this out in isolation. It is the whole package.
Of course I can pull this out in isolation, because you made the claim that way.
You accept that purely naturalistic evolutionary forces work on nature at least part of the time, but when it comes to the creation of the first cell, you say that they couldn't have been responsible.
I'd like to know your justification for this position.
quote:
Because there is something rather than nothing.
Philosophical question, not a scientific one.
Of course, an IDer is "something", so you can't explain the "existence of something" by postulating the "existence of something".
That explains nothing.
quote:
Because of the complexity of all life.
Because of the complexity of our world and the universe.
"Complex" relative to what other life and what other world and Universe?
The adjective "complex" only makes sense as a comparison.
What other Universe, world, and life have you compared ours to?
quote:
Because I have consciousness.
Because I have self awareness.
Because we have a moral code.
Because love exists.
Etc.
All of these congnitive features are known to have natural, biological origins. Read some Cognitive and or Social Psychology sometime if you are interested in learning about current research.
Dolphins, Elephants and Bonobo Chimps, for example, also have self-awareness. Capuchin monkeys have something close to self awareness but their's seems to be intermediate betwwen true and nonexistent self-awareness. Since those species are known to have very high intelligence and complex social structures, just like humans do, it is reasonable to conclude that self-awareness is an emergent property of the brain.
Other animals, like Bonobo's and other social monkeys, also have moral codes. They recognize fairness and reciprocity, for example.
Love is easily understood from a social psychology and biochemical standpoint without any supernatural source needed.
What does this mean to your claim of an IDer?
It certainly appears as though it's nothing more than a big brain that is the source of those specific attributes you listed, considering that several non-human species, which also have big brains, have them.
quote:
It is all things combined that in my view leads me to the view that an IDer exists. Once I come to this conclusion then it seems likely that the IDer had something to do with the first cell.
That is utterly illogical and isn't based upon evidence at all.
It's just something that you like to think is true.
You admittedly don't know anything about Cellular Evolution, yet you are confident that evolution couldn't have been responsible for creating the first cell? Further, you conclude within your ignorance that an IDer just "had" to be involved.
Again, more fallacious Argument from Incredulity.
Please remember, that even if we never understand how the first cell came about, that does not constitute positive evidence for an IDer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 12:50 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 3:28 PM nator has replied

AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 304 (390420)
03-20-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by gimelnus
03-19-2007 9:45 PM


Re: Michael Shermer
Hi gimelnus - welcome to EvCForum.
You wrote a very good post. Unfortunately, I don't feel that this particular thread is a good one for what you wish to discuss. I think this post would make an excellent PNT, so if you would like to repost it, I'll take a look and give it due consideration for promotion. It is, however, off-topic for this thread.

"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 62 by gimelnus, posted 03-19-2007 9:45 PM gimelnus has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by gimelnus, posted 03-20-2007 10:25 AM AdminQuetzal has replied

    gimelnus
    Junior Member (Idle past 6218 days)
    Posts: 4
    From: Little Rock
    Joined: 03-19-2007


    Message 104 of 304 (390422)
    03-20-2007 10:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 103 by AdminQuetzal
    03-20-2007 9:58 AM


    Re: Michael Shermer
    You are quite correct. I will relocate the post to whichever forum you request. I am quite new here.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-20-2007 9:58 AM AdminQuetzal has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 113 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-20-2007 12:09 PM gimelnus has not replied

    GDR
    Member
    Posts: 6202
    From: Sidney, BC, Canada
    Joined: 05-22-2005
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 105 of 304 (390423)
    03-20-2007 10:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
    03-20-2007 4:08 AM


    Re: Evolution -- God's Design
    Dr Adequate writes:
    Now look at those two statements. In the first one, you say you won't debate anatomy; in the second, you say that if Darwinian evolution was true, certain anatomical features would have been bred out.
    This is taken out of context. Nator claimed that if an IDer exists then the flaws that she sees shouldn't exist. I just suggested that with the millions of years of evolution that we have had that the best design would now be in place. Frankly I don't believe that it makes a good argument from either position.
    By the way I support creationism but I believe that the creator used the evolutionary process to do it. I have no problem with Darwin.

    Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2007 4:08 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 109 by nator, posted 03-20-2007 10:57 AM GDR has not replied
     Message 112 by ikabod, posted 03-20-2007 11:31 AM GDR has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024