Does complexity require intelligent design?

Cit, See my message # 79 for my reply to this question. I don't think that Christian or religious values are needed here, although I'll freely admit that I have converted from Evolutionism to Christianity. Yes, He could have, and that was my point. Why couldn't God have a sense of humor? That would still be a purpose, although not a deadly serious one. Rocks exist to stand on and throw. Zweemer, author of The Origins of Religion, found that the oldest traditions were of one supreme God and that other beliefs came later. I am of the opinion that the Hebrew writings are the oldest and best documented manuscripts that we have. I will take a look at the upanishads, but you are the first person to tell me that their writings are older than the torah. No, Christianity is separate from belief in an intelligent creator. I think that Christianity often keeps people from accepting the concept of a creator because it is such an emotionally charged subject.However, I can honestly say that my departure from the evolutionary camp and a belief in a supernatural creator came long before I embraced Christianity. After my disillusionment with ToE I first envisioned an impersonal creator, not concerned or even aware of the microbes on this large rock with an oxygen rich atmosphere. Sir Fred Hoyle led me to my present beliefs.

Greetings Parasomnium, I have been down that avenue and based on verifiable information, I believe my conclusion to be accurate. If you eliminate all but the better mutations you would be ignoring reality. Why couldn't several thousand better mutations be wiped out by one harmful mutation? A long series of beneficial mutations is indeed improbable. That's one very important fact to admit as evidence. Your other assertion that every creature in nature is a result of of an abundance of beneficial mutations is only supported by your belief in evolution. I generally agree with those statements, and the rarity of beneficial mutations exceeds exponentially the rarity of harmful ones.I haven't compiled statistics but I think that just the varieties of cancer alone would outnumber any known beneficial mutations clinically affecting the human body. You've got me there. There was a paucity of medical facilities at the time they were placed on the earth. That's why the designer gave them such superbly functioning bodies.

Holmes, you state: Case closed? Again I state that resistance to disease is a normal function of our bodies. I would speculate that everyone should have an immune system like that mentioned, but harmful mutations are having a deleterious effect on the human race.

Pink, thanks for reinforcing my position. The following quotes were taken directly from the links you provided with no attempt on my part to alter them. As to the HIV "immunity" I didn't have to look very hard for that qualifier, and there were many similar ones in the other materials.I did respond to your earlier message, sorry it took so long.

The features that I believe to be a problem for evolutionary theory are that there seems to be no precursors of the monotremes, and that even though they are egg laying mammals, which would seem to indicate shared ancestry, they have remarkable differences.
Nothing seems to be a problem for the evolutionary faithful, as the theories rapidly change to accomodate the evidence. Which of the many possibilities do you advocate? What about the beneficial mutations that I've been assured are the major mechanism of evolution? Do they bide their time until the environment becomes less hospitable? How about one complete uninterrupted record of change from one order to another? Please don't tell me that the conditions must be exactly right for fossilization to take place, as I know that there are millions of relatively complete fossils, including some of jellyfish. Just one out of all the millions of species. One jaw fragment with three teeth similar to the platypus is a fossil record? And people ask me why I am no longer an evolutionist. That's the type of "evidence" I see presented over and over to support evolution. You are correct, it was described as a wolf sized ungulate, and I only remembered the wolf part. That is no less incredible to my mind. I'm pretty sure about the ear part. Since there is nothing near a complete fossil record for the whale, regardless of how many artist's renditions there were, the shape of the bones in the ear is the connection to the ungulate. I didn't have a question about the antifreeze in the flounder. I may be predictable about some things, but give me a break, I've never mentioned the flounder prior to that. I would like to discuss the movement of the eye from one side of the head to the other sometime, but I'm really swamped right now and I seem to be the only person who wanted to argue for ID. I'm about 15 posts behind and I have to work this weekend.

To recap, I said:Nosy asks: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. I maintain that each eye is perfectly suited for the required usage. I have seen individuals argue about the imperfection of the human eye, yet it seems a marvelous instrument to me. Binocular vision for estimating distances; immediate automatic focus from 3inches to infinity; auto tracking on high and low speed objects; full color spectrum and black and white; extreme low light functionality; automatic clean and wipe functions; automatic cover for protection when not in use; and self repairing for minor damage. The eyes of birds have different capabilities, and I have seen a bald eagle suddenly take flight from a tree overlooking a bay, fly approximately 1/4 mile and pluck a fish about 12 inches in length from below the surface of the water.2 I agree.3 I do not agree, as they meet the requirements for the functionality desired.My conjecture relating to a developing eye envisioned animals who didn'd depend on sight for predation or avoiding predators. Xevo said:
"Given the infinitesmal number of beneficial mutations that have been observed in relation to the great number of harmful ones that have been observed, nothing."You are correct, it makes no sense with the proposed parameters. I admit that the conditions in the proposed thought experiment would most likely conform to some evolutionary theory, I was a bit tired and I didn't explain myself thoroughly. What is the purpose, beyond mere mental exercise, of an experiment that ignores observed evidence?Sorry it took so long to respond.

I believe the data from the research. I don't agree with all the conclusions, but the techniques are generally acceptable. I don't doubt the extinction events took place, the evidence for extinction of species is abundantly clear. The reason for the extinction is not always clear, and that was my objection to the opening statement. What I was referring to was the ability of life to exist on earth without the presence of the moon. I do not believe we evolved from lesser animals, but I do not discount evolution. I believe embracing that theory has caused irreparable harm to human society.

I didn't call myself that when I accepted the ToE. I called myself rational for believing an accepted theory. When I looked for the evidence to support the theory, I found no credible evidence. Some people who call themselves Christians only think they are. Evolution is not compatible with Biblical Christianity which asserts the inerrancy of scripture. There was no death or bloodshed until the original sin, therefore no evolution. No I don't want to discuss that topic, I'm only replying to your post. I'll agree that I may be ignorant on some aspects of current evolutionary theories. They seem to change rapidly. But mostly, I've been responding to queries from others and we've wandered afar from the topic of ID. I'm not embarassed to admit that I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, but this is an enjoyable pastime that is stimulating my thought processes.

You are quite right. I apologize for that incredibly stupid post. Could it possibly be that harmful mutations have reduced the ability of some population groups to resist the infection?

Atomic decay has no observable cause, but I didn't realize that it has been proven there is no cause. 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. What is scientifically wrong with postulating the existence of an unknown thing? Who's pretending what? Of course it's impossible to "prove" an event that we didn't witness, and is not repeatable, but we can speculate as to the probabilities and or mechanisms that may have caused it.

I don't know why I made that statement. It was wrong. I did reply, but I'm replying to several individuals, and have to work at a real job on top of that. My reply was inadequate, however, as to this question of immunity. Did you consider the possibility that the above mentioned group [I know that there have been other individuals found with a similar immunity] has an immune system that hasn't been compromised by harmful mutations, and the vast majority of the population has? Given that beneficial mutations are rare and harmful ones plentiful, this seems as likely an explanation as yours.

Didn't I already apologize for that stupid statement?

I did not say that they {beneficial mutations} never happened, I said they are extremely rare.

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

The harm is that prior to the acceptance of the theory man was generally thought of as being above the animal kingdom and standards of morality were generally accepted as having a higher authority. ToE reduces us to relatively intelligent animals. The acceptance of the theory has led, I believe, to a decline in morality and the sanctity of life. I think it also leads to depression in young people, who think there is no purpose to life if we are a cosmic accident. Have you checked the statistics on the rate of suicide in the years since ToE has been taught as the definitive answer? Not to mention that one out of four pregnancies is terminated in the US. When we are so callous toward new life, how can our own have any meaning?This message has been edited by xevolutionist, 03-20-2005 05:34 PM