Why would an intelligent designer design these?

Hallucigenia

Just to let you know, I believe they have discovered that Hallucigenia did not walk on the spikes (ie, your image is upside down). Perhaps my memory has everything reversed but I thought they drew it that way at first, then based on a discovery of a similar creature alive now, revised the idea.

Our early-days efforts tend to display more design diversity because the most efficient solution to our requirements and indeed the requirements themselves take time to emerge.

I am not sure if that is always true, but let's assume it is true. Just because a human production process might create a certain series of events (first multivarious, followed by fewer and refined forms), does not mean that no other process will create those same series of events, nor that we can start drawing analogies between an unknown process and the human process beyond stating their is a "similarity" in products.

Patently there is a difference here in that we can be pretty certain that the beings in the shale were reproducing and not all of them are manufactured. Thus there is a huge difference between the Burgess Shale and a junkyard (or the garbage can of an inventor's office).

There is also the difference that none of those species seem to have a purpose beyond themselves. Every invention has an obvious missing component, a being that it is going to provide a service for. Like a car has seats... for what? We don't see evidence of tertiary purpose.

But let's ignore this and assume that analogical products means analogical processes...

Our intellectual limitations give rise to a 'trial and error' approach and it is usually not one but many individuals, each with their own imperfect initial ideas, that are involved.

It just hit me that maybe I mistook the purpose of your post. I was about to point out that someone trying to argue IDand thus "God" using your line of logic, might suddenly have to face some serious music given the above fact.

If we are to continue extending analogies from product to process, then one would have to be arguing (in this instance) for a less than super-intelligent designer, and as you point out perhaps even a team of designers.

It would seem that a God would be capable of skipping the mistakes, or at the very least getting rid of them in a better garbage can so we wouldn't see how sloppy and intellectually limited he was.

If this is what you were driving at, then sorry for butting in with a repeat. If you were trying to suggest ID and God, then I'd like to see some answers to the above problems.

---

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

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Now I'm really feeling unhip. What is OTJT?

---

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

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

First I want to address something from your initial post...

the only reason for creating something so bizarre as this creature was to show us just how powerful He is?

If he wanted to show us how powerful he was, why did he let many of these bizarre creatures die over the course of time? Its seems that if he wanted to show how powerful he was he'd have saved every species he made.

can you give a reason as to why this species existed using evolution?

Nitpicking, but that should be "how it came to exist" and not "why it existed".

The whole point behind all this is, WE DON'T KNOW!!!! Your theory is just as good as mine.

You are correct that we do not know for sure what happened in the deep past. However your theory is not as good as ours, and there is a reason why...

Evolutionary theory is constructed using facts that we do know. We learn about the world today, how it functions, and construct models using those mechanisms to explain what happened in the past.

Creationism is constructed by taking something that we don't know and assuming evidence of the past must somehow point to that unknown. That is why there is no coherent "creationist" scientific model, including mechanisms.

Also, even if we did not have adequate mechanisms known in order to postulate evolutionary theory (and thus it would be the same as Creationism) Occam's Razor would still kick in to knock out Creationism. That the answer would be found in natural mechanisms would be a simpler answer than answers coming from an additional entity (which itself would require an additional explanation) using mechanisms to produce said species.

However, each theory has its weak points, and I happen to think that the evolutionary theory has more weak points than the creation theory does.

This has been said so many times at EvC, and yet I have seen no person stick around to actually detail these numerous weak points. Will you be the first?

---

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

Well, I'll just use one, and we'll just see how well your theory holds up compared to the creationist theory

Actually I did not mean to hold that discussion specifically in this thread. With "many weaknesses" I would expect you should be able to start several different threads, perhaps in different forum areas. One at a time of course...

How do you explain the fact that almost every species of animal developed 2 sexes, and only 2 sexes? If evolution is true, then why don't we have some species which keep progressing into more sexes?

I personally could not answer that question as it is not even close to my fields of study, nor my direct knowledge base. However I know how to look things up. Just a simple yahoo on multisexual organisms resulted in the following online paper:

KLAUS JAFFE 1996. THE DYNAMICS OF THE EVOLUTION OF SEX: WHY THE SEXES ARE, IN FACT, ALWAYS TWO?. INTERCIENCIA 21(6): 259-267.

If you follow that link you will discover a scientist who has specifically attempted to study that aspect of reproduction, rather than throw up his hands at an immediate lack of knowledge. I'll let you read the paper for yourself, but here is a quote which appears to posit a plausible answer in a nutshell...

Simulations showed that asexual reproductive strategies were very stable in evolutionary competitions and consistently out-bred sexual ones. Bisexuality succeeded in replacing asexuality only in changing environments and could be maintained only if non-random mate selection mechanisms were at work... in trisexual organisms, mate selection mechanisms and natural selection do not work efficiently. Thus, reproductive strategies with more than two sexes are improbable. Polyploidy may improve evolutionary success among monosexuals as it reduces the exhaustion of the variability of the gene pool due to continuous selection pressure. I postulate that sex evolved under changing selection pressures, allowing the emergence of sexual selection, which allowed sex to stabilize, thanks to the strong irreversible dynamics in the evolution of complex organisms.

You should read the entire article to understand how the author reached those conclusions.

Also, how big of a genetic mutation would have to take place in order to go from dividing oneself into two separate organisms, into having two sexes that must mate in order to reproduce?

I am not sure, but from an outsider's perspective my guess would be not that hard. Perhaps it started with an entity capable of either form of reproduction, and then lost the ability to asexually reproduce.

Now do you see what I mean when I say that evolutionists do the same thing creationists do? Evolutionists simply say that "it had to happen. We don't know how, or when, but we're sure we'll find out someday." Creationists, on the other hand say something similar, yet entirely different. "

No I do not see that they do the same thing. Evolutionists, if they are scientists, say that something happened and we may not know what it was but we will find out... here is the current best theory given the mechanisms of which we are aware.

You are correct that Creationists, on the other hand, say something entirely different. They say they know their Biblical description of how life came to be must be accurate and therefore explanations and mechanisms and even evidence must be filtered through that lens.

Science starts with evidence and tries to move to a conclusion. Theology (or very early forms of scientific investigation) starts with a conclusion and tries to piece evidence together to support it.

and all of that just happened and the evolutionary theory can't do anything to explain it.

Let us pretend for a moment that I had not found that paper which answered your question. Why is it that an as yet unanswered question gets depicted as a theory not ever being able to explain it?

Science did not start with an answer for everything and so just has to make the pieces fit. Science starts with an immense blank space and is slowly working at the evidence to build models with an idea it might represent "the answer". It does not assume that any one model will be the "final" one, though it certainly is hesitant to shift to a new one without enough cause.

In the case of reproduction, there is a very large gap in our knowledge on how it works as a whole or how it definitively could have come to be. Asserting that there are mechanisms which we have yet to find is not just accurate, it is unquestionable fact.

The question is what do we pursue as the mechanisms we need to understand. Assuming that they are within, or similar to, the physical mechanisms currently at work in the world around us gives us ways to continue research. Assuming that there is some unseen and indescribable entity who used completely unknowable mechanisms ends research, perhaps needlessly. It also falls to Occam's Raxor.

But let me address the ending of research... when can we know where God's direct handiwork ended and current physical mechanisms took over? They must have somewhere unless you believe each new organism is still handcrafted by God. In that case don't we have to assume, and do research with the assumption, undirected physical mechanisms are still the answer until such time as we actually discover the God mechanisms?

Maybe that helps explain the practical side of Occam's Razor.

You still have to explain to me how it is possible for all that matter to get there in the first place. The origin of the universe is a great little topic, one for which evolutionists have absolutely NO answer for

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, nor even the origins of biological life (abiogenesis). Thus evolutionists better not have an answer for you on that topic, or they are no longer evolutionary theorists.

I believ you will find that very hard to do.

It was really easy, I just went to yahoo and typed in "multisexual organisms". I think the first thing you need to do is investigate your questions, rather than using a "god of the gaps" shrug and run.

I do believe that is what separates scientists from creationists.

Scientists have the willingness to say I don't know, followed by the patience to try and find out, and better still refine their methods of trying to find out.

Creationists want to say they know, or at least that they know as much as those who've spent their careers studying phenomena, without the necessary investment of time in the subject.

This message has been edited by holmes, 06-06-2005 06:15 PM

---

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

Read the new post that I made about the link you gave for the multiple sexes scenario.

I hope you read my post #36 above, to see a plausible answer to your original question.

Well, that's exactly where you miss it. I HAVE discovered God, whether you believe me or not.

Scientifically??? That is what is under discussion here, right? You were replying to a person who was suggesting we have not found any evidence of directed or artificial mechanisms. Even if you "found a God" did he reveal the evidence which is currently under discussion?

By the way many others have discovered different Gods, and with the same enthusiasm and who have different creation stories. How does science determine the difference between you and them?

On this subject I should also point out another problem with your theoretical argument of "equality" between evo and creo. You said that creo has the exact same method of postulation and so is equal, but what exactly is being postulated? Creo theories are very different and do not indicate your God at all.

When evo points to as unyet discovered mechanism it is wide and varied but within the same basic realm... connected to the modern mechanisms we see today. Once direct mechanisms are allowed who is to say it is one entity or many, or how they went about creating, or how many times they went about creating?

This is yet another reason why Occam's Razor steps in.

Ironically, if we allowed your argument to hold sway, your version of creo theory would simply get swamped by countless more theories rather than standing up as "equal".

Because that's how God works, with small, subtle hints.

That's his oversight, when nature provides much larger, less subtle hints as to how it worked.

---

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

This very country, assuming you live in the U.S., was founded by Christian "religious" people.

They were deists which were a form of Xian religious belief directly opposed to evangelical Xianity. Some openly professed hatred of the kind of Xianity you espouse, and at the same time championed reason an scientific investigation using the methods you deride.

My only point in this whole thing is, there is a leap of faith on both sides, and no matter how you slice it, you are never going to be able to convince me that it doesn't take faith to believe in evolution

Do I take it then you are doing exactly what I said had been done before? I guess so as you have now skipped both my posts #36 and 41 to you.

or whatever it is you want to call the whole atheistic worldview

What does evolutionary theory have to do with atheism? Religious people can agree with evolutionary theory. Atheists may be glad that that is the reigning scientific theory as it does not undercut any of their beliefs, but unless you have a strict literal biblical view of speciation it doesn't undercut any of yours either.

You on the other hand, are not willing to admit that your belief is not 100% provable

I think most scientists and people that follow science readily admit their beliefe is not 100% provable. Where have you heard otherwise?

I can come up with any theory I want about how the sexes were developed, and as long as I use a scientific community, or a well known scientist to advance my ideas;

That is pure BS. Clearly you can think of theories that would not be accepted even if you had Einstein backing you up. Science is not based on names, it is based on accepted working models. Its those last two criteria that are likely to foil your plans.

Well, the fact of the matter is, hundreds of well-respected scientists, who were avid supporters of evolution, as well as atheists; have begun to question many different teachings that originated with the evolutionary theory. They have begun to raise questions about how these things could possibly come about by chance. However, as soon as they speak up, they immediately get branded as "religious"

This is in direct conflict with your previous statement that you could come up with any theory and as long as you had a scientist behind it people would accept it.

I just have to wonder what it is that makes evolutionists get so antsy as soon as someone brings up ID.

They get antsy waiting for all of the supposed evidence which is supposed to support it. Where is it? Do you know?

I am simply trying to say that the evolutionary theory is not perfect, but neither is my own theory.

The difference is evolutionary theory contains a model and it works. "God did it" or "It couldn't've been chance" are not models and do not help scientists work on understanding phenomena.

I don't really have a lot of time during the day to argue these things, so I will only answer the things I can answer the best.

Does this mean you are running out? You said you had plenty of evidence and still have not finished your first point yet.

because you could feel Him when you read that post.

I only feel the inkling of deities or "spirituality" when reading buddhist or ancient pagan texts. The only feeling I get with religious proselytization is the deja vu of boredom from ignorant ranting. But hey that's me.

---

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

You may call them "flaws"; the word that would be more precise is "frontiers."

I believe you wrote something else like this before... I know someone did. Did you come up with this yourself? If not, where did you read/hear of it before?

While obviously there are "flaws" which can ultimately damage and destroy a theory... and so they are not always a "frontier"... I think you have accurately pinpointed one of the most horrific mistakes that creationists (or other antiscientists) have been making, especially with respect to evolutionary theory.

I intend to carry that little flag around with me when I charge into arguments, and I'd like to know who to credit with its construction.

...where explanitory models seem lacking shouldn't prompt us to abandon reason and science altogether; rather, these are the areas where the work needs to be done... Ah, but I see how it works on your planet. Because we don't know everything, we know nothing; and because we know nothing who's to care if we substitute dogma for reason?

This is also a very apt critique which would only be strengthened by laying off the sarcasm (i.e. the "planet" remark).

I think this matches nicely with the error ID makes in rushing to judgement: There are problems with evo and so there must be a wholly alternative theory, here is the basis for an alternative theory so it must be one, since we can find some evidence if we assume the basis is correct it must be evidence that the alternative theory is viable, and since the alternative theory is viable and requires an intelligence creating designs we can now discuss those designs!

It really feels like the difference between scientists and creationists is patience as well as reason. Invariably they let one get ahold of the other.

In any case, I thought your post was dead on.

This message has been edited by holmes, 06-08-2005 05:19 AM

---

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