Natural selection v Intelligent design

[paulm50]

I am not talking about my interpretation but the experts interpretations. In case you havnt noticed I am not just talking about myself. Maybe we should give it a rest now as it seems to be some misunderstandings going on. We can come back to it later or move onto something else as it seems to be going over the same ground.

And the experts seem to favour one side in an overwhelming majority.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Why do you think all these people whose job it is to know, believe in evolution?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why do you think all these people whose job it is to know, believe in evolution?

Why do you think all those people, 15th century bible scholars, whose job it was to know, believed that Easter was the proper translation of pascha? Does "echo chamber" ring a bell?

 

[paulm50]

Why do you think all those people, 15th century bible scholars, whose job it was to know, believed that Easter was the proper translation of pascha? Does "echo chamber" ring a bell?

Because in those times they knew a lot less.

 

[pshun2404]

All biological systems demonstrate plan and purpose. A plan is typically a list of processes foreseen, that if taken using timing and resources, intends to achieve some objective. It can also be a predetermined strategy or any set of intended actions through which one achieves their goal. Purpose is an objective toward which one strives, or for which something is devised or exists. A planned purpose precludes intent. Inanimate matter has no inherent ability to intend or plan such purpose.

 

[stevevw]

And the experts seem to favour one side in an overwhelming majority.

The majority of scientists do believe in evolution. But you have to clarify what you mean by evolution. Even Christians believe in a form of evolution. No one can deny that creatures will change over time to adapt to their environments. We have seen how dogs can produce many shapes and sizes from the original wolf type. But all this is a limited form of evolution (micro evolution) that is within the existing genetics of an animal or organism. The tests done by scientists have verified this.

So all scientists will believe in a form of evolution. But some will believe in the traditional Darwinian evolution of common decent and natural selection and others will believe in limited evolution within kinds. Some will believe in other factors will cause the changes in creatures besides natural selection or that natural selection is only a minor player that allow creatures to adapt. Things such as animals making changes to the environment rather than changing to the environment itself, epigentics, developmental evolution, HGT and stasis evolution. These influences have always been considered as minor players in evolution but now it seems that they may be the causes of change in animals.

There has been conflicting evidence with Darwinian evolution and natural selection for some time that shows that there is more to how creatures change with their environments. Life tree have been conflicted with the data and especially now that we have genetic info this is showing different trees to the ones based on Darwinian evolution. So scientists have suspected that there is more to it than what has been theorized. The evidence points to other factors that are influencing changes and relationships between all living things. This new evidence is what many scientists are finding and testing now and makes natural selection take a back seat role rather than the main driving force in evolution.

Of course ID studies have a different view again. They believe that there is limited change but much of the change for living things comes from the pre existing genetic info that was already there to be used and has been there from the beginning. There is evidence for this as well.
Networks:expanding evolutionary thinking
Networks allow the investigation of evolutionary relationships that do not fit a tree model. They are becoming a
leading tool for describing the evolutionary relationships between organisms, given the comparative complexities
among genomes.
http://bioinfo.cs.rice.edu/sites/bioinfo.cs.rice.edu/files/TIG2013.pdf
The Mechanisms of Evolution

The rapid advances of molecular genetics over the past two decades have accounted for the origin of mutations and have revealed that the variation within species is much greater than Darwin postulated
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mechanisms-of-evolution/
Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants? Evolutionary thinking is having a revolution . . .
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full
A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html
Enzyme Families--Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design? A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase Family
Considering this along with the whole body of evidence on enzyme conversions, we think structural similarities among enzymes with distinct functions are better interpreted as supporting shared design principles than shared evolutionary histories.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

 

[paulm50]

The Evolution

But you have to clarify what you mean by evolution.

The Evolution that is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they see that there was no creator.

Does that answer your question?

Now tell us what you believe in with some evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All biological systems demonstrate plan and purpose. A plan is typically a list of processes foreseen, that if taken using timing and resources, intends to achieve some objective. It can also be a predetermined strategy or any set of intended actions through which one achieves their goal. Purpose is an objective toward which one strives, or for which something is devised or exists. A planned purpose precludes intent. Inanimate matter has no inherent ability to intend or plan such purpose.

You seem to be assuming that the only way in which a complex process can unfold is if that process was planned by an intelligent agent. Yet we know that natural processes are capable of producing complex systems without the guidance of a supervisory intelligence. A snowflake is a good example of this. We can explain the natural processes that lead to the formation of snow flakes without invoking the existence of specific snow-flake designers. This shows that complexity doesn't necessarily imply design. If we encounter a complex system that we do not fully understand, it would be premature, reckless even, to infer that the system must have been designed. There needs to be specific evidence of design.

 

[paulm50]

If evolution was a planned process. The planning wasn't very good.

The argument against intelligent design is in the billions of planets that have no life, so no purpose. The mass extinctions, natural disasters, epidemics, etc.

No one plans to build something that has so many flaws.

 

[pshun2404]

You seem to be assuming that the only way in which a complex process can unfold is if that process was planned by an intelligent agent. Yet we know that natural processes are capable of producing complex systems without the guidance of a supervisory intelligence. A snowflake is a good example of this. We can explain the natural processes that lead to the formation of snow flakes without invoking the existence of specific snow-flake designers. This shows that complexity doesn't necessarily imply design. If we encounter a complex system that we do not fully understand, it would be premature, reckless even, to infer that the system must have been designed. There needs to be specific evidence of design.

Snowflakes have very beautiful designs

 

[loveofourlord]

How did science determine which direction they were travelling?

genes, there are genetic markers that all humans carry that are found in africa, but markers beyond africa that worn't found there. AKA these genetic markers were formed later, so there are people in south america with genetic markers only they have, where as the only humans with 0 unique genetic markers are in africa. Or something along those lines.

 

[loveofourlord]

Evolutionists use to say that most of our genomes was junk DNA. This was to highlight that design was mostly simple and therefore can be explained through a chance and random process that comes mostly from an error in the copying of what is already working to make better and more complex life. But now scientists are finding a lot more function in the so called junk DNA and many evolutionists have resisted the evidence along the way. This is the same more many aspects of life and slowly but surely we are beginning to see the great complexity yet orchestrated design in things from even simple organisms to the finely tuned universe that is designed for life.

Natural selection does and can work with intelligent design. Its the capacity that its given that is in dispute. Creatures have the ability to adapt and change to conditions they encounter in their environments. But those changes come mostly if not completely from a genetic ability that is already there. This is where the so called junk DNA may come in. Maybe there is a lot more capacity for creatures to draw on their existing genetics to change and switch on and off genes or recombine their existing genetics to bring about those changes. But those creature primarily remain as they are but have a great capacity for variation. They dont turn into other creatures and all living things didn't come from a common ancestor.

In fact evidence shows that there were many lines for where all creatures come from and that the genetic capacity was there from a very early point in the scheme of things. Too early for that complexity to have evolved from a gradual process that has very rare beneficial mutation for the amount that would be needed to just make small changes where several mutational changes are needed at the same time.

we know what alot of junk DNA does, thats how we know they ARE junk DNA, AKA broken genes for things our ancestors needed but we don't, a good chunk of our DNA is devoted to smells that only our ancestors and deep ancestors needed. Why is it we carry genes that not even other apes use but further back mammals or reptiles use?

Why do humans contain the gene that would make it impossible for us to speak, but gives the great apes their jaw strength?

 

[stevevw]

The Evolution

The Evolution that is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they see that there was no creator.

Does that answer your question?

Now tell us what you believe in with some evidence.

What do you mean. I am talking about evolution. Most people who believe in evolution say that existence and how we got here has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution has enough problems explaining its theory let alone explaining how life can come from non life.

But I am talking about how people see evolution differently. That needs to be clarified as to what you mean by evolution. Do you believe in the traditional Darwinian version of evolution or do you think there is more to it. Do you think that creatures can be influenced by other things besides random mutations and natural selection to change such as HGT. Do you think that Darwinian evolution needs a rethink or that there is not enough evidence for it.

 

[paulm50]

What do you mean. I am talking about evolution. Most people who believe in evolution say that existence and how we got here has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution has enough problems explaining its theory let alone explaining how life can come from non life.

But I am talking about how people see evolution differently. That needs to be clarified as to what you mean by evolution. Do you believe in the traditional Darwinian version of evolution or do you think there is more to it. Do you think that creatures can be influenced by other things besides random mutations and natural selection to change such as HGT. Do you think that Darwinian evolution needs a rethink or that there is not enough evidence for it.

Again a lack of knowledge or willful blindness?

"Evolution has enough problems explaining its theory let alone explaining how life can come from non life."

There never was a time of non life on Earth. Go do some research and see why you're wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Again a lack of knowledge or willful blindness?

"Evolution has enough problems explaining its theory let alone explaining how life can come from non life."

There never was a time of non life on Earth. Go do some research and see why you're wrong.

Your not jumping on the band wagon as well are you with this lack of knowledge thing. Gee anyone would think that I'm the only one on here that doesn't do any research.

It certainly isn't willful blindness as I have my eyes and ears wide open to learn. You have to remember that the links I am posting are not my words or work but those of qualified experts in their fields. I cant help it if they dont agree with what some say. That is just what the evidence is pointing to and has been in recent times. Some just have to catch up and let go of their old beliefs.

As far as there never being a time where there was non life on earth I would have to ask what planet are you living on. The earth never had any life on it even according to the evolutionists and atheists a little over 3.8 billion years ago. Before then it was a geologically violent place with volcanic activity and bombardment from meteorites.

 

[paulm50]

Your not jumping on the band wagon as well are you with this lack of knowledge thing. Gee anyone would think that I'm the only one on here that doesn't do any research.

It certainly isn't willful blindness as I have my eyes and ears wide open to learn. You have to remember that the links I am posting are not my words or work but those of qualified experts in their fields. I cant help it if they dont agree with what some say. That is just what the evidence is pointing to and has been in recent times. Some just have to catch up and let go of their old beliefs.

As far as there never being a time where there was non life on earth I would have to ask what planet are you living on. The earth never had any life on it even according to the evolutionists and atheists a little over 3.8 billion years ago. Before then it was a geologically violent place with volcanic activity and bombardment from meteorites.

The Earth was never a place of non-life. No life in the form of species, yes. And that's now what started the first life forms. The mass was what's left in the middle, the molten core and from that mass even today the beginnings of life can form.

You are pointing to a god being responsible for a natural event, with no evidence to back it up.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Earth was never a place of non-life. No life in the form of species, yes. And that's now what started the first life forms. The mass was what's left in the middle, the molten core and from that mass even today the beginnings of life can form.

I don't follow your logic; if, as you say (highlighted), the first life forms started on Earth (necessarily after it had cooled sufficiently for liquid water to exist on it), then the Earth was logically a place of non-life prior to that.

Also, species is a problematic (meaningless) categorization when dealing with simple microorganisms, especially the earliest replicators.

 

[paulm50]

I don't follow your logic; if, as you say (highlighted), the first life forms started on Earth (necessarily after it had cooled sufficiently for liquid water to exist on it), then the Earth was logically a place of non-life prior to that.

Also, species is a problematic (meaningless) categorization when dealing with simple microorganisms, especially the earliest replicators.

Your definition of life is too small. There were chemicals and from chemicals and water we can now produce life.

To go from single cell simple microorganisms, to double cell, to the next step, then the next. Was a slow process. It's proven.

You can only refuse to believe, you can't show an alternative. So until science finds your alternative. Most of us will stick with the evidence we have.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your definition of life is too small. There were chemicals and from chemicals and water we can now produce life.

I'm using the standard biological definition of life; it's a process. A bunch of organic chemicals out of solution is no more life than a bag of transistors and wires is a computer; they are inanimate. There was no liquid water on the early Earth to support life; Earth is about 4.5 billion years old; it took half a billion years before it could support life. There clearly was the potential for life, but that's not life. Nature took half a billion years to do it, and we can't yet produce life from raw chemicals (although Craig Venter has got fairly close with 'Synthia' which has a synthetic genome).

To go from single cell simple microorganisms, to double cell, to the next step, then the next. Was a slow process. It's proven.

I know, I have no argument with that.

You can only refuse to believe, you can't show an alternative. So until science finds your alternative. Most of us will stick with the evidence we have.

An alternative to what? I'm just telling you that the early Earth had no life. It took a long time for abiogenesis to be possible. There was no life on Earth until that had occurred. Simples.

 

[pshun2404]

Why be so bent on evidence scientifically attained and then believe in abiogenesis? All that science has continually proved is biogenesis...why suddenly not trust the evidence you all so adamantly demand?

 

[stevevw]

If evolution was a planned process. The planning wasn't very good.

The argument against intelligent design is in the billions of planets that have no life, so no purpose. The mass extinctions, natural disasters, epidemics, etc.

No one plans to build something that has so many flaws.

I would have thought the evidence was pointing the other way around. If a natural process can somehow create living things out of the rocks and earth and chemicals that make up the universe then surely we would have evidence of other life forms somewhere. They have found other planets in a similar position to earth one only 1500 light years away. We know that bacteria can live in the most hostile environments that are poisonous to humans. So the excuse that elsewhere in the universe is unsuitable doesn't apply for living things like bacteria let alone the many other possible strange lifeforms that could have evolved somewhere out there.
In fact the universe should be teaming with evidence of life in on form or another.

Remember according to evolution the earth wasn't so special to begin with and had to become suitable for animal and plant life. But for a long time there was single celled life that could live almost anywhere. But in all the test we have done we have found nothing, not a single bit of evidence for living things. You would think there would be other human like life in an unlimited universe if nature can fluke one planet it can do it again and again.

Thats what we are led to believe with evolution itself. It somehow managed to evolve the same pathways for complex organisms and features on many occasions which they happen to call convergent evolution. The complex structures for plant and animal life had to somehow happen on different occasions. So why not have this convergent evolution of some sort happening everywhere.Even if the conditions are not exactly the same as earth we should be getting some sort of life if evolution can create itself from chemical.

But if life was designed then we would only expect to see the special and finely tuned conditions in our ting part of the unlimited universe. We would only expect to find any form of life on our planet. We have sent signals into outta space and have never heard a single reply and the same would go for any other life trying to contact us. Thats because there is nothing out there. Life on our planet was specially created by God and there is more purpose to life than some chemicals creating life in a cold universe that doesn't care.