Intelligent Design / Evolution

[Redac]

Vestigial organs are an icon of evolution's common ancestry.
Two of the best known, are the appendix and the coccyx (Tailbone). These are only two of a once very long list over the years that have been found to have significant function. In the late 1800's Robert Wiedersheim had a list of 86 non functional remnants of common ancestral evolution. Over the years that list has become much shorter. I think we are down to wisdom teeth and some bump on the ear.



What strikes me is the arrogance of science that continues to pronounce conclusions from ignorance. We don't know what it does so it does nothing. The same arrogance let to one of sciences biggest mistakes in history.

• Scientific American, "the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes ... 'were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.'" John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia was then quoted saying this might have been "one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."

This is exactly what evolution promoters accuse intelligent design scientists of doing. The whole theory behind the non functional organs and features is that they don't work or have very little function, and that points to evolution. Leftovers, from our past. Well, what happens to that theory if we find significant function for these organs? You would think it may cause some to rethink the theory but no. You only need to redefine the theory. After all, that is what evolutionists tell us all the time. Science is a changing animal as new evidence appears, theories are refined.
I am all for refining but when it is clear that the evidence is in direct contradiction to your prediction, it is time to go back to the drawing board. But, now we are told that vestigial never meant non functional, it meant little to no function. Hey, let's cover all the bases and include significant function too. It supported common ancestryapparently because it has little to no function. But it does have function, significant function? It still supports evolution because it, it, it does. Who are the great thinkers who decide these organs had greater function in the past? A little subjective isn't it? That is ok though because common ancestry needs plenty of wiggle room to work

Bolding mine.

Vestigial never meant either of those things. It means that the particular organ or structure has lost its original function. This is not the same as saying it has no function or is "useless."

 

[Michael]

Can you not read? I already answered where they have been observed. Read Spergel et al.

Baloney! That is simply *ONE* alternative! There are MULTIPLE ways of explaining the same basic observations *WITHOUT* even evoking any concept of "expansion"! You can't just point at the sky and claim "the dead inflation deity did it" and expect me to INSTANTLY believe you! You're using a circular feedback loop in the first place since you've NEVER shown that inflation actually *EXISTS IN NATURE* in the first place! You simply ASSUMED it existed (and died), gave it the properties you needed, and then you pointed at the sky! These same observations can also be explained as a "tired light" effect, nothing more:

Menu
arXiv.org Search

What *EMPIRICAL* physical evidence (preferably from the lab) can you cite that shows inflation, dark energy and dark matter are not simply *GAP FILLER* in ONE otherwise FALSIFIED cosmology theory? Why would anyone prefer a cosmology theory based on DARK MAGIC, over a PHYSICAL explanation of the same observations?

Missing mass? Did you seriously not even read the paper? Minchin et al are discussing missing optical counterparts, not missing mass.

The term "dark matter" is ALWAYS associated with mass that the mainstream cannot account for. That paper demonstrates NOTHING in terms of proving something "exotic" exists in nature. There have been at least four falsifications of mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques in just the past four years.

ESO - eso1217 - Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?
New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
A Real Whopper: Black Hole Is Most Massive Known | Space.com

All of these observations demonstrate CONCLUSIVELY that the mainstreams "mass estimation techniques" stink to high heaven.

No...

Yes!

Popular science magazine? Please don't waste my time.

Pure denial of scientific facts that you don't wish to deal with in an intellectually honest manner? Please don't waste my time.

Considering you haven't responded to the actual research I've posted, I think you aren't really in a position to complain for disregarding unreliable popular science claptrap.

I've responded to your nonsense. I've shown you four specific recent observations that DESTROY mainstream theories related to their mass estimation techniques and I've provided you with ALTERNATIVE ways of explaining those SAME OBSERVATIONS WITHOUT MAGIC STUFF!

I'm not really in the mood to explain biochem to you. You should have picked up the basics like the Kreb's Cycle and glycolysis in high school.

We aren't talking about the "basics" here, we're talking about INTELLIGENCE and the source of intelligence.

If you seriously think DNA is some sort of magic neural substrate

The only one evoking "dark magic" in this conversation is YOU and you alone. You have yet to provide any PHYSICAL explanation for these INTELLIGENT BEHAVIORS in single celled organisms. Do you think I'm the only one that noticed that you AVOIDED the issue?

and don't know how chemical interactions drive cellular processes in even the most general sense, that educational deficit is far beyond me. Buy a biology textbook.

Typical denial based behavior. When confronted with new data that doesn't fit with your preconceived viewpoint, you go all egotistical/personal and bail out of the conversation as fast as you can. Typical.

 

[Jro]

Question for Michael- would you call chemotaxis 'intelligent' behavior?

 

[Michael]

Question for Michael- would you call chemotaxis 'intelligent' behavior?

Not "necessarily". For instance, there could be some instances where movement is simply a result of a chemical reaction.

 

[Jro]

Not "necessarily". For instance, there could be some instances where movement is simply a result of a chemical reaction.

So if there were similar chemical mechanisms for amoeba or slime mold behavior, those would also be non-intelligent? Scary question: what if there were chemical reactions underlying human decision making?

 

[Michael]

So if there were similar chemical mechanisms for amoeba or slime mold behavior, those would also be non-intelligent?

Possibly. In the instances cited however, which chemical mechanisms did you have in mind?

Scary question: what if there were chemical reactions underlying human decision making?

I live with my wife and two teenage daughters. I can tell you for a fact that chemical reactions play a role in the human decision making process.

 

[Jro]

Possibly. In the instances cited however, which chemical mechanisms did you have in mind?

In the amoeba that seeks a balanced diet, my guess would be that its a mechanism similar to chemotaxis. For slime molds, I'd guess that there is some sort of chemical biological clock that is reset by cold before I'd guess that they possess an awareness of what the researchers are doing. Jumping from 'these organisms exhibit certain behaviors' to 'these organisms must be intelligent' seems like chasm I'm not comfortable crossing without more evidence.

I live with my wife and two teenage daughters. I can tell you for a fact that chemical reactions play a role in the human decision making process.

Badum pish waaaa waaaaa waaaaaaaaaaa

 

[Michael]

In the amoeba that seeks a balanced diet, my guess would be that its a mechanism similar to chemotaxis. For slime molds, I'd guess that there is some sort of chemical biological clock that is reset by cold before I'd guess that they possess an awareness of what the researchers are doing. Jumping from 'these organisms exhibit certain behaviors' to 'these organisms must be intelligent' seems like chasm I'm not comfortable crossing without more evidence.

What type of evidence might suffice? From my perspective, such simple handwaves don't really cut it. They actually changed the times between cold instances in the slime mold experiments, and the mold changed their anticipatory behavior accordingly. That doesn't really sound like a simple chemical reaction to me.

 

[DaneaFL]

Not "necessarily". For instance, there could be some instances where movement is simply a result of a chemical reaction.

I like how you used that clever little modifier "some" so you wouldn't have to admit what you actually know to be true.

Yep, in fact ALL movement and even intelligence can be tracked back to simple results of chemical reactions. Granted, there are some that are so complex that our current technology can't fully trace the connections. That doesn't mean you get to squeeze your God-of-the-gaps into the holes.

and why do you keep bringing up dark matter? I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with it... are you trying to say "scientists don't have any idea what dark matter is so science fails and religion wins! praise Jesus!"?

Do you mean that if a scientific theory is ever falsified then the scientific method itself is wrong and we must look for a better way to understand the universe such as blind christian faith?

I just can't wrap my head around why dark matter/energy is such a problem for you.

To me, all you are saying is "we don't know.... therefore, God did it."
But you do realize that people throughout history have said the same thing about lightening, volcanos, fire, germs, etc.

I wonder whatever will you do when the day comes that phyicists can explain what dark matter is the same way we understand germs and natural disasters today.

What hole will you shoehorn your God-of-the-gaps into once we finally explain the entire observable universe? The day is coming, rest assured. If history has proven anything it's that when humans find something they don't understand, first they assume it's supernatural, then they use science and find that it's perfectly natural.

We live at an interesting time where your God-of-the-gaps has been pushed back all the way to the beginning of the universe. We keeping killing God a little more every time we explain fire, earthquakes, germs, life, and now the universe itself. God is about to completely die. I can't wait.

I would love to live in a world completely free of superstition... I hope I live to see it.

 

[Michael]

I like how you used that clever little modifier "some" so you wouldn't have to admit what you actually know to be true.

Yep, in fact ALL movement and even intelligence can be tracked back to simple results of chemical reactions. Granted, there are some that are so complex that our current technology can't fully trace the connections. That doesn't mean you get to squeeze your God-of-the-gaps into the holes.

Um, care to explain how we suddenly jumped from "What is intelligence?" to "God of the gaps" arguments? The only thing I'm arguing is that "intelligence" isn't necessarily "brain" related.

and why do you keep bringing up dark matter?

Because dark matter (along with dark energy and inflation) is an excellent example of something that most atheists simply take for granted *WITHOUT* empirical support. It's also an example of a human created metaphysical GAP FILLER (dark matter of the gaps) that is designed to save an otherwise falsified theory.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with it... are you trying to say "scientists don't have any idea what dark matter is so science fails and religion wins! praise Jesus!"?

I'm using the idea to demonstrate that many atheists (and theists of course) "have faith" in the unseen (in the lab) just like the rest of us. Atheists are just more subjective about which things require EMPIRICAL support and which don't.

Do you mean that if a scientific theory is ever falsified then the scientific method itself is wrong and we must look for a better way to understand the universe such as blind christian faith?

I'd be quite happy if the mainstream simply gave up it's "dark sky religion" and embraced something a wee more empirical, like Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe theory, with or without any of the pantheistic implications. Anything REMOTELY resembling empirical physics would be a great first step.

I just can't wrap my head around why dark matter/energy is such a problem for you.

It's an example of something that most atheists simply "take for granted" because it has the label "science" slapped on it. No 'dark energy' has ever had any effect on any human, yet many atheists accept the idea of "dark energy" as "gospel' and will defend the idea vehemently. It's just a great way to show how atheists have faith in things that have no empirical support.

To me, all you are saying is "we don't know.... therefore, God did it."
But you do realize that people throughout history have said the same thing about lightening, volcanos, fire, germs, etc.

I'm afraid I haven't communicated very well if that's what you believe. If anything, from the perspective of science, I'm saying "The Universe did it with electricity". Whatever our differences, I think you and I both seem to agree that "awareness/intelligence" requires the flow of current and it requires chemical reactions. In terms of the composition of the universe, I'm simply noting it posses both processes in AMPLE abundance. There are plenty of examples of "awareness" here on Earth. There are no examples of dark energy on Earth, no examples of dark matter on Earth and no examples of inflation on Earth. Compared to the leaps of faith found in what passes for ""science', you have nothing to complain about as it relates to my ideas about the universe/God.

I wonder whatever will you do when the day comes that phyicists can explain what dark matter is the same way we understand germs and natural disasters today.

I'll be grateful that they've finally returned to empirical physics, and they've finally fixed the broken mass estimation models.

What hole will you shoehorn your God-of-the-gaps into once we finally explain the entire observable universe?

I won't have to "shoehorn" anything. By then I'm CERTAIN they will have figured out that the universe we live in *IS* God.

The day is coming, rest assured.

Not in my lifetime. Rest assured of that. In fact, if anything "science" has actually moved BACKWARDS in terms of "understanding" the universe. In fact, today they actually only "understand" about 5 percent of the universe, but somehow you're personally convinced they're going to figure out the rest real soon *AND* it won't involve the theories I've outlined for you in that Empirical theory of God thread. How do you KNOW anything like that is going to occur? I hope that you realize that scientists just admitted about 15 years ago that they didn't understand more than 70 percent of the universe when they introduced "dark energy"? They've moved BACKWARDS in my lifetime, not forwards in my lifetime in terms of their "understanding". I would definitely call this the "dark ages" of astronomy in fact. It's about as unbelievable as it gets.

If history has proven anything it's that when humans find something they don't understand, first they assume it's supernatural, then they use science and find that it's perfectly natural.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I personally believe that God is the single most NATURAL part of nature, and I don't believe in the 'supernatural' at all! If anything I'm an EMPIRICAL snob.

We live at an interesting time where your God-of-the-gaps has been pushed back all the way to the beginning of the universe.

Huh? You're evidently talking about the mainstream's "inflation of the gaps" argument, not mine. AFAIK the universe is ETERNAL and INFINITE.

We keeping killing God a little more every time we explain fire, earthquakes, germs, life, and now the universe itself. God is about to completely die. I can't wait.

What you're doing here essentially is BLOWING your cover if you're actually intended to 'lack belief' in any sort of knowledge position, and assuming a rule of "strong atheism". In fact what you're doing is stating your BLIND FAITH in an outcome that cannot and never will occur in your lifetime.

I would love to live in a world completely free on superstition... I hope I live to see it.

Oddly enough we both share that position. I simply see "atheism" (particularly your brand of strong atheism) as a "superstition" just like any other superstition that has no empirical support.

 

[Jro]

What type of evidence might suffice? From my perspective, such simple handwaves don't really cut it. They actually changed the times between cold instances in the slime mold experiments, and the mold changed their anticipatory behavior accordingly. That doesn't really sound like a simple chemical reaction to me.

I don't think that you can proceed from "networks of cells can produce intelligent behavior" to "DNA is the language of awareness." While we can see intelligent behaviors in complex networks of simple parts (eg ant colonies that 'mature,' slime molds responding to periodicity, human neurons talking on the internet), that doesn't imply that their component parts are intelligent.

 

[Greg1234]

Yep, in fact ALL movement and even intelligence can be tracked back to simple results of chemical reactions. Granted, there are some that are so complex that our current technology can't fully trace the connections. That doesn't mean you get to squeeze your God-of-the-gaps into the holes.

You can track some of movements of mind through its effect on matter, but the brain itself doesn't produce mind. Even organisms without a brain have a mind.

To me, all you are saying is "we don't know.... therefore, God did it."
But you do realize that people throughout history have said the same thing about lightening, volcanos

One body at a time, chief. When we're done with reducing animation in man to the brain, perhaps we can talk about the reduction of animation in the cosmic body (aka "solar system"), of which Earth is a part, to [insert components here]?

 

[idscience]

I don't think that you can proceed from "networks of cells can produce intelligent behavior" to "DNA is the language of awareness." While we can see intelligent behaviors in complex networks of simple parts (eg ant colonies that 'mature,' slime molds responding to periodicity, human neurons talking on the internet), that doesn't imply that their component parts are intelligent.

chemotaxis I would say is more reactive where DNA is proactive.

When no one is willing to say there is actual intelligence or awareness, there isn't much that can be said.

 

[Jro]

chemotaxis I would say is more reactive where DNA is proactive.

When no one is willing to say there is actual intelligence or awareness, there isn't much that can be said.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by proactive.

 

[Michael]

I don't think that you can proceed from "networks of cells can produce intelligent behavior" to "DNA is the language of awareness."

What other structures in nature give rise to awareness and intelligence?

While we can see intelligent behaviors in complex networks of simple parts (eg ant colonies that 'mature,' slime molds responding to periodicity, human neurons talking on the internet), that doesn't imply that their component parts are intelligent.

My point was that "intelligence" as we understand it does NOT even seem to require a physical "brain" as we understand it. For all we know, awareness is an intrinsic part of "nature" and DNA was simply DESIGNED from the start to "house" awareness, to contain it temporarily and EVOLVE to create "life forms" that adapt "intelligently" to MANY types of environments. All that "intelligence" seems to require to manifest itself is some small 'collection' of individual cells of DNA. A "brain" is actually "optional".

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

My point was that "intelligence" as we understand it does NOT even seem to require a physical "brain" as we understand it.

How in the world could you possibly know that? Is there any evidence for such a bold claim?

 

[Michael]

How in the world could you possibly know that? Is there any evidence for such a bold claim?

#71: Slime Molds Show Surprising Degree of Intelligence | Animal Intelligence | DISCOVER Magazine
'Intelligent' slime able to navigate its way out of maze - Telegraph
Amoebas Always Go for Balanced Diets - Softpedia

 

[DaneaFL]

I'm using the idea to demonstrate that many atheists (and theists of course) "have faith" in the unseen (in the lab) just like the rest of us. Atheists are just more subjective about which things require EMPIRICAL support and which don't.

I guess we have a difference in what qualifies as empirical evidence. You apparently think that if you can't see it, weigh it, or poke it with a stick then it's not real evidence...

We have same same type of evidence for dark matter as we do for gravity. Do you think gravity doesn't exist either? we can't create a jar of gravity "in the lab here on earth" like you always like to say.

But even though we can't see it, we can empirically observe dark matter's effect just like we measure the effect of gravity.

Dark Matter Observed - YouTube

What you're doing here essentially is BLOWING your cover if you're actually intended to 'lack belief' in any sort of knowledge position, and assuming a rule of "strong atheism". In fact what you're doing is stating your BLIND FAITH in an outcome that cannot and never will occur in your lifetime.

I'm not a strong atheist. I don't know FOR SURE that gods or spirits don't exists. I was just observing the fact that God has been getting smaller and smaller century after century and it's only logical to assume that the whole concept will eventually become meaningless the more we understand about the universe.

I'd like to know how you imagine the future in your pantheistic view. Do you think that one day science will reach this cliff where everything is just completely unexplainable so that the only logical assumption is that Goddidit?

Or do you think that we will eventually figure out how the universe is actually a giant god-brain somehow? How would you even figure that out? apparently you think the universe is all connected in some intelligent way or something... What would evidence of that look like to you?

 

[Michael]

I guess we have a difference in what qualifies as empirical evidence. You apparently think that if you can't see it, weigh it, or poke it with a stick then it's not real evidence...

Let's make this VERY simple then. Whatever restrictions and impositions you put upon "evidence of God", I will apply to "evidence of X,Y,Z" (dark stuff, inflation). Does that sound fair? What evidence of God would you personally accept as "valid/empirical scientific evidence"?

We have same same type of evidence for dark matter as we do for gravity.

No. I can personally EXPERIENCE gravity here on Earth. Jump as I might, I have been unable to jump myself off of this planet. Where do I get some "dark matter" to play with in a lab? I know where I can get ordinary matter. Dark matter is presumably 5-6 times more abundant than the dirt in my backyard, but never once has any astrophysicist even explained where "dark" anything comes from.

Do you think gravity doesn't exist either? we can't create a jar of gravity "in the lab here on earth" like you always like to say.

I can experiment with gravity here on Earth simply by picking up a stone, lifting it a few feet and letting go of it. Each and every time you do that, the rock will fall back to the Earth, assuming nothing else is in it's way. That's an empirical experiment that you can replicate at your leisure and it won't cost you a single dime. Your fingers are the "control mechanism" that allows you to 'release' the stone to see what happens in terms of whether or not "gravity" has a REAL and TANGIBLE effect on it.

But even though we can't see it, we can empirically observe dark matter's effect just like we measure the effect of gravity.

Essentially, you're now promoting a "dark matter of the gaps" theory. Every MISCALCULATION that you make in "guessing" the correct amount of ordinary matter in a given galaxy will now be used as a pitiful EXCUSE to "stuff the gaps" of your otherwise FALSIFIED theory with "EXOTIC METAPHYSICAL GAP FILLER". How do you know that the mainstream even has a CLUE how to accurately measure the "normal" amount of matter in a galaxy when I've shown you four recent articles that demonstrate that they BLEW IT BIG TIME? How do you justify that "blind faith" of yours in "science" when they can't even FIND what they claim is "out there" anywhere NEAR our solar system?

New blow to dark matter theory

I'm not a strong atheist. I don't know FOR SURE that gods or spirits don't exists.

You've already PRESUMED an outcome and evidently you've already somehow managed to falsify that empirical theory of God concept I handed you without bothering to tell me how you did it.

I was just observing the fact that God has been getting smaller and smaller century after century and it's only logical to assume that the whole concept will eventually become meaningless the more we understand about the universe.

The universe is EXACTLY the same size as it has ever been AFAIK. Nothing has gotten "smaller". Our UNDERSTANDING of the physics of this universe has improved A LITTLE here on Earth. In terms of our understanding of how it works "out there somewhere", it's actually gotten 70 percent worse than it was 20 years ago. Dark energy was a fudge factor of truly EPIC proportions.

I'd like to know how you imagine the future in your pantheistic view. Do you think that one day science will reach this cliff where everything is just completely unexplainable so that the only logical assumption is that Goddidit?

Er, no. I think eventually we'll figure out that the universe itself is alive and aware and aware of us. We'll be able to MEASURE it's cycles more precisely over time and MEASURE it's *EMPIRICAL* (real/tangible on Earth) effect on us over time IMO.

Or do you think that we will eventually figure out how the universe is actually a giant god-brain somehow?

Something like that.

How would you even figure that out?

I think once we better understand what life is, what AWARENESS is, what INTELLIGENCE is, what DNA really does in terms of HOLDING awareness, then we'll be able to isolate these same types of processes at the macroscopic level. We'll be able to better understand and pickout patterns of "intelligence" based on energy signatures.

apparently you think the universe is all connected in some intelligent way or something... What would evidence of that look like to you?

First and foremost it would require that the universe itself is ELECTRIC. That's a KEY PREDICTION of this model. There's no way for the theory to get off the ground without that key prediction being DEMONSTRATED over time. That alone puts me 'out on a limb' in terms of current cosmology theories promoted by "science" today. I'm certainly in the MINORITY position on that topic, although the mainstream is slowly becoming more AWARE of the current that flow through space, and indeed there are others who promote plasma cosmology theory.

It "might" (doesn't necessarily need to) look pretty much "look like" a wiring diagram of that slime mold for all I know. What I do know is that it should have some properties that are similar to living things on Earth, starting with massive numbers of 'circuits', chemical transfers of energy, etc.

 

[Jro]

My point was that "intelligence" as we understand it does NOT even seem to require a physical "brain" as we understand it. For all we know, awareness is an intrinsic part of "nature" and DNA was simply DESIGNED from the start to "house" awareness, to contain it temporarily and EVOLVE to create "life forms" that adapt "intelligently" to MANY types of environments. All that "intelligence" seems to require to manifest itself is some small 'collection' of individual cells of DNA. A "brain" is actually "optional".

If I could design a computer program that can predict periodicity or select an optimal (simulated) food source, would you call those programs intelligent? What about things like a-life or neural networks that are capable of learning? I don't quite understand how you're making the leap from "these organisms have show some intelligent behaviors" to "the universe is intelligent and DNA is designed to create intelligence." If that's the case, what would you say about organisms that do not demonstrate intelligent behavior? I'd also be curious if you could define what you mean by intelligence.