Natural selection v Intelligent design

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

True and doing so only supports the idea that intelligent design works...

I don't think anyone would argue that intelligent design doesn't work; humans are very successful intelligent designers. The argument is that Intelligent Design (ID) - the view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" - is redundant pseudoscience.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Lego Robots do not make themselves...

Organic molecules are building blocks...

Building blocks that are far more complex than Lego blocks, and some can self-assemble into even more complex structures...

 

[stevevw]

My objection to your claim that Carson is an expert on this matter was twofold: First, Carson is a neurosurgeon. He performs surgery on the brain. It doesn't necessarily follow that he understands how the brain works or what would be required for the brain to evolve. Second, based on his comments, Carson doesn't appear to understand evolution all that well. That doubly disqualifies him as an expert on the subject of cerebral evolution.

The point I was making with this is that you are the same as Dr Carson. You say you object to him being an expert on evolution because he is a neurosurgeon and not a biologists. Well you are also not a biologists yet you seem to think you know more than him to be able to assess that you are right and he is wrong.

If you are both non experts then who is right. Who do we trust. You because you say so. Where is your support to back up what you are saying rather than having to trust that you know better and dont have a personal axe to grind with him because he disputes what you believe. He didn't say anything too controversial. What he said has been said by other scientists who are also expert biologists. That to evolve the many complex functions of the brain seems impossible to do by random mutations. What did he say that you disagree with exactly. Can you either explain for me how the brain could evolve by random mutations or post a link where I can find this information.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The point I was making with this is that you are the same as Dr Carson. You say you object to him being an expert on evolution because he is a neurosurgeon and not a biologists. Well you are also not a biologists yet you seem to think you know more than him to be able to assess that you are right and he is wrong.

steve, I showed you that he doesn't appear to understand evolution all that well. He thinks it means that our cognitive abilities "just appeared." How can he be an expert on cerebral evolution if he doesn't understand how evolution works?

If you are both non experts then who is right. Who do we trust.

If you are interested in cerebral evolution, how about asking an expert on cerebral evolution? http://scholar.lmgtfy.co/?q=brain+evolution

 

[Archaeopteryx]

steve, you haven't answered my question:

@stevew, I hope you don't consider this question rude: do you want to know what's really going on or would you prefer that it all remains a mystery so that you can then claim that something supernatural must be at work, as you always do?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Here is further evidence that Carson either doesn't understand evolution or he is misrepresenting it. Courtesy of Hemant Mehta on Patheos:

And as we got to the end of the conversation, you know, and he’s denigrating anybody who could believe in Creation, I said, “You know what? You win.” I said, because, “I believe I came from God, and you believe you came from a monkey, and you’ve convinced me you’re right.”

From an article on cnsnews:

In an interview for the Discovery Institute, "ID the Future" host David Boze asked Carson, "What things come to mind when people ask you, why do you question the theory of materialist evolution?"

"Well, the first thing is, how does something come out of nothing?" said Carson, who has written mroe than 100 neurosurgical publications. "And the second thing is, how does life evolve from non-life? Which, if you want to talk about fairy tales, those are incredible fairy tales."

Carson is just echoing stock creationist canards. He is not an expert on the evolution of the brain.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ben Carson's creationist views spark controvery over commencement speech | The Washington Post

An unusual controversy has erupted at Emory University over the choice offamed neurosurgeon Ben Carson to deliver this year’s commencement address because he does not believe in evolution.

Nearly 500 professors, student and alumni signed a letter (see full text below) expressing concern that Carson, as a 7th Day Adventist, believes in creationist theory that holds that all life on Earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago. It rejects Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is the central principle that animates modern biology, uniting all biological fields under one theoretical tent, and which virtually all modern scientists agree is true.

The letter’s authors are not seeking to have Carson disinvited. Instead, they say it was written to raise concerns about his anti-scientific views.

 

[paulm50]

They found what, where now?

She probably means they found Humans and dirt are made of carbons. Or similar. Something we have known for a long time.

 

[stevevw]

steve, you haven't answered my question:

Yes I do want to know whats going on. That is why I spend 20 hours a week plus researching and investigating. As I said in my posts we cannot get to the point where we can see that science cannot answer all the questions unless we first understand how to get to that point. That means we have to investigate how things work such as in physics. Scientists started with matter and atoms and are now at the point of quarks the tiniest particle ever found. Now they are at this point things are breaking down and the way the physics works in the world we see acts very differently in the quantum world. Yet they know that both worlds have been verified so theoretically what can happen in the quantum world could affect our reality.

They are now at the point of experimenting with quantum mechanics to produce effects in our reality. Scientists are looking for the elusive theory of everything in which quantum physics is united with relativity. Some say this is when we will know the mind of God. I tend to believe this is Gods qualities that allow things like miracles and what we may call the supernatural. The point is science may be able to manipulate this world and never understand it. But because it can produce what would seem like a miracle it shows that these things may be able to occur. We wouldn't be able to do this unless we first discovered the atom and so forth. But now we are at this point we are finding that things can go beyond the science and mathematical calculations to something that is almost magical.
http://www.livescience.com/20380-particles-quantum-tunneling-timing.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...facts-from-relativity-to-quantum-physics.html

 

[paulm50]

Do you have references for this? as far as I'm aware, the former is plausible but hasn't been demonstrated, and the latter needs some qualification (synthetic genomes have been assembled and inserted it into empty cells, and they reproduce successfully, but the cell structure itself isn't synthetic - pragmatically there's little point synthesising the cell structure when it's already available 'for free').

See creating life in the laboratory.

 

[paulm50]

As I said in my posts we cannot get to the point where we can see that science cannot answer all the questions unless we first understand how to get to that point.

You start out so well, agreed science hasn't found all the answers, that's why they keep discovering new evidence.

You then spoil yourself by showing your 20 hours a week are spent pursuing one aim. That's not how science can work, they they follow the evidence rather than look for evidence to follow them.

10,000s of professional, trained, experienced and competitive scientists are all wrong because an amateur knows the end result before he's found it.

 

[stevevw]

steve, you haven't answered my question:

The link you have connected in the post that has stevew says that I joined in 2004. I only joined in 2013 so I dont know what that one is for.

 

[stevevw]

You start out so well, agreed science hasn't found all the answers, that's why they keep discovering new evidence.

You then spoil yourself by showing your 20 hours a week are spent pursuing one aim. That's not how science can work, they they follow the evidence rather than look for evidence to follow them.

10,000s of professional, trained, experienced and competitive scientists are all wrong because an amateur knows the end result before he's found it.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. By saying we first need to understand how to get to that point I mean we must understand scientifically what makes things work first. Then by understanding scientifically we can see how it all works. If scientists didn't understand atoms then they wouldn't be able to see electrons and protons. If they didn't understand protons then they wouldn't be able to see quarks and leptons. They would be able to do experiments with the large Hadron collider and discover the Higgs boson.

Then they wouldn't be discovering this quantum world which is showing us the possibilities of an almost magical world at the point where something can come into existence from nothing. Afterall how does something come into existence from nothing. It has to act in ways that defy the way physics and reality works in the world we see around us. I spend a lot of time researching many subjects and enjoy it. I am sure I have learnt a lot and there's so much more to learn. I am sure it will a very interesting time ahead for science now that we are at these points of discovery. We have taken a long time to get to this point but now we stand on the threshold of something very amazing in which I believe will show that there is a God and there is designing life.

PS did you read any of those links. What did you think.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. By saying we first need to understand how to get to that point I mean we must understand scientifically what makes things work first. Then by understanding scientifically we can see how it all works. If scientists didn't understand atoms then they wouldn't be able to see electrons and protons. If they didn't understand protons then they wouldn't be able to see quarks and leptons. They would be able to do experiments with the large Hadron collider and discover the Higgs boson.

Then they wouldn't be discovering this quantum world which is showing us the possibilities of an almost magical world at the point where something can come into existence from nothing. Afterall how does something come into existence from nothing. It has to act in ways that defy the way physics and reality works in the world we see around us. I spend a lot of time researching many subjects and enjoy it. I am sure I have learnt a lot and there's so much more to learn. I am sure it will a very interesting time ahead for science now that we are at these points of discovery. We have taken a long time to get to this point but now we stand on the threshold of something very amazing in which I believe will show that there is a God and there is designing life.

PS did you read any of those links. What did you think.

Do you agree that what you "believe" is irrelevant to science?

 

[stevevw]

Here is further evidence that Carson either doesn't understand evolution or he is misrepresenting it. Courtesy of Hemant Mehta on Patheos:

From an article on cnsnews:

Carson is just echoing stock creationist canards. He is not an expert on the evolution of the brain.

I could say a few things here, like sinse when does CNS news become a supporter of whats truth. Carson may have been sarcastic towards the reporter as he seemed to be jibing Dr Carson. That your quoting stuff from atheist cites like they say we post stuff from creationists sites.

Have you ever considered that those creationists points may have something to them. Dr Carson is right about us coming from apes in some ways. If you look at the charts that evolution uses for our ancestry it does show we come from ape type creatures. Our common ancestor with chimps was an ape type creature and the ancestor for that ape type creature was also an ape type creature. I am sure he understands common ancestry and was being sarcastic. Its like jibe for jibe when it comes to the evolution and creation debate nowadays.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/10/the-family-tree.html

 

[stevevw]

Heres something Dr Carson said about evolution which is supported by the experts.

Carson, who was the first surgeon to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head, said, "Well, just knowing how incredibly complex our brains are – billions of neurons, hundreds of billions of interconnections, the ability to process more than 2 million bits of information in one second. That is an amazingly complex organism."

"And to say that that just came about sort of randomly by various mutations over the course of time, when as I just said mutations tend to lead to degeneration rather than improvement, just doesn’t make any sense," said Dr. Carson. "So, the very things that they claim are evidence for evolution are the very things that damn the theory."

Continuing with his point about the human genome, Dr. Carson said, "You can see that you have a very complex, sophisticated coding mechanism for different amino acids and various sequences that give you millions of different genetic instruction – very much like computer programming, which uses a series of zeros and ones and different sequences, it gives you very specific information about what that computer is to do."

"Well this [human genome] is at least twice that complex," he said. "Instead of just 2 digits, we’ve got 4 digits, repeating in different sequences but always resulting in the same thing unless there is a mutation. And if there is a mutation, it tends to be toward degeneration rather than improvement."

Cant see nothing to wrong here. Pretty good understanding according to what some of the experts are saying.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I could say a few things here, like sinse when does CNS news become a supporter of whats truth. Carson may have been sarcastic towards the reporter as he seemed to be jibing Dr Carson.

Maybe he was also being sarcastic when he said that the brain is too complex to have evolved?

That your quoting stuff from atheist cites like they say we post stuff from creationists sites.

The original source is not Patheos, but YouTube. You can watch it for yourself. Although cnsnews reported it, you can listen to him for yourself: the audio is available at the Discovery Institute, a notorious creationist outfit.

Have you ever considered that those creationists points may have something to them. Dr Carson is right about us coming from apes in some ways.

He didn't say "apes." He said "monkeys," echoing a common misconception held by creationists. In other words, your "expert" on the evolution of the brain seems to harbour a misconception about evolution common to creationists. Combined with his other comments, this renders his "expertise" dubious.

I am sure he understands common ancestry and was being sarcastic. Its like jibe for jibe when it comes to the evolution and creation debate nowadays.

Perhaps he was also being sarcastic when he said that the brain is too complex to have evolved? You are special pleading, steve.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Heres something Dr Carson said about evolution which is supported by the experts.

Carson, who was the first surgeon to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head, said, "Well, just knowing how incredibly complex our brains are – billions of neurons, hundreds of billions of interconnections, the ability to process more than 2 million bits of information in one second. That is an amazingly complex organism."

"And to say that that just came about sort of randomly by various mutations over the course of time, when as I just said mutations tend to lead to degeneration rather than improvement, just doesn’t make any sense," said Dr. Carson. "So, the very things that they claim are evidence for evolution are the very things that damn the theory."

Continuing with his point about the human genome, Dr. Carson said, "You can see that you have a very complex, sophisticated coding mechanism for different amino acids and various sequences that give you millions of different genetic instruction – very much like computer programming, which uses a series of zeros and ones and different sequences, it gives you very specific information about what that computer is to do."

"Well this [human genome] is at least twice that complex," he said. "Instead of just 2 digits, we’ve got 4 digits, repeating in different sequences but always resulting in the same thing unless there is a mutation. And if there is a mutation, it tends to be toward degeneration rather than improvement."

Cant see nothing to wrong here. Pretty good understanding according to what some of the experts are saying.

What aspect of that is supported by the experts? What relevance does this have if he fundamentally doesn't understand how evolution works, as his previous comments suggest?

 

[pshun2404]

Why do keep saying Carson does not understand evolution? ...he most certainly does...you cannot become a neurosurgeon without having studied it far more deeply than you or I have. The point here is that just because someone interprets evidence different from current evolutionary biologists or dos not agree with some area of their assessment DOES NOT EQUAL them being incorrect nor does it EQUAL not understanding how evolution IS SAID TO work...

Many things believed to be true (and some believed to be obvious) by many Evolutionary Biologists ARE NOT established scientific facts...and in many cases the interpretation of data contains a subjective element (based on what the researcher was hoping to find)...