Natural selection v Intelligent design

[stevevw]

Steve, when you link us to "alien-code.com" where it makes a bold claim and features no links to the original content, you really demonstrate a shortcoming of yours that none of us could hope to fix.

I always check out the story and ensure that it isn't just posted by a one off source. I just happened to link that particular site as its layout was a bit better. If you would have even googled the story and checked the other sources for it then you would have seen where the source came from and that it was covered by a variety links including the Huffington post. What it does show is that some people judge things by the site that posts it and not the content itself. This has been true of when someone posts a article and it is found to have a religious connection. The entire article or evidence is then rejected based on the link to religion rather than seeing if the content was true or not. I almost guarantee if the same site I linked support your side of the story you wouldn't have objected to it.
Heres some other ideas scientists have been promoting.
UK Scientists: Aliens May Have Sent Space Seeds To Create Life On Earth
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...ace-seed-to-earth_n_6608582.html?ir=Australia
What if … We came from space?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730330-800-what-if-we-came-from-space/

The article comes from some scientists from the University of Kazakhstan and the Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute.
An interesting note from their claims is that our genetic code shows signs of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of symbolic language. Something you would associate with design except they are saying aliens did it. This is just one of a few articles that have been coming out saying that our genetic code shows signs of a coded language that seems to be more than just something that happened through chance and random mutations. Too structured to come from evolution even though evolution is now trying to claim it has some design in it.
Scientists discover secret code hidden within human DNA
Scientists have discovered a secret second code hiding within DNA which instructs cells on how genes are controlled.
https://www.rt.com/news/scientists-discover-dna-code-222/
Scientists Finally Admit There Is a Second, Secret DNA Code Which Controls Genes
The fascinating and recent discovery of a new, second DNA code further lends credence to what metaphysical scientists have been saying for millennia — the body speaks two different languages.
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/01...it-second-secret-dna-code-controls-genes.html

These are just the latest ideas that scientists are coming up with like multiverses, hologram worlds, time travel, worm holes, string theory, comets bringing life to earth ect. It seems scientist are quite willing to consider all these far fetched ideas yet will cry out against anything to do with God or a designer of the universe and life.
http://news.discovery.com/space/ali...ge-be-embedded-in-our-genetic-code-130401.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2013/04/09/alien-code-in-human-genes_n_3034876.html?ir=Australia

 

[stevevw]

Then please stop claiming that they are 100% the same and have to have an exact genome.

I never said they were the same. I said they require a specific genetic code that needs to be written in the correct language to be a viable and fit living thing. Remember the point was about whether our genetic makeups have signs of design rather than a random chance thing. Random chance would show erratic and hit and miss things. It would mean that for every correct genetic state we have there would have been many more incorrect states that we had to go through to end up with something that is precise. The evidence doesn't point to this but rather that we have had specific and complex genetic info from a very early stage (ie the Cambrian explosion) if not from the beginning of time.

It doesn't have to be exact. There are proteins of all different 3D structures and they have function.

Thats right but each of those will produce the different features and function a living thing has. The entire body plan of a living thing isn't reliant on one protein. It has thousands. But each and every one of those proteins needs to be precise in its 3D folding to produce functional features and body shapes. Yet the potential for there being any possible shape in folds for each of those proteins to go wrong and produce non functional protein folds is unlimited. So because they have ended up being precise out of many possibilities shows more about design that that chance got lucky and found the correct proteins.

Of course evolution states that specific protein folds happened through random mutations throwing up different possibilities and the right ones being selected to produce the best functional proteins. But when you consider the entire process of making functional proteins its impossible to think that chance mutations could do this. Like I said tests show that this is unlikely even for a couple of small changes in function. Even for this the time factor is beyond the time that evolution claims. To think that an entire set of proteins and all the rest of the complicated processes happen through evolution in the time they say defies logic and probability.

You can change cytochrome c by 40% and it still functions. Nothing improbable about it.

Yes but because you cant change it by all the other % in a 100% scale shows that even the yeast has a specific % of cytochrome c in that scale. It just means that its hard enough to get one living creature to get the right amount of something. But to get two or more to get the exact amount of something out of random chance mutations is unlikely. This points more to some intelligence directing creatures to have a specific level of proteins and genetic info rather than trying to fnd all this through a hit and miss process. Especially considering that cytochrome c is only a microscopic amount of what is totally needed to make living things.

Where is the real lab data to back this up? Where have they tested random sequences against all known substrates?

The papers posted plus other evidence that creatures gain their genetic material from other processes besides adaptive ones like evolution. These other non adaptive process like HGT, epigenetics, developmental biology, cross breeding, interbreeding and endosymbiosis. The tests had experimented with random insertions just like evolution and mutations would do and the results showed that this could not produce any viable and functional proteins overall.

It demonstrates that life could use different amino acids, contrary to your claims.

No it doesn't. Life is what is out in nature and not in a lab. What may be produced in a lab will end up not surviving or becoming less fit. This has been proven in tests. I am not the one making the claims. Its the scientific evidence that shows this.

Where do they say that those are the only 20 amino acids that life could use?

Its in the literature everywhere if you read it. When they say ONLY 20 amino acids make up proteins sort of says it all.
Only 20 standard amino acids are used to build proteins, but why exactly nature "chose" these particular amino acids is still a mystery.
http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/mapping-amino-acids-to-understand-lifes-origins/
Twenty chemically distinct amino acids comprise the proteins found in every organism on Earth.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/why-these-20-amino-acids

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok well it seemed you were making out that Carson was so dumb when it came to evolution that he didn't know some of the basics.

We already established that Carson's understanding of evolution is dubious.

He also wasn't going into any great detail about any particular specialty. He had enough knowledge to be able to give a general view and thats all he was doing.

And he was wrong. Wrong about evolution. Wrong about the Big Bang.

 

[stevevw]

We already established that Carson's understanding of evolution is dubious.

No you decided that and I disagreed.

And he was wrong. Wrong about evolution. Wrong about the Big Bang.

Do you have evidence he is wrong about the big bang or is this another unsupported claim like you are accusing Carson of. I cant see anything wrong with him saying that the big bang couldn't have made everything fall into the right place especially if its so finely tuned for life. A natural and random chance event is more like chaos with erratic event and not one that would be so orchestrated.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No you decided that and I disagreed.

Do you have evidence he is wrong about the big bang or is this another unsupported claim like you are accusing Carson of.

Already presented.

I cant see anything wrong with him saying that the big bang couldn't have made everything fall into the right place especially if its so finely tuned for life. A natural and random chance event is more like chaos with erratic event and not one that would be so orchestrated.

Already addressed this. See previous posts.

 

[stevevw]

Already presented.

Already addressed this. See previous posts.

I didn't think a gossip news bloggers page was a good source of evidence. If your referring to the big bang being described as an explosion that is something that many are not sure about. I guess its the way science sometimes describes things because they are not really sure themselves. Because there is a lot of speculation and nothing is proven they can get confused with their own story telling. One of the main reasons they call it an expansion or inflation is because everything is moving away from each other. This would suggest there was no center. Yet just about every other way they describe the beginnings of the universe as with a single starting point and a singularity. It doesn't really matter as what Carson is describing by the universe having design and being finely tuned to have come from a random and chaotic explosion or expansion is more the point.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't think a gossip news bloggers page was a good source of evidence. If your referring to the big bang being described as an explosion that is something that many are not sure about. I guess its the way science sometimes describes things because they are not really sure themselves. Because there is a lot of speculation and nothing is proven they can get confused with their own story telling. One of the main reasons they call it an expansion or inflation is because everything is moving away from each other. This would suggest there was no center. Yet just about every other way they describe the beginnings of the universe as with a single starting point and a singularity. It doesn't really matter as what Carson is describing by the universe having design and being finely tuned to have come from a random and chaotic explosion or expansion is more the point.

Which again shows that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[stevevw]

Which again shows that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Neither do most others as they dont really know themselves whether it was a bang, inflation, expansion or some other event. Its all speculation and any idea is only a hypothesis and unproven. According to the theory of relativity scientists say that it had a single starting point and this fits with the idea of an explosion. But this is wild speculation. So I guess know one knows what they are talking about when it comes to the big bang and how it all started.

As far as him saying that he finds it hard to believe that a naturalistic random and chaotic process that started the existence of the universe could make everything fall into such a fine tuned position as being hard to believe I agree and support his position and so do many others. In fact the evidence seems to support his view more than how many scientists say things happened. Considering that scientists dont have any proof for what they say either Carson's views are just as valid.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Neither do most others as they dont really know themselves whether it was a bang, inflation, expansion or some other event. Its all speculation and any idea is only a hypothesis and unproven.But because scientists say that it had a single starting point this fits with the idea of an explosion in that it moves out from a single point and expands outwards.

No. That's wrong.

As far as him saying that he finds it hard to believe that a naturalistic random and chaotic process that started the existence of the universe could make everything fall into such a fine tuned position as being hard to believe I agree and support his position and so do many others.

That's not even wrong.

In fact the evidence seems to support his view more than how many scientists say things happened. Considering that scientists dont have any proof for what they say either Carson's views are just as valid.

He doesn't appear to understand what the Big Bang is, so how could his view of it be "just as valid" as those who do understand it?

 

[stevevw]

No. That's wrong.

It seems Carson is in good company. The confusion and misunderstanding of what the big bang is all about is even misunderstood among scientists, students and teachers also get it wrong. Maybe thats the fault of scientists for not explaining it properly.

Did the Universe expand from a point? If so, doesn't the universe have to have an edge?
No. The Big Bang was not an explosion IN space. It was a process that involved ALL of space. This misconception causes more confusion than any other in cosmology. Unfortunately, many students, teachers, and scientists(!) mistakenly picture the "Big Bang" as an explosion that took place at some location in space, hurtling matter outward.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#e1

That's not even wrong.

Then what is it.

He doesn't appear to understand what the Big Bang is, so how could his view of it be "just as valid" as those who do understand it?

Neither do many other scientists, teachers and students yet they all can comment and teach their ideas without any protests. But he doesn't need to specifically know whether it was the results of a explosion or inflation because both stem from a random naturalistic event. Whether it happened by a bang, explosion or expansion it happened through a chaotic process that wasn't controlled or designed to produce a certain result. Yet the fine tuning of many physical constants in our universe point to things being directed to happen that way and to get a specific result. Thats the main point he is stating which is one about the design verses a naturalistic process.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems Carson is in good company. The confusion and misunderstanding of what the big bang is all about is even misunderstood among scientists, students and teachers also get it wrong. Maybe thats the fault of scientists for not explaining it properly.

Did the Universe expand from a point? If so, doesn't the universe have to have an edge?
No. The Big Bang was not an explosion IN space. It was a process that involved ALL of space. This misconception causes more confusion than any other in cosmology. Unfortunately, many students, teachers, and scientists(!) mistakenly picture the "Big Bang" as an explosion that took place at some location in space, hurtling matter outward.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#e1

Yeah, Carson appears to hold this misconception.

Then what is it.

You're assuming, as you always do, that natural processes must be intrinsically chaotic and incapable of producing structure.

Neither do many other scientists, teachers and students yet they all can comment and teach their ideas without any protests. But he doesn't need to specifically know whether it was the results of a explosion or inflation because both stem from a random naturalistic event. Whether it happened by a bang, explosion or expansion it happened through a chaotic process that wasn't controlled or designed to produce a certain result. Yet the fine tuning of many physical constants in our universe point to things being directed to happen that way and to get a specific result. Thats the main point he is stating which is one about the design verses a naturalistic process.

See above, and here.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, Carson appears to hold this misconception.

He is in good company then as it seems other scientists and teachers who are in the position to know this also have misconceptions. But that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they are dumb or are not able to understand other aspects of science or evolution. In fact it is the fault of the very people who are suppose to know better because they havnt done their job very good if many educated people are misinformed. It seems you are quite willing to label Carson when many other people have the same misunderstandings.

You're assuming, as you always do, that natural processes must be intrinsically chaotic and incapable of producing structure.

and you are assuming as you always do about Carson's state of mind. But it seems you are wanting to add more and more capabilities to a natural process. If you add to much more ability for nature to design it will start to look too intelligent and maybe mistaken for God if your not careful. Because scientists are seeing so much design in things many are having to make unsubstantiated claims about nature that it can design. If nature has the incredible ability to design the universe then why do scientists try to explain away the design in the universe with far fetched ideas like multiverses and aliens. Why not just say nature did it. They dont because cause and effect, logic and the rules of probabilities tells them this is impossible so they have to turn to far fetched ideas to explain it.

See above, and here.

Ah the snowflake. I already addressed this. The snowflake is a visible end result of another complex world of design in water molecules. Water molecules have many shapes and express themselves in hexagon shapes when frozen. In fact though it seems there are many shapes of snowflakes they actually conform to a set amount of shapes. Just like proteins have a set amount of shapes that are complex and structured they all point to design.

The laws of physics and of genetics have many hallmarks of design and scientists are seeing this and acknowledging this more and more as they peel back the layers of complexity with modern technology. They can no longer claim that nature can produce such things and thats why they are coming up with things like aliens did it or nature did it to give this ability to anything else but God. Its beyond chance and probability and its a denial to pretend that nature is capable of such complexity and design. Behind the things that you claim can design in nature is another layer of complexity that also needs explaining how it got there.

What we see is just the end result not the design details. You are attributing the ability to design on the things that have been designed while not being able to explain how it happened. This is akin to what you accuse believers of doing with God. Thats a circular argument that the ability to create came from the created. Scientists have not been able to explain with evidence how these complex things came about. They are too complex and structured to claim they are a product of random chance.

Do you honestly think a snow flake just randomly forms and is not the result of a deeper complexity that was already there. Water, ice, rocks, stars, planets, metal, fire, chemical are all just end results and material things. Its the information that makes them into something that gives it a design quality. That info is in the laws, codes, structures, language, tuning and systems we see in everything. You have to explain where these come from not where a snowflake came from.

 

[Foxhole87]

Give me an example of something that is not designed.

 

[stevevw]

Give me an example of something that is not designed.

Its hard to say, maybe a toss of the coin or a avalanche. Maybe everything has some aspect of design in it and there are no truly random events. But the experts have to calculate all this through probability and I am not very good at maths. http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/probint.htm

I also think quantum physics can also add some insight into probabilities and this makes it even more complicated. In the quantum world there is suppose to be a potential for many things to happen in any event. Yet there is only one outcome in the end. So what we see is the end result of another strange invisible world. But the quantum world also makes it interesting because it also says that the observer can influence the outcome. So there maybe an element of conscious influence in how things turn out.

This has been hypothesized in evolution as well as life not just being a meaningless case of survival of the fittest. Or life and the universe being just chemicals and materials without any meaning or purpose. life is far to complex to just be a bunch of chemical and reactions. So its a very interesting and complex question that needs a lot of consideration. For that I will have to learn from the experts. There is something I read about our conscience being able to affect our biology but I can recall the site. I will have to find it and get back.

But certainly some scientists are looking at this angle as being something that may have an influence on things. I believe that this is important as it fits well with what the bible says about Gods creation. God spoke reality into existence. That the word of God has power and is behind everything. Jesus was the word or God that became flesh. So we can see what God is in Jesus. Science finds it hard to answer how something came from nothing. I believe at some point there has to be something beyond the physical that everything comes from. So if God is some entity of great power beyond our comprehension then maybe this is the answer. Something from within Gods makeup whatever that is was powerful and able enough to create material reality from a non material world.
http://theworld.com/~reinhold/bellsinequalities.html
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
http://thisquantumworld.com/wp/the-mystique-of-quantum-mechanics/probability/

 

[Chad Farwell]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying there is no intelligence in life's design and therefore no creator God behind it.

where are all the fossils, remains etc of Gods trials and errors ? He got it right the first time and human freewill screwed up the rest.

 

[Chad Farwell]

Give me an example of something that is not designed.

reaction

 

[Archaeopteryx]

He is in good company then as it seems other scientists and teachers who are in the position to know this also have misconceptions. But that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they are dumb or are not able to understand other aspects of science or evolution. In fact it is the fault of the very people who are suppose to know better because they havnt done their job very good if many educated people are misinformed. It seems you are quite willing to label Carson when many other people have the same misunderstandings.

You're the one who presented Carson as an authority on such matters, not me. I'm simply gesturing toward all the signs showing that he shouldn't be considered an authority.

and you are assuming as you always do about Carson's state of mind. But it seems you are wanting to add more and more capabilities to a natural process. If you add to much more ability for nature to design it will start to look too intelligent and maybe mistaken for God if your not careful.

You mean that you will mistake it for design because you assume that structure entails design and therefore a designer. I don't assume this.

Because scientists are seeing so much design in things many are having to make unsubstantiated claims about nature that it can design. If nature has the incredible ability to design the universe then why do scientists try to explain away the design in the universe with far fetched ideas like multiverses and aliens. Why not just say nature did it. They dont because cause and effect, logic and the rules of probabilities tells them this is impossible so they have to turn to far fetched ideas to explain it.

What design?

Ah the snowflake. I already addressed this. The snowflake is a visible end result of another complex world of design in water molecules.

What design?

Water molecules have many shapes and express themselves in hexagon shapes when frozen.

As I recall, this was already debunked.

In fact though it seems there are many shapes of snowflakes they actually conform to a set amount of shapes. Just like proteins have a set amount of shapes that are complex and structured they all point to design.

How do they point to design? Once again, you are assuming, as you always do, that natural processes are intrinsically incapable of producing complex structure.

The laws of physics and of genetics have many hallmarks of design and scientists are seeing this and acknowledging this more and more as they peel back the layers of complexity with modern technology.

Complexity does not entail design.

They can no longer claim that nature can produce such things and thats why they are coming up with things like aliens did it or nature did it to give this ability to anything else but God. Its beyond chance and probability and its a denial to pretend that nature is capable of such complexity and design.

We don't have to pretend at all!

What we see is just the end result not the design details. You are attributing the ability to design on the things that have been designed while not being able to explain how it happened. This is akin to what you accuse believers of doing with God. Thats a circular argument that the ability to create came from the created. Scientists have not been able to explain with evidence how these complex things came about. They are too complex and structured to claim they are a product of random chance.

Who said they are a product of random chance? Once again, you are assuming a false dichotomy between design and random chance. I've addressed this on multiple occasions!

Do you honestly think a snow flake just randomly forms and is not the result of a deeper complexity that was already there. Water, ice, rocks, stars, planets, metal, fire, chemical are all just end results and material things. Its the information that makes them into something that gives it a design quality. That info is in the laws, codes, structures, language, tuning and systems we see in everything. You have to explain where these come from not where a snowflake came from.

How does a designer explain this? Wouldn't a designer also be complex, in which case wouldn't you need to explain that complexity by invoking yet another designer?

 

[Foxhole87]

Its hard to say, maybe a toss of the coin or a avalanche. Maybe everything has some aspect of design in it and there are no truly random events. But the experts have to calculate all this through probability and I am not very good at maths. http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/probint.htm

I also think quantum physics can also add some insight into probabilities and this makes it even more complicated. In the quantum world there is suppose to be a potential for many things to happen in any event. Yet there is only one outcome in the end. So what we see is the end result of another strange invisible world. But the quantum world also makes it interesting because it also says that the observer can influence the outcome. So there maybe an element of conscious influence in how things turn out.

This has been hypothesized in evolution as well as life not just being a meaningless case of survival of the fittest. Or life and the universe being just chemicals and materials without any meaning or purpose. life is far to complex to just be a bunch of chemical and reactions. So its a very interesting and complex question that needs a lot of consideration. For that I will have to learn from the experts. There is something I read about our conscience being able to affect our biology but I can recall the site. I will have to find it and get back.

But certainly some scientists are looking at this angle as being something that may have an influence on things. I believe that this is important as it fits well with what the bible says about Gods creation. God spoke reality into existence. That the word of God has power and is behind everything. Jesus was the word or God that became flesh. So we can see what God is in Jesus. Science finds it hard to answer how something came from nothing. I believe at some point there has to be something beyond the physical that everything comes from. So if God is some entity of great power beyond our comprehension then maybe this is the answer. Something from within Gods makeup whatever that is was powerful and able enough to create material reality from a non material world.
http://theworld.com/~reinhold/bellsinequalities.html
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
http://thisquantumworld.com/wp/the-mystique-of-quantum-mechanics/probability/

So you can't point me to something that is not designed.

You mention a coin toss: the coin toss follows the same physical laws as everything else (such as a snowflake being formed).
The mention an avalanche: the falling wave of snow follows the same physical laws as everything else (such as a snowflake being formed).

Also, the bold is straight-up wrong. When quantum physics talks about "observation", it doesn't mean "a sentient being looking at this".

 

[Foxhole87]

reaction

What?

 

[Zlatanara]

So you can't point me to something that is not designed.

You mention a coin toss: the coin toss follows the same physical laws as everything else (such as a snowflake being formed).
The mention an avalanche: the falling wave of snow follows the same physical laws as everything else (such as a snowflake being formed).

Also, the bold is straight-up wrong. When quantum physics talks about "observation", it doesn't mean "a sentient being looking at this".

Do you believe that the origin of the first living cell can be explained purely by chemistry and physics?