Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Archaeopteryx]

Already dealt with this. In fact I done some more research and it seems that snowflakes also come under what is known as chaos theory and fractals.

Snowflakes, tornado's, stalactites, stalagmites the behavior of those things are governed we now know as something that is called Chaos theory. Chaos theory is the study of how order forms naturally without design.
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-dna-intelligent-design/

So you concede that it's not design?

 

[stevevw]

Attn @stevevw. Lawrence Krauss discusses Ben Carson's scientific ignorance in the The New Yorker:

I wouldn't expect anything less from an atheist and leader in bagging religion such as Lawrence Krauss.

 

[stevevw]

So you concede that it's not design?

Thats what the article seems to say that though snowflakes have patterns they are not the product of intentional design. As was stated Not all patterns are designed, but all designs have patterns.

As I said before there can be a bit of both in almost everything. Its not so black and white as being all designed or all random. There can be some aspects of design in the initial components or laws of something. But there can be aspects of the same thing that are subject to random forces. That is why you have to do a lot of calculations to work it out which is something I couldn't do.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I wouldn't expect anything less from an atheist and leader in bagging religion such as Lawrence Krauss.

So we are to regard Carson as an authority on the evolution of the brain, despite multiple signs pointing to his lack of expertise in that area, but we are to disregard Krauss as an authority on physics, even though he has demonstrable expertise in that area?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thats what the article seems to say that though snowflakes have patterns they are not the product of intentional design. As was stated Not all patterns are designed, but all designs have patterns.

Which means that you do in fact concede the point: complex structure does not entail design.

 

[stevevw]

Which means that you do in fact concede the point: complex structure does not entail design.

I already acknowledged that earlier by saying that it wasn't just about complexity alone but also other things like ordered codes, patterns, systems, languages ect. I also stated that we have to do the calculations and maths to determine whether something is designed and has a high level of information in it. The point is many of the things that are held up as examples for nature being able to design also have patterns, codes, languages, systems, patterns that have a high level of order and info to them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I already acknowledged that earlier by saying that it wasn't just about complexity alone but also other things like ordered codes, patterns, systems, languages ect.

Those are examples of complex structures.

I also stated that we have to do the calculations and maths to determine whether something is designed and has a high level of information in it. The point is many of the things that are held up as examples for nature being able to design also have patterns, codes, languages, systems, patterns that have a high level of order and info to them.

Yeah, they are examples of complex structures, and you just conceded that complex structure does not entail design.

 

[stevevw]

So we are to regard Carson as an authority on the evolution of the brain, despite multiple signs pointing to his lack of expertise in that area, but we are to disregard Krauss as an authority on physics, even though he has demonstrable expertise in that area?

As you said you dont have to be an expert to be able to know some of the basics about evolution. He certainly should know enough about the brain and no one has challenged him on that. So as I stated originally he should know enough above a lay persons understanding about the difficulties for evolution to evolved something complex like the brain.

But we are way off the point here by focusing on one persons credibility. Like I said I could find another person who does know about evolution and the complexity of the brain to support the claim that the brain would be hard to prove that it evolved through random mutations and natural selection. I have posted several links on the difficulties of evolving simple functions in proteins that will produce something viable let alone something that would need millions of multi mutations to evolve like a brain.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As you said you dont have to be an expert to be able to know some of the basics about evolution. He certainly should know enough about the brain and no one has challenged him on that. So as I stated originally he should know enough above a lay persons understanding about the difficulties for evolution to evolved something complex like the brain.

Yes, and as previously established, his grasp of the fundamentals of evolution is inadequate. So how can he be expected to know the conditions necessary for brain evolution?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

 

[stevevw]

Those are examples of complex structures.

Yes complex patterns alone that dont have the qualities of design. The trick is to investigate beyond the superficial to see if there is a high level of ordered structure, patterns, systems and info that make them. Evidently there isnt when it comes to snowflakes and they are the product of unpredictable forces like the weather.

Yeah, they are examples of complex structures, and you just conceded that complex structure does not entail design.

Yes complex structures alone do not entail design.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes complex patterns alone that dont have the qualities of design. The trick is to investigate beyond the superficial to see if there is a high level of ordered structure, patterns, systems and info that make them. Evidently there isnt when it comes to snowflakes and they are the product of unpredictable forces like the weather.

Yes complex structures alone do not entail design.

Which means you've conceded the point! Can't you see that? You've acknowledged that patterns, structure, complexity, etc., does not entail design.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, and as previously established, his grasp of the fundamentals of evolution is inadequate. So how can he be expected to know the conditions necessary for brain evolution?

How can his grasp on the fundamentals of evolution be inadequate when he studied biology and chemistry at uni and passed. That doesn't make sense. Even lay people know the fundamental claims of evolution and that life evolved gradually through mutations and natural selection. That evolution morphed more complex things out of less complex things. He is just saying that he believes that the brain is to complex to have been created this way. You dont have to be a rocket scientists or should I say biologists to know this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How can his grasp on the fundamentals of evolution be inadequate when he studied biology and chemistry at uni and passed.

So what? If he also studied physics and passed would that mean he had a good grasp of the fundamentals of the Big Bang? No, not necessarily. His comments indicate otherwise.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

 

[stevevw]

I think your confusing what Carson believes and what the world view is of evolution. Of course the statements of what a person who believes in God are going to be far fetched to those who believe in science. Many Christians believe that evolution is a part of an atheists world view which is trying to substitute nature as the creator of everything. Christians believe that the devil is real and is opposed to God. He wants to deceive people into thinking there is no God and that we dont need God. Everything has a logical and explainable reason that is self sufficient and self creating. So in this sense Carson is saying what a lot of people may think. But this still doesn't say anything about his knowledge of evolution.

As for the big bang I went into that before. It is a speculated theory and the evidence for it is indirect. In fact some scientists say it didn't happen that way. Many people think it was an explosion including scientists, teachers and students. But still all these people have something to say and are knowledgeable about the topic. It doesn't mean they dont know anything about the principles of what it represents. It just means they have misunderstood some aspects of it. I still dont see how this relates to the OP which was in another forum by the way or about someone with the knowledge or even expertise saying that evolution cannot evolve a brain or that science has got it wrong about the big bang or other things they claim.

 

[stevevw]

So what? If he also studied physics and passed would that mean he had a good grasp of the fundamentals of the Big Bang? No, not necessarily. His comments indicate otherwise.

Biology covers evolution. Biology covers things like cell biology, reproduction, genetics, evolution, biochemistry, anatomy and physiology of plant and animals. With his higher level of knowledge about the brain he should be able to have a general overview of what it would take for evolution to evolve a brain.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Biology covers evolution. Biology covers things like cell biology, reproduction, genetics, evolution, biochemistry, anatomy and physiology of plant and animals. With his higher level of knowledge about the brain he should be able to have a general overview of what it would take for evolution to evolve a brain.

We have already established that his understanding of evolution is inadequate, so no. Imagine if he subscribed to the Stork Theory of reproduction. Would you still be saying, "But he took biology in college and passed!"

 

[stevevw]

We have already established that his understanding of evolution is inadequate, so no. Imagine if he subscribed to the Stork Theory of reproduction. Would you still be saying, "But he took biology in college and passed!"

You have established that you think he doesn't understand evolution not me. You used certain evidence that you thought showed this. I provided other evidence that I though showed he did have an understanding for the particular things he was talking about. So nothing was really proven.

But in any case he was more knowledgeable that not knowing the basics such as a stork being used for reproduction. Are you honestly saying a scientists of his status which would take a certain level of brains in general could be so dumb. But still we are going on about the credibility of one man which is totally irrelevant to anythings we were talking about and seems a silly thing to want to go on with.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have established that you think he doesn't understand evolution not me. You used certain evidence that you thought showed this. I provided other evidence that I though showed he did have an understanding for the particular things he was talking about. So nothing was really proven.

Go back, re-read.

But in any case he was more knowledgeable that not knowing the basics such as a stork being used for reproduction. Are you honestly saying a scientists of his status which would take a certain level of brains in general could be so dumb. But still we are going on about the credibility of one man which is totally irrelevant to anythings we were talking about and seems a silly thing to want to go on with.

You brought him up!