Why are there still apes?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@Shemjaza @FrumiousBandersnatch

Many Christians are comfortable with Theistic Evolution. What I am trying to prove is that there is Intelligent Design behind the origin and diversification of life.

I think you'll find that it is neither provable nor falsifiable in general.

But the specific and testable propositions of ID to date have been shown to be false, and ID is generally considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community, particularly since it has no theoretical scientific foundation. We already have a demonstrable natural explanation for the diversity of life, and research into the natural origin of life is making good progress.

 

[AV1611VET]

We already have a demonstrable natural explanation for the diversity of life, and research into the natural origin of life is making good progress.

Is that why you're wearing a mask?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I do believe in Science and I know we are not living in Alice's Wonderland. That's why I am having hard time agreeing with (some) Evolutionists that environmental changes like fire, thunderstorm, flood, "survival of the fittest" etc. transformed mud (inorganic matter) to Amino acids and diversified it into thousands of millions of complex species !!

Arguments from incredulity are a kind of argument from ignorance. When you find yourself wanting to make one, it's worth considering learning about the topic so that you understand why people who spend their careers studying it disagree with you. If you remain unconvinced, you should then be able to make a cogent argument against it.

Let me give this another try.

a) Primitive life surviving the hostile environment of early Earth and progressing to higher form implies the involvement of an intelligent mind.

b) The primitive bacteria, presumably unisex, split into complex male and female species with the instinct to live together and multiply shows the involvement of an intelligent mind.

c) Physical beings having metaphysical properties like life, instinct to protect their children, consciousness, free will etc. of humans shows the involvement of an intelligent mind.

You really should make an effort to learn something about the subject before attempting to criticise it.

if you are still not convinced, out of curiosity, what would it take you to believe Intelligent Design? If there is nothing - even in theory - that can convince you about the the involvement of an intelligent mind, I am not going to waste anyone's time.

It would take a hypothesis that is better than the explanations currently available; i.e. that is testable, makes fruitful predictions, provides an understanding of the underlying mechanisms, unifies with existing knowledge, is simple (Occam's Razor), coherent, consistent, and doesn't invoke the inexplicable - you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

Origin of life is arguably the most complex event known to humans. It is so complex that some scholars believe the early forms of life like Amino acids or Protein molecule came from outer space. The life originated at the time when Earth was hostile to living forms, with harmful radiations, devastating tornadoes, earthquakes etc. For most part of Earth's existence, Moon's gravitational field caused frequent tsunami's. Yet, the primitive life not only thrived but it advanced to more complex forms. Doesn't this prove the involvement of an intelligent mind?

Simple life on Earth today thrives in the conditions you've mentioned. We know that the building blocks of life are generated in those conditions. There's nothing to suggest intelligence, and plenty to suggest the lack of it - including the many mass extinction events through Earth's history.

..an object cannot escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent so, the order in the diversification of life posits (pre) design because it is the disorder that increases with time.

This is gibberish. But I can tell you that the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that entropy never decreases in a isolated system, doesn't apply to open systems like the Earth, which orbits a source of low entropy energy called the sun.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is that why you're wearing a mask?

My avatar is not me, AV. It's just a whimsical imagining - like those bible stories you're so fond of.

But you win 'non-sequitur of the week'.

 

[Speedwell]

Let me rephrase this.

Animals have two eyes and two ears located at the right positions to estimate the distance of the source (of sound and light/image they perceive). If it were some natural, unintelligent agents which caused the eyes and ears to appear then, the first species to have the eyes and ears should have them at random places on the body. As far as I am aware of, fossil records show the eyes and ears at the right places from the first generation of species to have them so, involvement of the intelligent designer is certain.

That is a highly imaginative (though not very well-informed) scenario. I think that you will discover that in reality the location of these increasingly light and sound sensitive structures was settled long before they came to resemble modern eyes and ears.

My post was not about "when" but "how", referring to the the cause - whether the cause was intelligent or unintelligent

The "cause" was randomly distributed variation exposed to natural selection over many generations.

Fair enough.

The mutation that led to the diversification of the life is far more complex than the design behind the clock. Let me state two reasons

a) The agents that (allegedly) mutated say, the early fish into lizard worked for millions of years, in sequence. For example, it was one sort of agents that transformed the fish to walk on its fins; another set mutated it to develop air-breathing lungs; third set to transformed the fish skin to land animal skin etc.

b) Some organs evolved for one purpose but later used for another. E.g. early fishes developed (external) bladders for floating purpose but later the bladder was transformed to (internal) air breathing lungs. Feathers appeared on those dinosaurs to maintain body temperature but later used for the flight when the became birds.

If it is obvious that a clock has (pre) design, it is a million times more obvious that the species we see today are result of i(I)ntelliegent design

I conclude that the clock is designed because I see evidence of human manufacture--what William Paley called "indications of contrivance." I see no such indications in living creatures. That does not mean design is not present, merely that it cannot be demonstrated.

 

[SelfSim]

The mutation that led to the diversification of the life is far more complex than the design behind the clock.
...
If it is obvious that a clock has (pre) design, it is a million times more obvious that the species we see today are result of i(I)ntelliegent design.

The existence of a mechanical clock, thus far, is entirely dependent on the existence of homo sapiens, as its pre-requisite.

The level of complexity of that clock's mechanism, is thus dependent on all of the complexity entailed in homo sapien's life's functions.

Thus far, mechanical clocks only exist because we do. Thus far, we alone, are intelligent, and we alone design them. We know these as being objective facts .. which is how (and why) we are intelligently able to give recognition to a mechanical clock's design by humans.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Let me give this another try.

a) Primitive life surviving the hostile environment of early Earth and progressing to higher form implies the involvement of an intelligent mind.

Flapdoodle.

b) The primitive bacteria, presumably unisex, split into complex male and female species with the instinct to live together and multiply shows the involvement of an intelligent mind.

Sex did not come from bacteria. First cells started forming into clumps that developed a life of their own independent of the cells. Some cells broke off to form new clumps. One type of clump came upon the novelty of sharing parts of the genome with neighbors. This gave them a huge survival advantage, in that a beneficial mutation could now spread to all future members of the species. The cells that left one clump with half the genome became known as sperm, and those that stayed with the source became known as the egg.

c) Physical beings having metaphysical properties like life, instinct to protect their children, consciousness, free will etc. of humans shows the involvement of an intelligent mind.

Why could not survival of the fittest preserve those children that were protected by their parents? Why can not survival of the fittest preserve those who were aware of the self and the needs of the self?

And you speak of free will. What free will? It is the molecules of the brain that make our decisions.

if you are still not convinced, out of curiosity, what would it take you to believe Intelligent Design? If there is nothing - even in theory - that can convince you about the the involvement of an intelligent mind, I am not going to waste anyone's time.

Again, I used to be a Creationist. I argued long and hard for creation. But I was persuaded first by the evidence for an old earth, then for the evidence of the progression of species through millions of years, and then by the seeming randomness of the changes.

So you will get nowhere by arguing that it was my lack of a motive in proving creation that caused me to view things differently.

Do you or do you not accept that evolution happened? If you do not accept evolution, I don't see how you can understand well enough to understand the workings of an intelligent designer. But if you do believe in evolution, then we are left with a discussion of theistic evolution vs atheistic evolution. Where are you at? It would help if you told me so I could adjust my responses to what you are saying.

Origin of life is arguably the most complex event known to humans. It is so complex that some scholars believe the early forms of life like Amino acids or Protein molecule came from outer space. The life originated at the time when Earth was hostile to living forms, with harmful radiations, devastating tornadoes, earthquakes etc. For most part of Earth's existence, Moon's gravitational field caused frequent tsunami's. Yet, the primitive life not only thrived but it advanced to more complex forms. Doesn't this prove the involvement of an intelligent mind?

This thread is not about the origin of life. It is about human evolution. Do you or do you not agree with the main thesis of this thread? Why change the subject?

..an object cannot escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent so, the order in the diversification of life posits (pre) design because it is the disorder that increases with time.

...in a closed system. You left out the last part of the second law of your statement of the second law.

 

[SelfSim]

if you are still not convinced, out of curiosity, what would it take you to believe Intelligent Design?

Again, I used to be a Creationist. I argued long and hard for creation. But I was persuaded first by the evidence for an old earth, then for the evidence of the progression of species through millions of years, and then by the seeming randomness of the changes.

It never ceases to amaze me is that IDers have no way to distinguish the influence of their own intelligence from their inferred (ie: covertly believed-in) 'external' designer's intelligence.

So, in this sense, it is easily argued that any 'intelligent design' they perceive, is merely a reflection of their own anthropocentric intelligence.

For us, there is no way of escaping the influences of our own intelligence .. (like it or not).

 

[AV1611VET]

For us, there is no way of escaping the influences of our own intelligence .. (like it or not).

Jesus said ...

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Some people invest a LOT of their treasure into college ... and subsequently their hearts follow.

So when a guy like me comes around and says "you're wrong" about this or that, they take it personally.

And will defend their acquired knowledge passionately.

 

[MIDutch]

Jesus said ...

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Some people invest a LOT of their treasure into college ... and subsequently their hearts follow.

So when a guy like me comes around and says "you're wrong" about this or that, they take it personally.

And will defend their acquired knowledge passionately.

Don't know about taking it personally. What they may be displaying is frustration which you interpret as taking it personally.

The frustration probably comes from having to deal with someone who says "you're wrong" and has no objective, empirical evidence to back up that assertion, but instead offers up a few words quoted out of a religious book.

Just curious, would you accept quotations out of the Bhagavad Gita or the Tipitaka or the Kojiki as evidence that your beliefs are wrong?

No?

Well, it's sort of like that.

 

[Phred]

I can't begin to recall the number of times I've seen this sort of thing take place. First we get the standard, "That's not correct" line of reasoning. What is that argument based upon? We shall never know since there is a never-ending pile of steaming reasons that fluctuates with the whim of the presenter. Then there's the attack upon the person making the OP with the "College isn't worth a damn" line of thought which is based upon the same pile of reasons. Mostly it's "since I didn't go there it can't be useful."

College is like any other tool. It's not good or bad but it's what the user makes of it. Usually it expands the mind of those that go there and they find that they think in a different way after they leave. Which is exactly why the troglodytes that attack it find it so frightening. In case you haven't made the connection it's never the side of science and evolution that suggest going to get more education is bad.

Perhaps spending your life on an internet forum ranting about a subject you really don't know anything about while waiting to die so you can reap the praise of your deity isn't the best way to have lived that life.

 

[James A]

Citation needed.

Why the Moon is getting further away

"It is thought that the Moon was formed when a proto-planet about the size of Mars collided with the early Earth around 4.5bn years ago. The debris left over from impact coalesced to form the Moon. Computer simulations of such an impact are consistent with the Earth Moon system we see in the 21st Century.

The simulations also imply that at the time of its formation, the Moon sat much closer to the Earth - a mere 22,500km (14,000 miles) away, compared with the quarter of a million miles (402,336 km) between the Earth and the Moon today."

 

[James A]

Well your failure to understand classical physics isn't relevant to the continuing existence of non-human apes, either.

It is actually the other way around. I believe in Science and I know we are living in a world which follows some principles. That's why I refuse to believe that some, unintelligent, random agents like wildfire, thunderstorm, flood, earthquake, "survival of the fittest" etc. led to the arrival of thousands of millions of complex species.

 

[James A]

Intelligent Design however is a position that evolution and diversification is impossible and so a form of Creationism is necessary as an explanation.

These are not the same position.

What I am trying to establish is that Apes (and humans) still exists by d(D)esign. As far as I understand, it doesn't matter very much if Intelligent Design is different from Creation, at least for this discussion

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I believe in Science and I know we are living in a world which follows some principles. That's why I refuse to believe that some, unintelligent, random agents like wildfire, thunderstorm, flood, earthquake, "survival of the fittest" etc. led to the arrival of thousands of millions of complex species.

You may believe in science, but you clearly don't understand how it works.

It doesn't rely on belief or refusal to believe, but on testing explanations for observations. Without evidence or cogent argument to support it, your refusal to accept evolution is simply an argument from incredulity fallacy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why the Moon is getting further away

"It is thought that the Moon was formed when a proto-planet about the size of Mars collided with the early Earth around 4.5bn years ago. The debris left over from impact coalesced to form the Moon. Computer simulations of such an impact are consistent with the Earth Moon system we see in the 21st Century.

The simulations also imply that at the time of its formation, the Moon sat much closer to the Earth - a mere 22,500km (14,000 miles) away, compared with the quarter of a million miles (402,336 km) between the Earth and the Moon today."

Are you suggesting that early tides were causing earthquakes?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is actually the other way around. I believe in Science and I know we are living in a world which follows some principles. That's why I refuse to believe that some, unintelligent, random agents like wildfire, thunderstorm, flood, earthquake, "survival of the fittest" etc. led to the arrival of thousands of millions of complex species.

Wait, what? You believe in science? And you have been winning arguments against evolutionists for 10 years?

Well, OK then.

Surely as an ardent believer in science for all those years, you would have a view that you think is more scientific than evolution, and would have evidence for it. What is your view? Do you think that millions of creatures popped into existence every hundred years are so over the course of hundreds of millions of years? If so, please state your evidence that this is how God created. If it wasn't that way, please state how you think it happened.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why the Moon is getting further away

"It is thought that the Moon was formed when a proto-planet about the size of Mars collided with the early Earth around 4.5bn years ago. The debris left over from impact coalesced to form the Moon. Computer simulations of such an impact are consistent with the Earth Moon system we see in the 21st Century.

The simulations also imply that at the time of its formation, the Moon sat much closer to the Earth - a mere 22,500km (14,000 miles) away, compared with the quarter of a million miles (402,336 km) between the Earth and the Moon today."

First of all, a closer moon causes larger tides, not tsunamis. Tsunamis are caused by sudden shifts of the ocean floor in earthquakes or underwater landslides.

Second, I'm glad that the quoted material indicates that the close in, newborn moon that migrates outward is compatible with the 4.5 billion year old Earth-Moon system created by that collision. Yeah.

(BTW, it's the tidal forces of those large tides that transfer the Earth's rotational angular momentum to the Moon's orbit and cause it to drift away while slowing the Earth's spin.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is actually the other way around. I believe in Science and I know we are living in a world which follows some principles. That's why I refuse to believe that some, unintelligent, random agents like wildfire, thunderstorm, flood, earthquake, "survival of the fittest" etc. led to the arrival of thousands of millions of complex species.

You don't seem to have understood my reply, which was

Well your failure to understand classical physics isn't relevant to the continuing existence of non-human apes, either."

It's not the "other way around". I didn't say you don't believe in science or the ordered nature of the physical laws. I said you failures to understand the laws of physics don't apply to why we have human and non-human apes. Those failures in understanding also don't invalidate evolution either.

I have several times tried to push this thread from becoming a general battle about evolution and leave it to the titular question, "why are there still apes?"

Nothing about your general (and incorrect) statements about evolution address that question *at all*.

That one type of ape had adaptations that made us very successful isn't all that spectacular.

Signed, a moderately hairy ape.

 

[Speedwell]

What I am trying to establish is that Apes (and humans) still exists by d(D)esign. As far as I understand, it doesn't matter very much if Intelligent Design is different from Creation, at least for this discussion

Now all you have to do is demonstrate the presence of design.