Say Anything Blog

The link on noosphere.cc seems broken, but the article is also at http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm

link here if this works for me

[...] Docdave, Say Anything Thursday, January 05, 2006 Morguefile The subject of intelligent design has been bantered about with ever increasing emotion as the debate escalates into the courts where it will be decided whether the subject can be even discussed in the classroom as adjunct to the subject of evolution. As a long time practicing engineer with a engineering and science background and eduction, I have found myself drawn into the argument as an objective researcher even though I am a Christian with respect for the Bible. To me the subject of creation is as much a science problem as a religious belief, so given my background and discipline I have address it strictly as a science project. Read the rest on Say Anything [...]

For instance, the idea that the original creation of a life form as a random occurrence from inert or simple organic forms flies in the face of the principle of entropy which states in part that order without intelligent intervention will ultimately decay into chaos or disorder.

Unfortunately this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is rather common in the Intelligent Design community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does state that Entropy always increases; however, the Second Law of Thermodynamics uses a narrowly defined mathematical expression for Thermodynamic Entropy. Essentially Entropy is not the macroscopic organization of a system (such as the complexity of a lifeform, the complexity of a storm-front, or how clean your bedroom is), but it’s the amount of thermodynamic energy (measured in Joules/Kelvin) in a system which is available for work. There is a much better discussion than I could ever give for Entropy at Wikipedia.org.

Because the entire Earth is bathed in virtually unlimited energy from the Sun, there is a constant source of energy by which work can potentially be done. We are bathed in a constant energy gradient, which allows self-organizing systems such as hurricanes to arise.

That life is a self-organizing system doesn’t mean it’s presence on the Earth is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, any more than the presence of a Hurricane or a Tornado (both self-organizing systems) are violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Let me also note your “out” in the above statement, that “without intelligent intervention” order “will ultimately decay into chaos or disorder"--that allows you to cateogorize life as something that requires a God, while hurricanes do not--makes no scientific sense, as the only difference between life and hurricanes is how long they will be around. As soon as the Sun burns itself out and there is no more sources of energy to draw upon, life upon the Earth will ultimately snuff out--even if humans become nearly God-like in our ability to manipulate technology.

Self-organizing systems which arise with nothing more than a source of energy to power the system is properly the study of Chaos Theory; again, Wikipedia.org has a great writeup on the subject.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is seriously flawed. The second law of thermodynamics states that total entropy must always increase. It is quite permissible to create localized increases in order as long as that increase in order is compensated by a net increase in the total entropy of the system.

For example, water turns from a highly disorganized liquid to a highly organized crystal solid by losing heat to its surroundings. The total entropy of the water + surroundings increases even though the entropy of the ice decreases. The earth’s biosphere performs the same trick but more dynamically. Low entropy visible. sunlight falls on the earth, is converted to work my lifeforms and then is radiated out into space as high entropy infra-red. The total entropy of the universe increases faster because lifeforms exist than if they did not. 

Bohm appears to be resurrecting a mid-19th century idea called orthogenisis.

Correct me if I am wrong here but I thought intelligent design was kind of like a middle ground between creationism and evolution.

In fact it always kind of struck me as the compromise that christians were happy with because it kept there foot in the school house and they knew evolution wasn’t going away.

As soon as the Sun burns itself out and there is no more sources of energy to draw upon, life upon the Earth will ultimately snuff out–even if humans become nearly God-like in our ability to manipulate technology.

For which of course, Isaac Asimov provided the answer in The Last Question

Ooooo, that’s easy!

Fiction...just like all religions!

If you wanna believe in some big-bearded-white-man-who-lives-in-the-sky, be my guest.

But you’ll teach that crap in SCIENCE class over my dead body.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is seriously flawed. The second law of thermodynamics states that total entropy must always increase.

Total entropy over what size system? If you’re talking about a local system such as the Earth/Sun system, you’re quite right: the potential energy in the Sun, while vast, is not infinite. If you’re talking about the entire universe--well, where does the energy go? That’s still, as far as I know, an open cosmological question. (Meaning that the energy cannot escape the universe, so does the universe expand endlessly? Exist in a steady-state system? Periodically contract to a big “crunch?")

The problem here is not “local” verses “global” entropy, but a misunderstanding of what entropy is. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that toal Thermodynamic Entropy increases over time--but Thermodynamic Entropy refers to the total thermodynamic energy in a system, and not how organized it appears to be on a macroscopic scale.

Confusing Thermodynamic Entropy (a specific unit of energy measured in Joules/Kelvin) with how ordered something appears to be is confusing apples and oranges. Don’t make it worse by then throwing in the idea that under some circumstances local entropy can decrease so long as total entropy increases--that simply lends credence to the idea that Thermodynamic Entropy is exactly identical to how ordered something appears to be, when it is clearly not.

So many excellent comments: I’ll try to answer them all.

John, thanks for the correction of the Bohm article link.  I’ve asked Rob to correct it.

William & Shannon: perhaps my use of entropy as a destructive force was inappropriate.  What I was trying to show was that randomness is more likely to be destructive than constructive. e.g. the random motion of air and water will decomposet metal objects into its metal components but will not create the metal object from metal components. 

As far as an increase in entropy is concerned, the conservation of energy principle implies that no new energy can be created in the universe after the big bang.  If this is true, than all entropy can do is redistribute the energy. Now a question for you: what is the source of the energy of the universe?

Anyway the principle support for my article comes from Bohms implicate order thesis.  Shannon, I can’t see that Bohms implicate order is based on orthogenisis as his research is not so much associated with evolution as with his speciality, quantum physics.  You can accuse me of orthogenisis I suppose since it is I who is trying to make the connection between creation and Bohms implicate order.

richard: Correct me if I am wrong here but I thought intelligent design was kind of like a middle ground between creationism and evolution.

First, contrary to popular belief, evolution has never been more than a theory.  Like all theories, it is open to critical analysis and review.  A theory renames a theory until the theory is proven with solid scientific laboratory scientific methods and survives peer review. One of the most serious holes in the evolution theory is that proposition that life can be created by random natural events.  As of today, there is no scientific proof for this assertion.  Unfortunately, the entire evolution theory is being presented in the classroom as a proven commodity. 

The concept of Intelligent design is not intended to debunk the entire evolutionary theory but has been proposed as a possible explanation for the creation of original life forms.  That this has religious implications should in no way invalidate the necessity to evaluate the premise.  I believe that Bohms work rests largely on that principle.

Now I’m no physicist, and I won’t even dear to touch upon the whole entropy debate. But, I do have plenty of practical knowledge in Biology. And so as a Biologist I will put this into the debate.

Evolution as a biologist will explain it to you is this. That through the random mutation of the genome of a species a variation occurs that will grant to the effected individual a higher likelihood of surviving and therefore reproduction and so passing on its genetic information. As mutations add up, a new species can emerge. A new species is distinct from its ancestor and in many cases unable to successfully mate with them (ie produce offspring that are fertile and viable). Though very close species can mate (look at dogs, and wolves). Using this notion Biologist can trace species back to common ancestors, and thus create a tree of life. Something like a family tree but for species.

What I just mentioned above is the extent of Darwinian theory. And in the frame work of an already existing cell, evolution can be traced genetically from bacteria to humans. What it can not do and I see no way of doing is trace the genesis of the bacteria from simple compounds.

The fact is, the deriving force behind Evolution (the energy that is) is the increased survivability of the individual. The fact is there are no individuals before life. One benzene molecule is just like the next. One bacteria is never the same as the next. Even the most similar have slight genetic variability that grants one a higher chance of survival (that is the essence of Evolutionary theory after all). With no distinction, there is no drive to make more of itself. And that is what drives life reproducing itself. Hurricanes, rocks, gases, and all sorts of other compounds have none of this drive. Therefore what ever gave birth to life it was not evolution. Evolution is what happens once you already have life.

So then we should not debate what made life God or Evolution? We should ask what made life God or Chance? And, from where we stand (humanity) the two may very well be one in the same.

some of the popular evolutionary postulates are contrary to proven physical law. For instance, the idea that the original creation of a life form as a random occurrence

Well I think that little excerpt pretty clearly demonstrates the author’s ignorance of the subject.

1)There is nothing in evolutionary theory which is contrary to any physical law, especially not the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

2) The theory of evolution does not actually concern itself with the origin of life, but rather with the diversity of life on Earth. Theories about the origins of life are another subject.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

3) Naturalistic theories about the origins of life do not propose a purely random process (neither does the evolutionary process).

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

Someone needs to do some reading…

I was struck by the complexity of structures of atoms and the nature of the universe. To me these could not have happened merely by chance.

The “I can’t envisage it, therefore it could not have happened” argument rears its head again.

Contrary to popular belief, evolution has never been more than a theory.

And neither has gravity...but don’t go jumping out of any windows!

Evolution deals mainly with life’s path after it was created. ID deals mainly with how life got here in the first place. They don’t contridict each other

That’s because ID was dreamt up exactly for the purpose of intertwining creationism and evolution.

hermit,Someone needs to do some reading…

I’ve read some of the references you listed.  Those referenced articles present the evolutionary side of the question which is good but does not necessarily invalidate other opinions since without positive proof that is what most of this conjecture is, opinion.  One of the referenced articles states that:

Lack of proof isn’t a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one’s conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be

If the absence of proof works for evolutionary theory, there is no reason that it should not also work for intelligent design theory as well.

”The theory of evolution does not actually concern itself with the origin of life, but rather with the diversity of life on Earth.”

True to an extent, however, the theory of Evolution and a common projenitor for all life existing on the Earth is very commonly presented together.  I doubt if anyone who seriously advocates the idea of ID (as opposed to presenting ID as a creationism substitite) would argue against the reality of evolution on a micro scale given the observed adaptation of virus and bacteria, but it hardly requires that one buy into the idea that humans, zebra, bacteria, dinosars, oak trees and grass all have a common origin in a single progenitor that somehow mutated along several distinct, yet equally viable, paths.  Similarities between species definitely shows commonality in life forms and mechanisms, but does not require that these species definitely be linked evolutionarilly.  If Vlad the Biologist has an example of an observed new species that is reproductively incompatible with its ancestors but can be mated with another new species (or the same new species somehow created from identical mutations?) I’d greatly appreciate it.

Guys, this post is clearly satire, and I find it hilarious.

“eee-em-pee-tee-why"-
Alasdair Maclean

Evolution was dreamt up to explain away God

Oh Sphagnum, I am sure you are totally awesome, but why don’t you read the transcripts from the Kitzmiller case, ID isn’t just what you want it to be, it is what it’s creators say it is, and what they say it is and what you claim it is are not the same.  If that is ad hominem, I apologize, I’ll just call myself names to make it even.

“Pinko Punko, you are more versed in ID than Sphagnum, you are NOT a poo-poo head because of that, Sphagnum may or may not be a poo-poo head, but that is irrelevant.  You are however a smart arse."-Pinko Punko

It’s kinda funny how some people knee-jerk assume that if someone wants to talk about Intelligent Design, they must automatically be anti-evolution.  The two can work in perfect harmony, even if I personally don’t beleive this.

Evolution deals mainly with life’s path after it was created.  ID deals mainly with how life got here in the first place.  They don’t contridict each other

Vlad: Therefore what ever gave birth to life it was not evolution. Evolution is what happens once you already have life

I agree but that is not the popular notion of evolution.  I’m sure that you have certainly seen the picture of the fish coming out of the sea and morfing into higher beings often presented in classroom books.

As far as evolution altering life forms, how does that differ from mutations or are mutations an expression of evolution?

MI:

Once you begin to try to find an answer to a question that cannot be proven, you’ve entered the realm of faith, not science. That’s not to say that the exercise can’t be interesting, but it belongs in a philosophy class, not science.

Well said!

Docdave, I’m going to add my 2 cents into this fray as well:

1. You are absolutely wrong regarding your argument that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  This simply shows an ignorance of what the 2nd law really states. Your argument about randomness is also incorrect. 

2. The concept of “self-organizing systems” is well understood both on both a mathematical and a physics level.  The essential ingredient is nonlinearity + a source of energy (for a system to exhibit self-organization, the system must be both active and nonlinear, to use physics parlance).  The most basic self-organizing nonlinear, active system that I am aware of is the noise-driven Van der Pol oscillator.  Basically it states,

y’’(t) + (-r1 + r2 y^2) y’(t) + w^2 y(t) = noise(t)

where y’’ is the acceleration, y’ the velocity and y the displacement.  (r1, r2 and w are positive, real constants).

The approximate analytic steady-state solution to this equation is of the form y = y0 cos(w t), where y0 = 2*sqrt(r2/r1).

Take home for non-Mathematicians: The input is noise… randomness, and the output is a sine wave.  You can’t get better self-organization than that. 

And to boot, there are physical realizations of this type of self-organization.  The “squeal” of a amplifier as it starts going bad is one example.  “Objective” tinnitus---associated with self-oscillations within the cochlea that start out as purely random motions---is another.

3. Your description of “evolution” is inadequate.  The basic problem is that evolution can mean two things:

a) “fact of evolution”: The enormous body of observations that species tend to become more biologically complex over time.
b) “theory of evolution”:  One of many theories to explain this series of observations.

4.  There are two reasons that an intelligent observer is invoked. One is to try and explain away the natural phenomenon of evolution, but it explains nothing that cannot be naturally explained.  The second is the origins of life (not species).  Evolution starts with the fact of the existence of life, then attempts to ascribe the diversity of species to natural forces (i.e., changes in weather patterns, existence of natural resources and so forth).  It says nothing about how life originated.

Bada-bing:

Realy I don’t think we will ever have that answer as there is little chance of finding any proof of it one way or another.

Bada-boom:

Evolution starts with the fact of the existence of life, then attempts to ascribe the diversity of species to natural forces (i.e., changes in weather patterns, existence of natural resources and so forth). It says nothing about how life originated.

Once you begin to try to find an answer to a question that cannot be proven, you’ve entered the realm of faith, not science.  That’s not to say that the exercise can’t be interesting, but it belongs in a philosophy class, not science.

Now a question for you: what is the source of the energy of the universe?

Scientifically, that is an open question. One possible explanation is a Deist theory of God, with God as the ultimate clock-maker who set the entire universe in motion in that one instant in time--and since then has not been a participant in the unfolding of the universe. Another is that we are simply in the “pocket universe” created by the collapse of a black hole in another universe. A third is that we are the random happenstance of a quantuum fluctuation--a macroscopic occurance of the sort of random creation and destruction of matter that constantly happens on the microscopic (quantuum) level.

While we can endlessly speculate as to the source of the Big Bang, and if God was involved in such an event, it does remain that Intelligent Design’s assertion that God had to be actively involved in the creation and evolution of Life on Earth because Life is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, well, bunk.

Carrick: I guess I figure forces that originate from within the local environment(viruses, for instance) to be a part of straight line evolution, and forces that come from outside the local environment(comets) to be cataclysmic.  I guess it’s a matter of definitions, to some extent.  The difference, IMO, is that internal forces allow time for adaptation, in most cases, but cataclysms do not.

docdave: As I understand it, genetic mutation is the mechanism of evolution.  Otherwise, the DNA doesn’t change.
Sphagnum: I agree with you totally.  There is no explanation in evolution for creation itself, only adaptive change from the original forms.  I also see no conflict between God and evolution. I don’t think evolution explains away God at all.  What about selective breeding?

A very simple explanation is that Bohm believes that intelligence (order) is interwoven in everything large or small in the universe. To me that sounds like some form of intelligent design.

Bohm takes the position that what we recognize as intelligent consciousness/awareness is an “emergent property” rooted in the physical nature of the universe. He does NOT leap from that thesis to assume, as you do, that there is an Intelligent Designer calling the shots. Indeed, his argument is quite the opposite. He claims that intelligent awareness arise OUT OF ever-increasing levels of self-organization, not that intelligence is CAUSING or DIRECTING the process.

Your statements show a clear misunderstanding of Bohm’s work.

Regardless, Bohm has demonstrated that intelligent design is a concept that has scientific value and as such should be pursued by the science community and not relegated to the machinations of a school board or courtroom.

Bohm has demonstrated nothing. He has proposed a testable thesis which really has nothing whatsoever to do with ID. His thesis, its testing, and the results of that testing are all within the realm and methodology of science and would be worthy of discussion in a sufficiently-advanced Physics classroom. They would not be appropriate in a biology or development of species program because there is, at this time, no link between Bohm’s work and basic biology. No matter what it “sounds like” to you.

Robert108, I would agree with most of what you, except you don’t need cataclysms to get deviations from straight-line ("orthogenic") evolution. A cataclysm is a violent, large-scale natural disaster. 

Natural variations of a more serene and sedate nature, such as new strains of viruses (caused of course by random mutation), are sufficient to drive macroevolution in a non-straight-line fashion.

Hm. The mechanism by which species evolve is through mutations. The reason some mutations are more preferable than others is due to environmental stresses.

So. The environment on Earth is a constantly changing thing. It changes gradually through mechanisms like erosion, and plate tectonics. Or it can change very rapidly, like a gian meteor smashing into the earth. Either way these natural changes provide stresses for a particular creature. These are not the only stresses provided but they are ones that have nothing to do with any other living thing. Stresses can also be caused by one species effecting another. For example lions hunting gazelle provide a stress for the gazelle, and vice verse. Any way because all individuals of a species are slightly different from one another one of them is most adapted to its environment, and has the greatest chance of survival, and so evolution favors that individuals genetic material and given time the species compounds on what evdr trait was most profitable to it.

That is what happens in a stable gradual environment. But sometimes nature isn’t very stable or gradual. A natural disaster can wipe out an entier habitat or force members of a spicies into a new one. When this happens the process of adaptation occurs again. If you take one spicies and spread it over many habitats evolution tells you that you will over time get at least one new spicies per habitat.

New Spicies can arise simply because of lack of genetic diversity. if you trap a small number of one spicies in a location that is the same as their old one but which lacks other mebers of their spicies what will happen is that in that location the most prevelant traits will become very dominant in the ofspring and again given time a new spicies will evolve.

Thus as animals move across the globe, and as the world changes, new species evolve.

The intresting thing to note is that the number of spicies today is far smaller now than it was early on in the history of the earth. The earth has gone through several phases of Mass extinction. the last great one was of course the Dinasours where some 70% of all spiceis died off. But there where other before that. The largest it is estimated killed off 90% of the spicies at that time.

The reason biologist think life came from one common ancestor is that our genetic information. has alot of homology to it. Now its also very important to note that the aquisition of trates lateraly (ie. between spicies that exist, not from ancestors) is far greater than ever believed. So even among spicies that can not mate with each other there can be transmission of genetic material through other mechanism aside from mateing. So we are not only tied with other species verticaly but also horizontaly. Really this is something that is still being studied.

Of course there is nothing to say that there must be only one common ancestor, but if there is to be more than one the equation of evolution gets very nice and triky. It may be that multiple ancesotr cells existed, and later merged into one type of organism, which then difersified into the spicies we see today.

Realy I don’t think we will ever have that answer as there is little chance of finding any proof of it one way or another.

Evolution was dreamt up to explain away God

And we would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids.

Vlad:  Actually, the mutations that are successful are the ones that confer greater reproductive success. The other ones die out.  Absent any cataclysmic events, evolution proceeds in a more or less straight line, leading to perfection of adaptation to the prevailing conditions.  When those conditions change abruptly, evolution becomes a crapshoot, with some successful adaptations wiped out entirely.  The remaining ones follow straight line evolution until the next cataclysm.  By definition, any process that increases the incidence of genetic mutation increases the chance of successful mutations, and thus “speeds up” straight line evolution.

He (Bohm) does NOT leap from that thesis to assume, as you do, that there is an Intelligent Designer calling the shots.

Yes, I did make that assertion to add fuel to the discussion
but that doesn’t mean there isn’t some yet to discovered link between his implicate order and creation.  [I don’t like the term intelligent design because it has become too politicized.] If there is intelligence in all things large and small, how did it get there?

He (Bohm) claims that intelligent awareness arise OUT OF ever-increasing levels of self-organization, not that intelligence is CAUSING or DIRECTING the process.

How does this apply at basic micro levels, i.e. his reference to intelligence at the electron and plasma levels?

Robert108:

I guess it’s a matter of definitions, to some extent.

The problem is that even in the absence of cataclysmic events, nonorthogenic evolution occurs all of the time.  (One example is the evolution of the horse.)

Now if you want to use “straight-line” evolution to refer to evolution not driven by cataclysmic events, if you want to.  It’d just be pretty non-standard usage, and would be at odds with the root-wise meaning of the term.

Intelligent Design - Fact or Fiction Secondly, some of the popular evolutionary postulates are contrary to proven physical law. For instance, the idea that the original creation of a life form as a random occurrence from inert or simple organic forms flies in the face of the principle of

[...] There’s probably little good that can come from picking apart a blog post in support of intelligent design like this one on Say Anything. But sometimes it’s hard to resist. As a long time practicing engineer with a engineering and science background and eduction, I have found myself drawn into the argument as an objective researcher even though I am a Christian with respect for the Bible. [...]

Don said:

But you’ll teach that crap in SCIENCE class over my dead body.

Can’t wait.  Not that I’m a big fan of intelligent design, but I’ll sacrifice the one for the other.

Carrick:  How about “steady state” as opposed to “punctuated” then? It’s about describing the limits of evolution to explain origin, as opposed to development, IMO.

I don’t like the term intelligent design because it has become too politicized.

It is a political term.

Here’s what I believe: we are particles and waves of energy that vibrate across an infinity of axes of time and space.  This energy is in perpetual motion, with no beginning and no end.  The boundaries between atoms are permeable, meaning that all matter is part of the same fabric. I believe that the shorthand for this concept is “existence.”

Now, there may be some scientific measures or concepts that can test some of my theories of existence (at least the physical manifestations), but when I finally reach a point of determining how it came into being, I can only rely on my own instict and faith.

This doesn’t add much but it made me laugh.

carrick:  There are two reasons that an intelligent observer is invoked. One is to try and explain away the natural phenomenon of evolution, but it explains nothing that cannot be naturally explained. The second is the origins of life (not species). Evolution starts with the fact of the existence of life, then attempts to ascribe the diversity of species to natural forces (i.e., changes in weather patterns, existence of natural resources and so forth). It says nothing about how life originated.

If then intelligent design is solely about how life originated, why does ID come into conflict with evolution in the academic circles and in the courtroom?  Could it be that there are different interpetations of evolution and one of these includes creation?  Another question is if Darwins original work did not specify the origin of life forms why was it entitled The Origin of Species?  Is specie used in a different context by Darwin?

yes, drawins understanding of speacies is taxonomical. Not genetic. Darwin never characterized genetic traits or described genes. The fact is in his day spicies were characterized by phisical appearance, not genetic differences. When he came out with the Origin of spicies he had no explanation of how the traits were transmited between ofspring and parents, or how and why they changed slightly from generation to generation.

Also a simple genes are not all that there is to it. It is important to understand the base pair sequence between genes of different spiecies. Now we look at spiecies in a genetic way, and compare homology of the DNA sequence, on top of the normal taxonomical comparisons. Looking at DNA both brings spiecies closer together (as alot fo homology has been found) and diferentiates them as well. There were case when scientist discovered that two things that look very similar (so similar that they had been all part of one spicies) was shown geneticaly to be significantly different.

DocDave:

If then intelligent design is solely about how life originated, why does ID come into conflict with evolution in the academic circles and in the courtroom?

Well I did say it had both meanings. 

Traditionally, ID was used to explain the origin of the universe and the order that was observed in the universe.  Note the phrase is “intelligent design” not “intelligent meddling”.  Take Aristotle’s Prime Mover as an example of this.

More recently, biblical literalists have invoked intelligent design as a “push back” against evolution, and are using ID to attack the concept that humans and higher mammals are related.  Then there those who are trying to argue against the scientifically accepted fact that the Earth and the Universe are much older than 10,000 years (best estimate for the Universe’s age is about 14 billion years).

Another question is if Darwins original work did not specify the origin of life forms why was it entitled The Origin of Species? Is specie used in a different context by Darwin?

The title is “The Origin of Species” not “The Origin of Life”.  Darwin does not try and explain how life came to be from inorganic matter.  Rather he is addressing the issue of species diversification, how new, more specialized species arise from older, less-specialized species.

I haven’t read this entire thread (There are a lot of posts!).  I will mention that I only have a minor in Chemistry, and thus do not even attempt to consider myself a scientist.

Carrick:

Then there those who are trying to argue against the scientifically accepted fact that the Earth and the Universe are much older than 10,000 years (best estimate for the Universe’s age is about 14 billion years).

I find this article on the age of the Earth rather interesting.  D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. (don’t know the man) talks about twelve different scenarios and the maximum age of the earth for each.  Not being a scientist, I find numbers 10, 11, and 12 the easiest to understand.

I asked for scientific proof of evolution (macro, not micro) on a previous thread (around the time when I first started reading this site), and I didn’t get any.  Now I understand that we are all mostly scientific laymen here, and none of us are going to be able to expertly argue each one of our opinions, but maybe some one can point me in a good direction in this thread.

I believe in a creator God.  I believe that man was made in His image.  I believe that men have souls, and no other creatures do.  I do not believe in evolution.

I will mention that I only have a minor in Chemistry, and thus do not even attempt to consider myself a scientist.

A question: if you do not consider yourself na scientist, on what basis do you conclude that the scientific evidence for evolution is wrong?

I find this article on the age of the Earth rather interesting. D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. (don’t know the man) talks about twelve different scenarios and the maximum age of the earth for each. Not being a scientist, I find numbers 10, 11, and 12 the easiest to understand.

If you were a scientist, you would find Humphrey’s 1-8 hysterically funny. (Among other things, he says the Oort Cloud doesn’t exist despite the fact that it has actually been photographed.) His 10-12 are equally silly in their less scientific fashions, and show that he simply doesn’t understand what he is talking about.

I asked for scientific proof of evolution (macro, not micro) on a previous thread (around the time when I first started reading this site), and I didn’t get any.

Didn’t get any, or didn’t get any that you could understand, not being a scientist?

The fact that you try and claim a distinction between “micro” and “macro” evolution indicates that you probably wouldn’t understand scientific evidence on this matter anyway, but here’s a relevant quote to help you along:

There is no difference between MICROevolution and MACROevolution. The underlying process IS IDENTICAL. It is merely predicated upon the particular mutation type in a particular location within a particular gene. The mutation can be a point mutation, a transposition event leading to a fusion, a gene duplication (which REALLY allows new, novel functions to develop without harming the host in many cases), and so forth. A point mutation may not do squat or it might so alter the resulting protein’s conformation or function that it has drastic phenotypic effects. Same with ALL the other mutation types.

The ONLY thing required to initiate the formation of a new species of whatever is a minor change in an isolated population’s mating biology: for animals that experience estrous, this can mean a VERY minor alteration in fertile cycles such that they can no longer mate with other related creatures. It can mean an alteration in egg receptors such that only a specific variant of sperm ligand can productively bind. There are ANY number of simple means by which a new species can come into being and once one does, it can go in a direction morphologically and behaviorally independent from its precursor species.

You then say:

I believe in a creator God. I believe that man was made in His image. I believe that men have souls, and no other creatures do.

You are correct to use the word “believe.” All of your positions are a matter of faith: you have no testable evidence for any of them, nor can you offer any.

I do not believe in evolution.

This one, however, is testable. And all of the evidence says you are wrong. I strongly recommend that you read the National Academy of Sciences report on the topic, which can be found here: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/

connorfc: The ONLY thing required to initiate the formation of a new species of whatever is a minor change in an isolated population’s mating biology… There are ANY number of simple means by which a new species can come into being

Would you care to illucidate on that?  All species are defined by their genetic structure, their DNA.  Are you suggesting that minor changes in a species DNA can result in a totally different specie e.g. turn a rabbit into a carrot

Another interesting and probably more basic question is what was the origin of the first DNA in the universe?  Did the Big Bang spawn DNA or at least the elements necessary for the formation of DNA?

Would you care to illucidate on that? All species are defined by their genetic structure, their DNA. Are you suggesting that minor changes in a species DNA can result in a totally different specie e.g. turn a rabbit into a carrot

You misunderstand the statement. A minor change in DNA is all that is necessary for the process of speciation to begin. Over time, and with accumulated changes, visible differences accrue and the fact of speciation becomes obvious to plain sight. But it can and does occur long before it is detectable through anything other than the test of reproductive viability.

And no, a rabbit could not be turned into a carrot (or more properly, give birth to one) through minor genetic variation. The genetic differences between carrots and rabbits are extreme, not minor. But minor genetic variation can create major visible change in the physical structure of an animal or vegetable. Whenever such changes make interbreeding impossible, speciation has occured. 

Another interesting and probably more basic question is what was the origin of the first DNA in the universe?

There’s a lot of work going on in this field, but the evidence we have suggests that DNA evolved from the less complex self-replicating molecule RNA, which had developed in turn from earlier, less-complex self-replicating molecular structures.

The amino acids which are the components of these bigger molecular structures are incredibly easy to generate. We’ve synthesized 17 out of 20 in the lab using just water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and electric sparks. Indeed, you don’t even need the apark—any sufficient input of energy to this “primordial soup” results in some amino acid formation. You can do it just by shaking the test tube.

Did the Big Bang spawn DNA or at least the elements necessary for the formation of DNA?

Actually, all the Big Bang spawned was a soup of extremely hot particles. No atoms at all. The first atoms didn’t start to appear until 1-3 minutes after the Big bang itself. These were basically all various isotopes of hydrogen and helium, and for a very long time that’s all there was—possibly as long as a billion years. It was only as the first generation of stars collapsed in on themselves as they aged and died that the star’s changing internal fusion process started generating heavier elements, moving upward through the periodic table to iron, at which point the process breaks down and novas and supernovas happen (nova-level bursts of energy are necessary to create elements heavier than iron, so every atom of every element heavier than iron is the product of a stellar explosion).

DNA came along a heck of a lot later still than that, at least the DNA on our planet—roughly 13-14 billion years after the Big Bang, by current estimates.

The amino acids which are the components of these bigger molecular structures are incredibly easy to generate. We’ve synthesized 17 out of 20 in the lab using just water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and electric sparks. Indeed, you don’t even need the apark—any sufficient input of energy to this “primordial soup” results in some amino acid formation. You can do it just by shaking the test tube.

Con, you seem to have a lot of knowledge in micro-biology.  Is that your profession?

I don’t mean to belabor the point but it seems to me that the history of RNA/DNA is crucial to any serious study of creation and evolution.  In addition, being a orthodox scientist/engineer (education is EE) I believe that any principle is theory until it can be duplicated in the laboratory or other suitable place.  In that light, has any portion of RNA/DNA been scientically created?

A potential weakness in evolutionary theory is the limited population problem.  Can one assume that when a new specie emerges, that the initial populations are quite small?  If so then shouldn’t the usual degenerative problems seen with interbreeding of small populations arise?  How is that
avoid with new species?

Actually, all the Big Bang spawned was a soup of extremely hot particles. No atoms at all.

Can I assume that the ‘hot particles’ are some form of energy plasmas?  Any clue on how atoms (electrons, protons, nuetrons, etc.) were formed?  Has the atom creation process been duplicated by the scientific community?

PaulieB:

Are you saying that a person must have a PhD inorder to make conclusions about the theory of evolution?

You don’t have have a Ph.D., but you do have to have an open mind.  You obviously have a closed mind, so you are shutting out the concordant facts and grasping at shards which fit your preconceptions.

However, one can believe in God & evolution simultaneously.  Indeed, I think it is a fact most Christians have no problems with this.

The sticker is that you start with a particular literalist interpretation of the Bible, then you have to ignore the gigantic volume of data which are at odds with that interpretation.  My conclusion would be that there is a problem with your interpretation, and not with the overwhelming evidence that surrounds us.

PaulieB:  Even in Darwin’s day, the evidence for evolution was overwhelming.  You can choose to believe what you want, that’s cool.  But you wouldn’t make much of a biologist if you were to assume that humans and other mammals aren’t extremely closely related biologically.  You also wouldn’t get very far in biology if you didn’t use natural selection to explain how natural forces cause species differentiation.

Connorfc, thanks for your comments.  I have to agree with that the “Evidence for a Young World” is really, really bad.  It’s complete and utter rubbish, to be more precise.

Connorfc:  Are you saying that a person must have a PhD inorder to make conclusions about the theory of evolution?  What is your PhD in?

I googled image searches for oort cloud and oort cloud photo.  There were a lot of picture images, but all of them that I looked at were artist’s renderings.  Could you give me a link to a good photograph?  Or at least what study/satellite took the photo so that I can research it through the mission (was it a Hubble photo?).  So if I were a scientist, why would I find 1-8 of Humphrey’s article hysterically funny?  Why are you not interested in 10, 11, and 12?  Why should any of us not question the lack of skeletons, artwork, and the development of the stoneage man?  Was leaving out number 9 a typo?  Or in your eyes is the only non-laughable point that there isn’t enough helium in our atmosphere from decay to suggest that the earth is billions (or even millions) of years old?

Thank you for the website. (The thank you is slightly sarcastic.  Instead of putting forth effort, you link me to an entire website instead of specific parts of the website that prove your points.  However, the only point that you tried to state is that micro and macro evolution are the same.)

In microevolution, changes occur within the species.  Macroevolution creates a new specie.  In your undocumented quote, the author of said quote says that there are a number of ways for a new species to come into being.  When said evolutionary change supposedly creates a new species, how does that animal mate?  If it is a new species, then it cannot produce offspring that has the ability to create more offspring.

The portion of the website that I read is a big hand wave.

Hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms, found in well-dated rock sequences, represent successions of forms through time and manifest many evolutionary transitions…
So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed.
The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies… This prediction has been upheld by the evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found.

Well dated?  No, it’s a presupposition.  You are presupposing that rock layers are millions and billions of years old.  How do you know that those rock layers are millions and billions of years old? I also like the statement that there are so many intermediate fossil records, and then they explain it away by saying that every fossil they find is an intermediate.  That statement is presupposing that evolution is true, and this is not proof of the theory of evolution.

The geological column is not as linear as your website suggests.  (May I also add that your website not only does not provide anything but a regurgitation of theory and presuppositions, but also has no works cited.) Woodmorappe, the author of this paper, finds the evidence that your website ignores.  (To include an essay entitled Illogical Geology written in 1859 by Herbert Spencer.) He includes Dasycladalean algae, Pipiscids, Agnathan (jawless) fishes, Lystrosaurus, the sponge Neoguadalupia, the bivalve Camptochlamys, and the gastropod Parafusus as examples of how the geological column (and may I add is a column only because people put organic organisms into said column) is filled with organisms which previously thought weren’t contemporary, were contemporary.

Connorfc:

And all of the evidence says you are wrong.

What evidence?  Where are the “so many” intermediate fossils?  If there are truly that many, then why wasn’t I shown them when I was taught evolution in high school?  Why can no one show me where to find them now?  Where are the transitional fossils from mice to humans? (as your website states, mice and humans are related)

I do have faith in God.  And you have faith in evolution.

In parting:

So how common are stratigraphic-range extensions? Two recent comprehensive databases of the stratigraphic occurrence of fossils give a clear answer to this question. Maxwell and Benton18 have compared the stratigraphic ranges of all of the fossil vertebrate families (excluding Aves, which have a spotty fossil record) as perceived in 1966–1967, and again in 1987. For 96 families, there was no change in stratigraphic range. Another 87 fossil families went through a decrease in their accepted stratigraphic range. Yet considerably more families (150) underwent an increase in the amount of strata which they overlap. This trend is even more evident in fossil marine families. In just ten years (1982–1992), Sepkoski19 reports that 513 fossil families underwent a decline in their stratigraphic range. A decline in range may mean that the first and/or last occurrence had been misidentified. But whatever the cause, the number of fossil-range declines is dwarfed by the 1026 families that enjoyed an increase in either their first occurrence, or their last occurrence, or both.

Clearly, then, extension of stratigraphic ranges is the rule and not the exception. This is even more remarkable when we remember that there is the ever-present evolutionary bias which tends to cause overemphasis of minute differences in fossils located in different horizons of strata, and hence the proliferation of questionable taxonomic names for essentially the same organism found at different stratigraphic horizons.

[...] http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/01/05/intelligent-design-fact-or-fiction/ [...]

Con, you seem to have a lot of knowledge in micro-biology. Is that your profession?

No, I’m a layman. But I’m a widely-read layman with a lifelong interest in science, and friends who are working scientists in a number of different disciplines (Carl Sagan was an acquaintance of mine from 1975 until he died). I’ve also worked as a technical writer dealing with medical testing equipment, and I spent four years as a science reporter for the BBC. The show’s focus was on computer sciences, but since we covered the ways that computers were used, we did stories about people who worked in many different fields, including the biological sciences.

I also have a profound personal connection to various things on the metaphysical side of the aisle. But I know better than to confuse untestable individual belief, no matter how deeply held, with matters of science and observation.

I don’t mean to belabor the point but it seems to me that the history of RNA/DNA is crucial to any serious study of creation and evolution. In addition, being a orthodox scientist/engineer (education is EE) I believe that any principle is theory until it can be duplicated in the laboratory or other suitable place.

Technically speaking, all principles are theories. Indeed, in science there are no “facts” per se, but only theories with varying levels of accumulated evidence, all of them awaiting modification or even complete overturn upon the arrival of a repeatable observation that contradicts the former model. That’s the terrific thing about science: sooner or later it always yields to repeatable observation.

That said, there are many things we can observe and accurately analyze that we can’t “duplicate in the laboratory,” as you request, simply because they happen in environments or on a scale that won’t fit inside a lab. And sometimes, of course, the lab is the real world itself. An excellent example would be the observation of gravitational lensing effects. Predicted by Einstein using only thought experiments and scribbled mathematics, and unverifiable for decades because we lacked observational equipment accurate enough to prove or disprove his predictions. But good golly, now we can look...and there they are!

In that light, has any portion of RNA/DNA been scientically created?

We’re getting very good at manipulating DNA and RNA: knocking out sections, adding sections, transferring bits from one form of DNA or RNA to another, etc. We are quite good at synthesizing the raw nucleotide components. And there are, indeed, scientists working today on the task of assembling entirely original DNA strands, attempting to determine what the transition point is between what is obviously alive and self-replicating and what is obviously not, by assembling ever-more complex molecules from the ground up. Fascinating stuff.

We also know more and more about how RNA and DNA probably came into existence in the first place, but it doesn’t make for a quick summary and it isn’t easy to understand the data without a reasonable grounding in both organic and inorganic chemistry. (You could get an overview by looking through various articles that have been published in SCientific American over the last 15 years.)

A potential weakness in evolutionary theory is the limited population problem. Can one assume that when a new specie emerges, that the initial populations are quite small? If so then shouldn’t the usual degenerative problems seen with interbreeding of small populations arise? How is that avoid with new species?

The only reason this seems like a problem is because you hold a mistaken belief about how speciation occurs. It isn’t a sharp, sudden snap. It isn’t that there is a single magical mutation, and whammo, member of species A gives birth to a new creature that is a member of separate species B, entirely unable to breed with its progenitor group. What happens is that small changes accumulate and propagate through large groups within a population, and this genetic drift eventually increases to a point where one group can no longer breed with another. But plenty of concurrent genetic fellow-travelers exist to breed with.

I’ll give you an example from the real world. You certainly think of lions and tigers as being different species, yes? But they come from common ancestry, and not that long ago, because they can still interbreed. We call the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger a liger, and the offspring of a female lion and a male tiger a tigon. And while all known male ligers and tigons have been sterile, females are often fertile and can be mated successfully with either lions or tigers.

Can I assume that the ‘hot particles’ are some form of energy plasmas?

Technically...no. There isn’t any such thing as an “energy plasma,” because plasmas are just another state of matter, with recognizable atomic nuclei and electrons. The early “particle soup” consisted of just that: free particles still too energetic to settle down and combine with one another. No nuclei at all.

Any clue on how atoms (electrons, protons, nuetrons, etc.) were formed?

The basics of this process are well understood and I alluded to them earlier without going into great detail. For a great explanation of the process, read http://www.milky-way.com/gb/sevol.htm. Meanwhile, to summarize wildly:

As the initial particle soup cooled, and three of the four known basic forces (electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces) began to have an effect, previously free particles combined to form various isotopes of hydrogen and helium. (Mainly hydrogen.)

The influence of the fourth basic force, gravity, gradually caused some of these hydrogen/helium clouds to condense. As the clouds condensed and grew more massive, they grew hotter and denser until conditions became sufficient to trigger hydrogen-to-helium fusion. Bingo: stars.

A star can be seen as in a state of balance between two opposing forces: gravity, which is trying to collapse the star inward, and fusion, which is blasting energy outward. As hydrogen-to-helium fusion starts to run out of steam because the available hydrogen at the core of the star is getting used up, power output goes down...which lets gravity pull everything in tighter...which heats the core of the star...until whammo, now the increased heat is sufficient to cause the helium to start to fuse into heavier elements.

The cycle continues up to various points on the periodic table depending on the size of the star—the larger the star, the farther up the table it gets before exploding. Even the largest stars can’t get past iron, however, because the process of two iron atoms fusing does not release excess energy: it absorbs energy. This is why everything heavier than iron (as the period table defines heavy: number of protons, electrons, and neutrons) comes not from long-burning star fusion processes, but from the huge energies involved in the moments of stellar explosion.

Has the atom creation process been duplicated by the scientific community?

Unfortunately, yes: you might have heard of the hydrogen bomb? That’s man-made atomic fusion, creating heavier elements out of lighter ones and releasing a whole heck of a lot of energy in the process.

Less spectacularly, using linear accelerators scientists have been able to create heavier elements by slamming together the nuclei of lighter ones with sufficient force.

Paulie B:

Greetings!

Are you saying that a person must have a PhD inorder to make conclusions about the theory of evolution?

Of course not. But it does take knowledge to reach conclusions—useful ones, anyway.

What is your PhD in?

Don’t have one. But the science section of my personal library does number over 1000 books; I’ve been studying science as an extremely-interested layman for 45 years; and as a professional writer I’ve been dealing with scientific topics for nearly 30 years. So I know enough to make certain basic points, and am not afraid to admit what I don’t know and must research, because that’s another way to learn.

I googled image searches for oort cloud and oort cloud photo. There were a lot of picture images, but all of them that I looked at were artist’s renderings. Could you give me a link to a good photograph?

I was referring to the 2003 discovery of 90377 Sedna, which is (depending on whose analysis you favor) either the furthest-out Kuiper Belt object yet discovered, or the first directly-observed Oort Cloud object. It was discovered by observers from Caltech, Gemini Observatory, and Yale University, using the Samuel Oschin telescope at Palomar Observatory.

So if I were a scientist, why would I find 1-8 of Humphrey’s article hysterically funny?

Mainly because he gets his facts horribly wrong.

In his first claim, regarding the rate at which galaxies “wind themselves up,” he tries to extrapolate the rotational mathematics of a Keplerian solar system model to the galactic scale—and in so doing shows that he either doesn’t understand how gravity works at the level of galactic structure or else just can’t do the math.

In his second claim, regarding the rate at which comets disentegrate, he tries to pretend there is no evidence for the existence of the Kuiper Belt, or at any rate that such evidence as there is indicates an insufficient amount of matter to supply billions of years worth of comets. The problem with his position is that all current evidence points to hundreds of millions of Kuiper Belt objects ranging in size from a few hundred feet across to a third the size of Pluto. (He also shows no understanding of how gravity works on the interstellar scale or how perturbation works, things we have become very good at calculating.)

His item three claims there isn’t enough mud on the sea floors given estimated annual soil erosion rates. But his calculations are based on three things which simply aren’t true: that the seafloor is uniformly flat, that the erosion rate is steady, and that all eroded soil makes it to the seafloor. Quote Humphreys’ claim and calculations to oceanographers and geologists and you’ll get guffaws.

His item four claims there is not enough sodium in the sea. But he assumes that the rate of sodium transport is steady (it isn’t) and he assumes that only 27% of sodium delivered to the ocean every year is taken back out by known processes. But he completely ignores the ocean sodium that is removed in the alteration of basalt, in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and numerous other mechanisms. In fact, the whole sodium transport/removal cycle is well-identified and very neatly balanced, with almost exactly as much going out as coming in.

His item number five says the earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast. But he reaches his conclusion by taking a measurement of one aspect of overall field strength—the one that has been dropping for the last 150 years—and extrapolates that loss in a straight line backward. But that’s not how the magnetic field works. The geological and observational evidence indicates that the magnetic field is constantly fluctuating, getting stronger overall at some times and weakening overall at others, sometimes reversing polarity entirely...it’s a highly variable thing. Which he ignores—along with ignoring other field strength aspect measurements which are increasing.

His item number six observes that some geological strata are so tightly bent that the changes must have taken place within a thousand years or so of them being laid down, while they were still “wet and soft,” with the obvious implication that they therefore couldn’t have taken millions of years to lay down in the first place. To a geologist these assertions are laughable on their face. For one, water is not compressable. If these folds had taken place rapidly, with wet materials, then water would have erupted through weak points in the sediment and left unmistakably visible “scarring.” No such scarring exists in these tightly bent strata. For another, what we think of as “hard” rock is actually quite low in mechanical strength compared to its bulk, and is highly compressible under sufficient pressure, assuming the pressure is slow enough. Fast pressure, on the other hand, would create sharp fractures and breaks. And those aren’t there either.

His item number seven states that injected sandstone shortens geologic ages, by which he means that deep sandstone layers couldn’t have remained unsolidified for huge periods of time. Again, laughable on the face of it to a working geologist, who would know—as Humphreys doesn’t—that pressure alone isn’t enough to solidify a sediment. It also requires the presence of a chemical cementing agent such as a carbonate. (Deep drilling oil rigs have been known to bring up sediment as fine as beach sand.)

His item number eight states that “radiohalos”—the rings around bits of radioactive material that are sometimes found inside of certain rocks—are only consistent with a young earth. The first dodge here is that he calls these rings “fossil evidence,” implying that they are in fossils, which automatically shortens the implied time frame. But they aren’t: they are mainly found in certain specific kinds of granite. But what makes it laughable is that Humphreys’s argument is based entirely on the work of a physicist and creationist named Robert Gentry, who was tying to use these radiohalos to prove that the Earth had been created in a single week. Unfortunately, Gentry was no geologist, and real geologists have meticulously proven that his theories were simply wrong. (The explanations are long, detailed, and won’t make much sense to someone without a reasonable grounding in geology. But if you want to try, read either http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm or http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html.)

Was leaving out number 9 a typo? Or in your eyes is the only non-laughable point that there isn’t enough helium in our atmosphere from decay to suggest that the earth is billions (or even millions) of years old?

It was a typo.

Humphreys is just as offbase here as elsewhere. To reach his conclusion he has to claim an atmospheric helium loss rate that is ludicrously below the rate actually observed and measured by atmospheric scientists.

Why are you not interested in 10, 11, and 12?

I specifically addressed the others in my earlier comment because you said that as a non-scientist you didn’t know what to make of them. So I thought I’d let you know that working scientists in those particular disciplines think they are all pretty funny.

As for 10, 11, and 12, they are pretty funny too. You ask…

Why should any of us not question the lack of skeletons, artwork, and the development of the stoneage man?

Simple: because there isn’t anything odd about any of it. Not even a little bit!

To put it plainly, Humphreys is talking bullshit and you’re buying.

(I’ll address just one here, right now, because it is late and I’m tired.)

Lack of bones? Damn straight: It takes very specific (and relatively rare) conditions to preserve bone for more than a few decades. It isn’t at all surprising, therefore, that we don’t find a whole lot of old skeletons from thousands and thousands of years ago.

The other two claims I leave as an exercise for you and Google. Sufficie to say they are even further out on the no-evidence, pure-speculation, what-is-this-guy-smoking limb. You’ll find plenty of Humphreys debunking on the web by real scientists if you look.

Thank you for the website. (The thank you is slightly sarcastic. Instead of putting forth effort, you link me to an entire website instead of specific parts of the website that prove your points.

I pointed to the entire site because I assumed, from your statements, that you did not have the background information necessary to understand the specific parts on their own. By your reaction you have proven me right.

However, the only point that you tried to state is that micro and macro evolution are the same.) In microevolution, changes occur within the species. Macroevolution creates a new specie.In your undocumented quote, the author of said quote says that there are a number of ways for a new species to come into being. When said evolutionary change supposedly creates a new species, how does that animal mate? If it is a new species, then it cannot produce offspring that has the ability to create more offspring.

Addressed earlier, in a different reply.

The whole micro vs. macro is a well-debunked creationist canard. You do yourself no favor by falling for it.

Well dated? No, it’s a presupposition. You are presupposing that rock layers are millions and billions of years old. How do you know that those rock layers are millions and billions of years old?

I’m not presupposing at all. I am looking at the total body of evidence and asking what that evidence actually indicates. Does it indicate a young earth or an old one?

Answer: old, old, and old.

If creationists could come up with provable evidence to the contrary, geology would revise itself.

I also like the statement that there are so many intermediate fossil records, and then they explain it away by saying that every fossil they find is an intermediate.

All living creatures are intermediates. That is the literal truth. Our genes came from somewhere. They are heading somewhere else. We’re just one frame in the movie.

The geological column is not as linear as your website suggests.

Creationists like to trot out this strawman argument, too. You are parroting, not thinking.

(May I also add that your website not only does not provide anything but a regurgitation of theory and presuppositions, but also has no works cited.)

I pointed you at a general site because you said you weren’t a scientist. Given that you swallowed Humphreys blindly, I knew that you didn’t have the requisite knowledge to read and understand detailed scientific papers as written by scientists for other scientists.

Woodmorappe, the author of this paper

Woodmorappe? You’re quoting Woodmorappe?

The man who tries to argue that the Ark makes sense by claiming that Noah could handle the collective fecal wastes on the Ark by training 16,000 animals and birds to defecate and piss into a bucket on command?

The one who claims “actual studies” prove his assertions, and then never points to any of those studies?

Ironically: Good Lord.

What evidence? Where are the “so many” intermediate fossils?

The Transitional FOssils FAQ. Dig in. LOTS to read here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

If there are truly that many, then why wasn’t I shown them when I was taught evolution in high school?

Don’t know. When and where did you go to high school?

Why can no one show me where to find them now?

See above FAQ.

Where are the transitional fossils from mice to humans? (as your website states, mice and humans are related)

Now you are just being silly, and either you know it (in which case shame on you for wasting everyone’s time) or else you don’t know it (in which case, wow, you really have a lot to learn).

Yes, mice and humans are both related. Sometime waaaaaay the heck back we had a common ancestor. But the evolutionary path from that ancestor to humanity is not the same path as from that ancestor to mice, so of course there are no direct transitional fossils between humankind and mice, and more than there would be direct transitional fossils between bats and birds.

I do have faith in God. And you have faith in evolution.

No. I have conclusions based on a body of reliable, repeatable, consistent, testable observations. That’s not faith.

My faith is an entirely different thing.

In parting:

And there you go quoting Woodmorappe again. Please go find someone reputable. (I mean geeze, “Woodmorappe” isn’t even his real name. It’s a pseudonym.)

My basis for started this article was to see if there was any scientific basis for Intelligent Design, whether some universal intelligence was responsible for the creation of life rather than random actions of the universe.  I had no intention to try to discredit evolution theory but only to point out what I thought were weaknesses.  Indeed, my feeling is that there was room for both evolution and intelligent design theories.  It seems my use of the term intelligent design may be quite different from the way that others use it.  It seems that the battlelines that have already been drawn are between anti-evolutionist and anti-creativists.  Does the belief in evolution have to the atheistic?  Can one believe in intelligent involvement in the creation process without being a non-scientist?

The answers to these basic questions are needed to shape additional discussion on this subject.

Carrick has stated that

“one can believe in God & evolution simultaneously”.

Vlad seconds that with

“So then we should not debate what made life God or Evolution? We should ask what made life God or Chance? And, from where we stand (humanity) the two may very well be one in the same.”

So, what part does God play in the creation of life versus the part played by ‘natural’ evolution?  Any easy and possible correct answer is that all things come from God so if life is created by the evolutionary process it’s because God made it so.  Maybe that is sufficient.  In that case the question I maybe should have asked “Is there a scientific way of proving there is a God or if you don’t like that term, is there a scientific way of proving that some form of intelligence is involve in the creation process?”.  I thought I might be on the way to an answer when I discovered Bohm Implicate Order work however Connorfc has stated in a post that this is not the case.  However, if

The theory of the Implicate Order contains an ultraholistic cosmic view; it connects everything with everything else. In principle, any individual element could reveal “detailed information about every other element in the universe.”

My basis for started this article was to see if there was any scientific basis for Intelligent Design, whether some universal intelligence was responsible for the creation of life rather than random actions of the universe.

There is no scientific basis for Intelligent Design, by basic definition of both “science” and “ID.”

As for whether some universal intelligence is responsible for the creation of life, that’s not currently a testable hypothesis. And science, again by definition, deals strictly in testable hypotheses.

Indeed, my feeling is that there was room for both evolution and intelligent design theories.

The problem is that there is only one ID theory, which when removed of religious overtones can be summarized as “This ____________ I’m pointing at could have happened only through outside intervention, not naturally.” There’s just no evidence to even indicate that, let alone support it. And it’s also a dead-end. Under this theory, the abswer to every unknown is to accept that it is unknowable, not to try and find out what’s actually going on. It is anti-thought at its core.

Does the belief in evolution have to the atheistic? Can one believe in intelligent involvement in the creation process without being a non-scientist?

The answers are obvious and hardly worth discussion. To the first question: No, it isn’t, because many people who believe in evolution (even many scientists) are deeply religious. To the second question: Of course it is, because among the most ardent creationists and ID’ers there are a few people with credible scientific training and professional experience (though ususally not in the field they are talking about).

Mind you, the latter number is a LOT smaller than the former. 99%+ of scientists in the relevant disciplines do not believe that ID is science.

So, what part does God play in the creation of life versus the part played by ‘natural’ evolution?

The plain answer is there is no scientific way to know whether or not God even exists. To move beyond that stumbling block is pure faith and complete speculation. It’s all personal opinion, and nothing more.

than there would seem to be some universal intelligence involved not only in creation but in all things in the universe. What do you think?

Again, you misunderstand what Bohm was referring to. His implicate universal quality of intelligence—in which self-aware intelligence is a naturally emergent state of sufficiently-complex physical structure—is emphatically not the same thing as a self-aware, conscious “universal intelligence.”

What Bohm describes is far more in keeping with the tenets and beliefs of Zen Buddhism than they are with any theistic religion.

Connorfc:  Some great comments here.

By way of introduction, I am a scientist---Ph.D., physicist by training though I’ve done my share of macro-biological physics.  There are a few things I had quibbles with, mainly from this paragraph:

Technically speaking, all principles are theories. Indeed, in science there are no “facts” per se, but only theories with varying levels of accumulated evidence, all of them awaiting modification or even complete overturn upon the arrival of a repeatable observation that contradicts the former model. That’s the terrific thing about science: sooner or later it always yields to repeatable observation.

First of all, there is properly speaking a “scientific fact” and it is a different entity than a “scientific theory” or a “scientific prinicple”.

Basically, a scientific fact is a series repeatable empirical observations that are generally accepted as true within the scientific community.

A scientific theory is a testable hypothesis of why one or more scientific facts are true.  By “testable” we usually mean “falsifiable”.  Generally speaking, this means that the theory is capable of making predictions, which can then be falsified.

A scientific principle is a theory that is firmly established based upon a rigorous and thorough experiment basis.  Furthermore, application of this theory must be pervasive within relevant fields of study.  The universality of free fall is an example (basically it says a copper coin and a feather fall at the same rate in a vacuum), and is a tenet of almost any modern theory of gravity.

Based on these considerations, as I said above, we have

a) fact of evolution”: The enormous body of observations that species tend to become more biologically complex over time.
b)“theory of evolution”: One of many theories to explain this series of observations.

However, there is no principle of evolution, because while evolution is established as a fact, there is no single unified theoretical explanation for evolution (the general consensus is a number of factors play a role), nor is any such theory used pervasively through-out evolutionary biology.

On the other hand, Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection based upon “survival of the fittest” is certainly a “scientific principle"---it gets widely used in almost all theories of evolution, even if it is accepted that natural selection is not the sole mechanism that drives evolution.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

DocDave,

My basis for started this article was to see if there was any scientific basis for Intelligent Design, whether some universal intelligence was responsible for the creation of life rather than random actions of the universe. I had no intention to try to discredit evolution theory but only to point out what I thought were weaknesses.

Well, what is your “scientific basis for Intelligent Design”?  That the currently dominant theory has some “gaps/holes/weaknesses” does not automatically convey legitimacy on competing theories.  Logically, this kind of reasoning is suspect (i.e., it suffers from the either/or thoery).

Further, every theory in the world has weaknesses.  Are you going to argue for a divine cause for these things as well?  We don’t know what causes X (right now) so (for right now) we’ll just say it is angels (or whatever supernatural agent)?  This is where you run right into problems wi