A Simple Arguement Against INTELLIGENT Design

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Patience, joobz

I've had patience for months and it hasn't gotten me anywhere.

~~ Paul

 

[Roboramma]

This is not my critique, it is the critique of evolutionist Dr Tom Schneider, head of (snip by Roboramma...). Dr Schneider said the following in this article

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4x10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer.

Note the bolded section. Even if the first part is incorrect, if you take into account the latter part (which ev is incapable of doing), the picture could change dramatically. Hence any conclusions you draw from the first part of his statement being incorrect (if it is), cannot be substantiated. You can't draw any conclusions about what isn't possible, because there are other mechanisms that influence the outcome.

 

[Yahzi]

Don’t mistake the shrinking of the size of a transistor to shrinking the size of the unknown.

I don't. Do you have any evidence that I do?

Again, you have failed to answer the question. When asked why you think science will never understand an issue, you respond with personal attacks and irrelevancies.

This behaviour is evidence you don't have any other arguments to offer.

What I am saying that with careful mathematical analysis with an evolutionist’s (Dr Tom Schneider) peer reviewed and published computer model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection that it shows that punctuated equilibrium as postulated by Gould and macroevolution are impossible by this mechanism when realistic parameters are used in the model.

A hundred years ago, careful mathematical analysis showed that bumblebees can't fly.

Turns out... the math was inadequate. Which observers of bumblebees already knew.

Evolution is an observed fact. Our inability to satisfyingly model it on a computer is really not at all interesting. We can't model weather worth a dang, either, but I don't see you exclaiming that current meteorology theory is no better supported than Zeus.

 

[Yahzi]

I've been very patient with you and your remarks. I have shown you respect this entire time. Please show me the same and answer my questions.

Just a reality check here: you know this is never going to happen, right?

Klienman is a theologian. He has a conclusion, and he'll embrace any fact or process that yields that conclusion. He cannot even understand the other way around, let alone your annoyance with his methods. The best we can hope for is to get him to plainly admit that he doesn't care about facts.

Like getting a Christian theologian to admit they won't change their minds no matter what the facts are. That is the only possible victory when discussing theology.

 

[kleinman]

Patience, joobz

I've had patience for months and it hasn't gotten me anywhere.

Sure it has, you no longer say that ev models reality and you’ve gotten pissed off by “annoying creationists”. By the way, I do think you did a very good job on your java version of ev.

Note the bolded section. Even if the first part is incorrect, if you take into account the latter part (which ev is incapable of doing), the picture could change dramatically. Hence any conclusions you draw from the first part of his statement being incorrect (if it is), cannot be substantiated. You can't draw any conclusions about what isn't possible, because there are other mechanisms that influence the outcome.

Note that I quoted Dr Schneider in context. Not only is his estimate of 1 billion years to evolve the human genome more that 3 orders of magnitude low when you simply use a realistic mutation rate, the other mechanism he raises have strong arguments why they won’t speed the macroevolutionary process.

What I am saying that with careful mathematical analysis with an evolutionist’s (Dr Tom Schneider) peer reviewed and published computer model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection that it shows that punctuated equilibrium as postulated by Gould and macroevolution are impossible by this mechanism when realistic parameters are used in the model.

A hundred years ago, careful mathematical analysis showed that bumblebees can't fly.
Turns out... the math was inadequate. Which observers of bumblebees already knew. Evolution is an observed fact. Our inability to satisfyingly model it on a computer is really not at all interesting. We can't model weather worth a dang, either, but I don't see you exclaiming that current meteorology theory is no better supported than Zeus.

A guess evolutionist know how to set up strawmen as well. You need to tell Dr Schneider his math is inadequate. Are you saying macroevolution is an observed fact? Let’s see your results.

 

[articulett]

I not only pay attention, I actually consider all the aspects of my beliefs. What's your excuse?



Nope; no design there ... just random changes. ROTFL.

Glad to see you giggling.

Yes design--yes complex--no intelligent designer--just lots of participants through time exchanging info. and add connections. It was most definitely not preplanned at all in it's present form. Complexity rises from simplicity all the time. Whether it's mountains, galaxies, life forms, or the world wide web. No one even knows how much information it's holds. If you were to go looking for it's intelligent designer overlord, you'd have a harder time understanding it--presuming your goal would be to understand it. If you prefer to have mystery and believe that you can't understand something--then by all means, posit a designer. It's just that science doesn't lead to anything new or interesting or exciting when you look for the invisible and immeasurable. If we thought god made babies, would we have ever learned to make them in a test tube--or to prevent them from being made when we didn't want them? Would we cure polio if we thought it was a lesson from god (or a curse from a demon).

 

[T'ai Chi]

And apparently it also shows that you have some unstated argument against the simple facts of mutation and selection in nature. Or perhaps against Minsky's Theorem:

Attempt to bring in outside things ignored. Let's focus on the program. You agree that it is intelligently designed. So what does it really show?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why do you believe that change over time = designer?

I personally don't believe that. But people's descriptions of evolution here amount to 'change over time' which isn't controversial in the least, and also doesn't negate the possibility of a desginer, which is what some here have claimed.

And considering the waste of potential life forms

Why does such things count as evidence against design?

and suffering of sentient beings

So you're saying pain shouldn't exist?

nd jerry-rigging of old genes and traits evident both in the genome and in new phenotypes,

This is just change over time.

I think the design is quite obviously unintelligent just as the internet is "unintelligent" yet it contains complexity, appears designed, and is filled with complex information.

The internet is probably the worst Darwinist example I've ever heard; I'm really surprised it keeps being repeated. There are many intelligences responsible for the Internet; everyone with their own webpage and blog, to the designers of the hardware and software, including protocals and copper and fiber optic cables.

You seem to be making a basic error of saying 'no single person designed' = 'no design'.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Attempt to bring in outside things ignored. Let's focus on the program. You agree that it is intelligently designed. So what does it really show?

It shows that the basic process of evolution (inheritance, mutation, selection) can produce information. And it shows that one can predict how much information will arise in a certain context. It's relevant to real life unless you can show which part of the basic process of evolution isn't happening in the real world. That is why I introduced Minsky's theorem. In what way does it not pertain to the real world?

Or I suppose you could claim that there is no information in DNA.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You seem to be making a basic error of saying 'no single person designed' = 'no design'.

This is going nowhere until we all agree on what we mean by design. I bet if you define it carefully you'll find that evolution is a perfectly good designer, too.

Or do you mean designed in precisely the way humans design things? If so, then you can only infer that a human designed life.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

It shows that the basic process of evolution (inheritance, mutation, selection) can produce information.

One possibility: your program is intelligently designed, therefore if you're right it really shows that intelligence can produce information.

 

[T'ai Chi]

This is going nowhere until we all agree on what we mean by design. I bet if you define it carefully you'll find that evolution is a perfectly good designer, too.

Get a dictionary. The main issue is intelligence, not design. We all agree that there is design present (even Dawkins does).

Or do you mean designed in precisely the way humans design things? If so, then you can only infer that a human designed life.

I don't care about 'who' or properties of this 'who' if it/they exist. The relevant question is 'if'.

 

[CFLarsen]

Get a dictionary. The main issue is intelligence, not design.

Design

Webster:

1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE
2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime> b : to have as a purpose : INTEND <she designed to excel in her studies> c : to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed primarily as a college textbook>
3 archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4 a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans for <design a building>
intransitive verb
1 : to conceive or execute a plan
2 : to draw, lay out, or prepare a design

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000:

VERB:
Inflected forms: de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs

TRANSITIVE VERB:
1a. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference. b. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product. 2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program. 3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages. 4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend. 5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.

INTRANSITIVE VERB:
1. To make or execute plans. 2. To have a goal or purpose in mind. 3. To create designs.

NOUN:
1a. A drawing or sketch. b. A graphic representation, especially a detailed plan for construction or manufacture. 2. The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details: the aerodynamic design of an automobile; furniture of simple but elegant design. 3. The art or practice of designing or making designs. 4. Something designed, especially a decorative or an artistic work. 5. An ornamental pattern. See synonyms at figure. 6. A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development: the overall design of an epic poem. 7. A plan; a project. See synonyms at plan. 8a. A reasoned purpose; an intent: It was her design to set up practice on her own as soon as she was qualified. b. Deliberate intention: He became a photographer more by accident than by design. 9. A secretive plot or scheme. Often used in the plural: He has designs on my job.

Intelligence

Webster:

1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
4 a : INFORMATION, NEWS b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
5 : the ability to perform computer functions

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000:

NOUN:
1a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. b. The faculty of thought and reason. c. Superior powers of mind. See synonyms at mind. 2. An intelligent, incorporeal being, especially an angel. 3. Information; news. See synonyms at news. 4a. Secret information, especially about an actual or potential enemy. b. An agency, staff, or office employed in gathering such information. c. Espionage agents, organizations, and activities considered as a group: “Intelligence is nothing if not an institutionalized black market in perishable commodities” (John le Carré).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't care about 'who' or properties of this 'who' if it/they exist. The relevant question is 'if'.

If what? If life was intelligently designed the way humans intelligently design things? Or if it was designed at all? Or if some nonhuman form of intelligence was employed to design it?

How can we possibly claim to know anything about the latter two questions, stuck as we are in the rut of our own form of intelligence?

~~ Paul

 

[Yahzi]

A guess evolutionist know how to set up strawmen as well.

Calling something a strawman does not make it a strawman.

You assert evolution is false because it cannot be mathematically modeled. Weather cannot be mathematically modeled either, but you do not assert that hurricanes are sent by Zeus.

Why not?

You need to tell Dr Schneider his math is inadequate.

You need to explain why you think Schneider's math trumps observed results.

Are you saying macroevolution is an observed fact? Let’s see your results.

Yes, I am saying it is an observed fact. Since you have very carefully avoided defining macroevolution, one wonders what you even mean by your question. Have there been observed "large" changes in species? Why, yes... numerous forms of pneumonia have become resistant to anti-biotics. I'd say that's a large change for a small creature.

But of course you will simply fall back on your magic expanding definitions. By your definition, microevolution is any amount of change that has been observed. Thus leaving macroevolution to be unobserved.

And we haven't even started on what "observed" means. Do you dispute the evolution of eohippus? Do you think the fossil record should be discounted, even when we have a clear, unbroken chain?

And I see you simply refuse to answer the most basic question, which I will now repeat:

You stated that you thought EV was an accurate model of evolution. I asked you why you thought it was accurate. Please tell us why you think it is accurate. What evidence do you have that the model accurately reflects actual evolution?

See, for the rest of us, we believe the model because when given the same parameters as real life, it produces the same results. But you argue this is not the case. So what makes you think the model is accurate?

 

[articulett]

I personally don't believe that. But people's descriptions of evolution here amount to 'change over time' which isn't controversial in the least, and also doesn't negate the possibility of a desginer, which is what some here have claimed.



Why does such things count as evidence against design?



So you're saying pain shouldn't exist?

This is just change over time.



The internet is probably the worst Darwinist example I've ever heard; I'm really surprised it keeps being repeated. There are many intelligences responsible for the Internet; everyone with their own webpage and blog, to the designers of the hardware and software, including protocals and copper and fiber optic cables.

You seem to be making a basic error of saying 'no single person designed' = 'no design'.

It's a great example of bottom up design. The designers are the participants not some overlord...it's not pre-designed...it's designed as it goes--as is all life. Life forms procreated and some of the offspring survive and reproduce...and that is how life evolves--no design intended. If a design was intended or intelligent--why would there be waste and why would there be suffering and an arms race of predator against prayer--parasite against host etc. And why would you need a designer if natural selection works quite well?
All we knew about atoms was true even when we had great gaps in our knowledge, you know. Pointing out parts of the theory not graspable is not a method of proving anything. Positing a designer, leads to nothing...except inner comfort...it doesn't change the reality...it doesn't help us understand or know more--it's just an added conundrum...which is invisible, immeasurable, and indistinguishable from the imaginary. It's a cop out...a way of saying "humans aren't meant to understand" or "there's a purpose for my existence" or "I'm not really going to cease existing..."

Why would theologins continually fail to grasp the notion that evolution is not just point mutations--it can happen by many different mechanisms--whole chromosomes even--translocations, duplications...but they keep positing a theory that fails to include what we know. Not only that, they seem clueless as to how fast a "generation" can multiply in one-celled organisms nor do the seem to regard the many trillions of divisions going on in each cell each microsecond of living things throughout the world--they seem only to see the part that makes their wildly preposterous notion believable. I bet Tom Cruise would see the arguments that made Xenu seem real too.

Do you believers in intelligent design, think that National Geographic, the Smithsonian, Scientific American, the majority of geneticists, etc. are participating in a mass conspiracy or delusion to deny evidence of a designer. Surely, you understand that the young earth creationists are wrong...why would you be so tenacious in your own beliefs. The evidence looks more and more clearly like bottom up design--complexity without a designer--like the galaxies, mountains, viruses, crystals, etc. Natural laws are enough to design even amazing things like humans. Science is not on the verge of overthrowing evolution...in fact, the evidence only makes it all so much more obvious. Darwin never saw DNA. How amazed he would be to see the human and chimpanzee genome side by side in beautiful illustration of the notion he conveyed. You think humans will never understand abiogenesis--but we keep plodding on and getting more clues...what will you do when it is proven? I guess you'll still have faith in whatever it is you need to believe. You'll say how mathematically improbable it all is, without admitting that your intelligent designer is even more improbable. Humans have always used gods or demons to explain that which they didn't understand. At one time, babies were "miracles" from god. We can make them in a testube now. People used to be afraid that such kids wouldn't have "souls". We have evolved. God is disappearing.

It seems like an ego need to presume that humans are so fantastical that they must have been designed with a purpose in mind. But humans are prone to see that in any complexity they see--our brains evolved to see agency to associate correlation with causation--to understand cause and effect and to try and manipulate it--

If life was intelligently designed, why is the only evidence an attempt to show gaps in evolutionary theory--whether it's irreducible complexity (repeatedly disproven), missing links (we now have tons of links) and bad math assuming 2 probabilities. There is actually a zillion probabilities...humans have been making up stories of their origins for quites some time. Of course, none of the holy books mentions evolution or DNA, though, it was in our makeup long before we became human. And that is because humans didn't know about it...and humans invented, wrote, translate, and interpret all the information we have.

Do you believe, perhaps, because you've been told good things will happen if you believe and bad things will happen to doubters? Perhaps there will be a published peer reviewed article showing evidence of intelligent design in the future, but I won't hold my breath. We have no evidence that anything just "poofs" into being and lots of evidence that humans believe all sorts of wacky things. We have also have lots of evidence of complexity in the natural world that is built from the bottom up--no "designer" necessary.

 

[articulett]

As for macroevolution (a creationist term usually in reference to species divergence)--Yes we have evidence. All hybrids like mules are evidence. It takes generations...but one day horses and donkeys will not be able to make offspring. Donkeys and Zebras are speciating, but their offspring can sometimes successfully mate with another Donkey. Zebras and Horses are also speciating. Prior to speciating, diverging species will produce increasingly less fertile offspring through time and given enough generations of no interbreeding, you'll get a new species. Darwin's finches have clearly evolved in a very short time... Generally we don't live long enough to witness an entire speciation though we can see how it happens just like we can see how dogs have split of in all kinds of mutations though they can still mate with wolves. One day though, some dogs may not be able to mate with wolves...that is the beginning of speciation--

No one has ever actually put a tape measure around the earth...but we still know it's circumfrance. None of us saw our parents creating us, but we can safely assume they had sex. We weren't there, but we know that the first humans had DNA in their blood...as did Darwin...though he didn't know what it was exactly that was passing on information. Macroevolution is a strawman...a creationist term.

 

[articulett]

I personally don't believe that. But people's descriptions of evolution here amount to 'change over time' which isn't controversial in the least, and also doesn't negate the possibility of a desginer, which is what some here have claimed.



Why does such things count as evidence against design?



So you're saying pain shouldn't exist?

This is just change over time.



The internet is probably the worst Darwinist example I've ever heard; I'm really surprised it keeps being repeated. There are many intelligences responsible for the Internet; everyone with their own webpage and blog, to the designers of the hardware and software, including protocals and copper and fiber optic cables.

You seem to be making a basic error of saying 'no single person designed' = 'no design'.

It's a great example of bottom up design. The designers are the participants not some overlord...it's not pre-designed...it's designed as it goes--as is all life. Life forms procreate and some of the offspring survive and reproduce (the replicators (life forms) are the designers--the gene vectors)...and that is how life evolves--no design intended. The internet is blindly designed by the participants who are just "doing their thing" and complexity evolves as a byproduct of that thing. If a design was intended or intelligent--why would there be waste and why would there be suffering and an arms race of predator against prey--parasite against host etc. And why would you need a designer if natural selection works quite well? Why would you make males produce so many spermatazoa when only one or two were needed. Why the waste...it's costly on the producer in terms of health and lifespan.

All we knew about atoms was true even when we had great gaps in our knowledge, you know. Pointing out parts of the theory not graspable is not a method of proving anything. Positing a designer, leads to nothing...except inner comfort...it doesn't change the reality...it doesn't help us understand or know more--it's just an added conundrum...which is invisible, immeasurable, and indistinguishable from the imaginary. It's a cop out...a way of saying "humans aren't meant to understand" or "there's a purpose for my existence" or "I'm not really going to cease existing..."

Why would theologins continually fail to grasp the notion that evolution is not just point mutations--it can happen by many different mechanisms--whole chromosomes even--translocations, duplications...but they keep positing a theory that fails to include any new knowledge. Not only that, they seem clueless as to how fast a "generation" can multiply in one-celled organisms nor do the seem to regard the many trillions of cells undergoing these divisions each second--they seem only to see the part that makes their wildly preposterous notion believable. I bet Tom Cruise would see the arguments that made Xenu seem real too.

Do you believers in intelligent design, think that National Geographic, the Smithsonian, Scientific American, the majority of geneticists, etc. are participating in a mass conspiracy or delusion to deny evidence of a designer.
If you thought you had evidence, where was it at Dover? Surely, you understand that the young earth creationists are wrong...why would you be so blindly tenacious in your own beliefs? The evidence looks more and more clearly like bottom up design--complexity without a designer--like the galaxies, mountains, viruses, crystals, etc. Natural laws are enough to design even amazing things like humans. Science is not on the verge of overthrowing evolution...in fact, the evidence only makes it all so much more obvious. Darwin never saw DNA. How amazed he would be to see the human and chimpanzee genome side by side in beautiful illustration of the notion he conveyed.

You think humans will never understand abiogenesis--but we keep plodding on and getting more clues...no god seems necessary yet; what will you do when it is proven? I guess you'll still have faith in whatever it is you need to believe. You'll say how mathematically improbable it all is, without admitting that your intelligent designer is even more improbable. Humans have always used gods or demons to explain that which they didn't understand. At one time, babies were "miracles" from god. We can make them in a testube now. People used to be afraid that such kids wouldn't have "souls". We have evolved. God is disappearing.

It seems like an ego need to presume that humans are so fantastical that they must have been designed with a purpose in mind. But humans are prone to see that in any complexity they see--our brains evolved to see agency to associate correlation with causation--to understand cause and effect and to try and manipulate it--

If life was intelligently designed, why is the only evidence an attempt to show gaps in evolutionary theory--whether it's irreducible complexity (repeatedly disproven), missing links (we now have tons of links) and bad math assuming 2 probabilities. There is actually a zillion probabilities...humans have been making up stories of their origins for quites some time. Of course, none of the holy books mentions evolution or DNA, though, it was in our makeup long before we became human. And that is because humans didn't know about it...and humans invented, wrote, translate, and interpret all the information we have.

Do you believe, perhaps, because you've been told good things will happen if you believe and bad things will happen to doubters? Perhaps there will be a published peer reviewed article showing evidence of intelligent design in the future, but I won't hold my breath. We have no evidence that anything just "poofs" into being and lots of evidence that humans believe all sorts of wacky things. We have also have lots of evidence of complexity in the natural world that is built from the bottom up--no "designer" necessary.

Just as the earth looks flat because we are little things upon it, it's hard to understand the magnitude of time, when our lives are so short...It's hard to understand trillions of divisions a second...it's hard to look at something amazing, and understand how it came to be-- But why would you need to posit a designer?

 

[martu]

I have had evolutionists correct my grammar, but Professor joobz, your English instructors should have never let you get past 1st grade. Why don’t you rephrase that collection of words into something intelligible and I’ll try to respond to it.

I'll admit I've only read the bible once but I missed the part where Jesus tells his followers to be rude unto others. Do you have a cite?

A question to all - why do we think are so many ID proponents Engineers?

 

[kleinman]

I have had evolutionists correct my grammar, but Professor joobz, your English instructors should have never let you get past 1st grade. Why don’t you rephrase that collection of words into something intelligible and I’ll try to respond to it.

I'll admit I've only read the bible once but I missed the part where Jesus tells his followers to be rude unto others. Do you have a cite?

Are their any evolutionists who aren’t thin skinned crybabies? You speak truthfully to them and they take it as rudeness.

There was a politician in this country 50 years ago by the name of Harry Truman. He said “I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”

Evolutionists are superficial with their own theory, so why should I think they are diligent with their reading of the Bible.

Dust off your Bible, get yourself a word concordance for the Bible and read what Jesus Christ said about the truth and how He responded to liars and hypocrites. Then you can compare what He said with the rest of what is written in the Bible. Since your single reading of the Bible has made you a Bible scholar, perhaps you would like to recite the 10 commandments from memory?