Evolved?

Evolved? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

upNORTder -> Evolved? (10/6/2008 11:29:49 AM)
This video animation shows the inner workings of a cell. Do you really believe that this just appeared and wasn't designed by someone? Cell video

essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolved? (10/6/2008 12:19:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: upNORTder This video animation shows the inner workings of a cell. Do you really believe that this just appeared and wasn't designed by someone? Cell video Of course I think the video animation was designed by someone. The good people at XVIVO. As a less flip response, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this is an animation -- one in which "'there was definitely an effort to make it as cinematic as we could.' In some instances, that meant sacrificing literal accuracy for visual effect."

KaseyTom -> RE: Evolved? (10/6/2008 1:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: upNORTder This video animation shows the inner workings of a cell. Do you really believe that this just appeared and wasn't designed by someone? Cell video It took a billion years for this type of cell to evolve from the much more primitive lifeforms that were little more than replicating DNA.

Jhud -> RE: Evolved? (10/6/2008 2:02:39 PM)
quote: It took a billion years for this type of cell to evolve from the much more primitive lifeforms that were little more than replicating DNA. Well other than the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it took "a billion years" as there is no evidence it could happen unguided in any amount of time, the reality is the essential machinery and information codes of cells a fairly ubiquitous, and so appear to have existed from the very beginning of the existence of the cell. There is no naturalistic explanation for this.

KaseyTom -> RE: Evolved? (10/6/2008 3:02:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: It took a billion years for this type of cell to evolve from the much more primitive lifeforms that were little more than replicating DNA. Well other than the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it took "a billion years" as there is no evidence it could happen unguided in any amount of time, the reality is the essential machinery and information codes of cells a fairly ubiquitous, and so appear to have existed from the very beginning of the existence of the cell. There is no naturalistic explanation for this. Sure there is. You just need a newly formed earth-like planet the right distance from an appropriate sun covered with a hot soup of organic chemicals. Add the energy of a million volcanoes and billions of lighting strikes, shake and stir for a billion years, and repeat on a trillion or so similar planets. Tough to reproduce in a lab though.

Aristocrat -> RE: Evolved? (10/6/2008 3:25:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: It took a billion years for this type of cell to evolve from the much more primitive lifeforms that were little more than replicating DNA. Well other than the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it took "a billion years" as there is no evidence it could happen unguided in any amount of time, the reality is the essential machinery and information codes of cells a fairly ubiquitous, and so appear to have existed from the very beginning of the existence of the cell. There is no naturalistic explanation for this. I think we have to look at the question, "what was the very beginning of the existance of the cell". And we find that science is showing the correlation between the material components we find on Earth, even in the Universe and that material contained in DNA. If basic DNA components such as RNA for example exists, we need to ask how it got from point A to point B. To say a creator did it does not even begin to answer the question. It's simply an unscientific overview.

Jhud -> RE: Evolved? (10/6/2008 4:17:10 PM)
quote: Sure there is. You just need a newly formed earth-like planet the right distance from an appropriate sun covered with a hot soup of organic chemicals. Add the energy of a million volcanoes and billions of lighting strikes, shake and stir for a billion years, and repeat on a trillion or so similar planets. Tough to reproduce in a lab though. You just need...? Oh, is that all? And what evidence do you have that this is all you need, given that you admit such a process is irreproducible?

Jhud -> RE: Evolved? (10/6/2008 4:20:50 PM)
quote: I think we have to look at the question, "what was the very beginning of the existance of the cell". And we find that science is showing the correlation between the material components we find on Earth, even in the Universe and that material contained in DNA. If basic DNA components such as RNA for example exists, we need to ask how it got from point A to point B. To say a creator did it does not even begin to answer the question. It's simply an unscientific overview. Well, yes, cells are made of atoms, just as all matter in our universe is. But so are computers - but saying that the fact that computers are composed of 'material components we find on earth' is evidence that computers can arise without intelligence is of course poppycock. Certain things can arise without intelligence of course, but we have absolutely no evidence that cells are one of those things.

Aristocrat -> RE: Evolved? (10/6/2008 4:49:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I think we have to look at the question, "what was the very beginning of the existance of the cell". And we find that science is showing the correlation between the material components we find on Earth, even in the Universe and that material contained in DNA. If basic DNA components such as RNA for example exists, we need to ask how it got from point A to point B. To say a creator did it does not even begin to answer the question. It's simply an unscientific overview. Well, yes, cells are made of atoms, just as all matter in our universe is. Actually, atoms weren't what I had in mind. I was thinking in terms of carbon, water, minerals etc.... quote: But so are computers - Computers are made of man-made materials. Let's get back on track. quote: but saying that the fact that computers are composed of 'material components we find on earth' is evidence that computers can arise without intelligence is of course poppycock. Of course computers cannot arise without intelligence by the simple token that its component parts are man-made. Some things are pretty obvious. quote: Certain things can arise without intelligence of course, but we have absolutely no evidence that cells are one of those things. Which is why creationists can continue to insist there is intelligence when there is nothing to even suggest such a thing.

DanJames -> RE: Evolved? (10/7/2008 12:06:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aristocrat quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud but saying that the fact that computers are composed of 'material components we find on earth' is evidence that computers can arise without intelligence is of course poppycock. Of course computers cannot arise without intelligence by the simple token that its component parts are man-made. Some things are pretty obvious. quote: Certain things can arise without intelligence of course, but we have absolutely no evidence that cells are one of those things. Which is why creationists can continue to insist there is intelligence when there is nothing to even suggest such a thing. Is anybody else thinking what I'm thinking here?

SophiesLadder -> RE: Evolved? (10/7/2008 12:14:17 PM)
Interesting remarks made by Anthony Flew in his book, "There Is A God": "The existence of conditions favorable to life still does not explain how life itself originated...there is not law of nature that instructs matter to produce end-directed, self-replicating entities." "Living matter possesses an inherent goal or end-centered organization that is nowhere present in the matter than preceded it." "It is true that protobiologists do have theories of the evolution of the first living matter, but they are dealing with a different category of problem. They are dealing with the interaction of chemicals, whereas our questions have to do with how something can be intrinsically purpose-driven and how matter can be managed by symbol processing." Simply describing the necessary initial conditions and providing the mechanism by which molecules replicate does not explain the intentionality or the teleological organization (life), of those molecules (let alone the semantic information found in genetic instructions).

Jhud -> RE: Evolved? (10/7/2008 2:17:26 PM)
quote: Actually, atoms weren't what I had in mind. I was thinking in terms of carbon, water, minerals etc.... Well yes, most matter in our universe is made of molecules ... rest of the point remains the same quote: Computers are made of man-made materials. Let's get back on track. Actually, computers are made of carbon, silicon, various minerals, etc.. quote: Of course computers cannot arise without intelligence by the simple token that its component parts are man-made. Some things are pretty obvious. Exactly, when you see an information driven machine, it's pretty obvious intelligence played a part in it's origin. The video in question here plainly demonstrates that the inner workings of the cell are exactly that. quote: Which is why creationists can continue to insist there is intelligence when there is nothing to even suggest such a thing. Well, as you said above, not only is it suggested, it's obvious.

robto -> RE: Evolved? (10/7/2008 3:44:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Exactly, when you see an information driven machine, it's pretty obvious intelligence played a part in it's origin. The video in question here plainly demonstrates that the inner workings of the cell are exactly that. quote: Which is why creationists can continue to insist there is intelligence when there is nothing to even suggest such a thing. Well, as you said above, not only is it suggested, it's obvious. Claiming it's "obvious" that intelligence played a part is completely begging the question. Someone unfamiliar with the physics of crystals might look at a snowflake and conclude it's obvious it was designed by an intelligent agent - how otherwise to explain its near-perfect symmetry and intricacy? But of course snowflakes can form by completely natural processes: no intelligence necessary. In the case of the origin of life on earth, we are in the same position. We don't know how it happened, so it's easy to see intelligence. But what we're really seeing is our own ignorance. To fill our ignorance with an "intelligent designer" is to subscribe to an intelligent-designer-of-the-gaps theology.

Jhud -> RE: Evolved? (10/7/2008 3:53:03 PM)
quote: Claiming it's "obvious" that intelligence played a part is completely begging the question. Someone unfamiliar with the physics of crystals might look at a snowflake and conclude it's obvious it was designed by an intelligent agent - how otherwise to explain its near-perfect symmetry and intricacy? But of course snowflakes can form by completely natural processes: no intelligence necessary. In a word, no. If the criteria proposed is that the existence of information systems and machinery are indicative of intelligence, then there is no way to confuse the structure of a snowflake with that of a cell - and we know plenty about what constitutes an information system and a machine to identify such structures in a cell. The simple fact is such structures and systems don't exist apart from intelligence, and it is reasonable to infer the involvement of intelligence when such structures and systems are found. quote: In the case of the origin of life on earth, we are in the same position. We don't know how it happened, so it's easy to see intelligence. But what we're really seeing is our own ignorance. To fill our ignorance with an "intelligent designer" is to subscribe to an intelligent-designer-of-the-gaps theology. I am always suprised by this obviously flawed logic. You admit you, "don't know how it happened" and yet feel comfortable dismissing intelligence and accepting that naturalistic mechanisms are capable of producing such structures and systems. Therein lies the ignorance.

Aristocrat -> RE: Evolved? (10/7/2008 4:50:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Actually, atoms weren't what I had in mind. I was thinking in terms of carbon, water, minerals etc.... Well yes, most matter in our universe is made of molecules ... rest of the point remains the same As long as you know what I'm referring to as common elements found in the natural world. quote: quote: Computers are made of man-made materials. Let's get back on track. Actually, computers are made of carbon, silicon, various minerals, etc.. That doesn't change my point that a computer requires man-made parts and materials to be built. And these manufactured parts that are sold wholesale to engineers is way off the subject. I will reiterate my statement: " .........we find that science is showing the correlation between the material components we find on Earth, even in the Universe and that material contained in DNA. If basic DNA components such as RNA for example exists, we need to ask how it got from point A to point B." We already know how computers got from point A to point B. The parts were manufactured in a factory. I don't wish to change the subject right now, if you don't mind. I'm making a point. quote: quote: Of course computers cannot arise without intelligence by the simple token that its component parts are man-made. Some things are pretty obvious. Exactly, when you see an information driven machine, it's pretty obvious intelligence played a part in it's origin. Its obvious because any one of us with the right training can build a computer, unlike life. The parts are available and its been done over and over. quote: The video in question here plainly demonstrates that the inner workings of the cell are exactly that. They are exactly what? Man made computers made from manufactured parts that anyone with the right skills could produce?????? You are kidding, right?

essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolved? (10/7/2008 4:58:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Claiming it's "obvious" that intelligence played a part is completely begging the question. Someone unfamiliar with the physics of crystals might look at a snowflake and conclude it's obvious it was designed by an intelligent agent - how otherwise to explain its near-perfect symmetry and intricacy? But of course snowflakes can form by completely natural processes: no intelligence necessary. In a word, no. If the criteria proposed is that the existence of information systems and machinery are indicative of intelligence, then there is no way to confuse the structure of a snowflake with that of a cell robto's not equating snowflakes and cells, just the arguments. If we did not know how snowflakes or giant's causeways originated, we might be inclined to suppose they were designed objects. And we would be wrong. This 'argument' is invalid. If we do not know how cells originated (and we don't), we might be inclined to suppose they were designed objects. But the additional complexity of a cell (as compared to a snowflake) does not miraculously make an invalid argument valid. quote: The simple fact is such structures and systems don't exist apart from intelligence That's begging the question. quote: You admit you, "don't know how it happened" and yet feel comfortable dismissing intelligence and accepting that naturalistic mechanisms are capable of producing such structures and systems. If the ID crowd were to set aside their preferred methods of science by press release and popular book, so that they could put together a sensible and testable scientific theory, we might then be able to judge between these two alternatives. As it is, ID is little more than a modern iteration of Paley's philosophical argument by design.

Jhud -> RE: Evolved? (10/7/2008 6:02:46 PM)
quote: robto's not equating snowflakes and cells, just the arguments. If we did not know how snowflakes or giant's causeways originated, we might be inclined to suppose they were designed objects. And we would be wrong. This 'argument' is invalid. If we do not know how cells originated (and we don't), we might be inclined to suppose they were designed objects. But the additional complexity of a cell (as compared to a snowflake) does not miraculously make an invalid argument valid. The argument isn't based on mere 'complexity' but on the functional aspect of a cell; as such, there is no comparison between cells and snowflakes, and the comparison is invalid. quote: That's begging the question. It's not, it's a simple undeniable fact, which you can't contradict, so you are dissembling. quote: If the ID crowd were to set aside their preferred methods of science by press release and popular book, so that they could put together a sensible and testable scientific theory, we might then be able to judge between these two alternatives. As it is, ID is little more than a modern iteration of Paley's philosophical argument by design. All the atheists have to do to contradict the falsifiable scientific notion that information systems and machinery cannot arise apart from intelligence is to simply demonstrate otherwise; their inability to do so further verifies the notion.

Jhud -> RE: Evolved? (10/7/2008 6:07:06 PM)
quote: As long as you know what I'm referring to as common elements found in the natural world. The response in the same either way. quote: That doesn't change my point that a computer requires man-made parts and materials to be built. And these manufactured parts that are sold wholesale to engineers is way off the subject. I will reiterate my statement: " .........we find that science is showing the correlation between the material components we find on Earth, even in the Universe and that material contained in DNA. If basic DNA components such as RNA for example exists, we need to ask how it got from point A to point B." We already know how computers got from point A to point B. The parts were manufactured in a factory. I don't wish to change the subject right now, if you don't mind. I'm making a point. A computer is simply an information processing machine, as is a cell. The origin of such machines (as you acknowledge above) requires intelligently designed parts. quote: Its obvious because any one of us with the right training can build a computer, unlike life. The parts are available and its been done over and over. Exactly, with sufficient intelligence, one can develop an information processing machine, my point. quote: They are exactly what? Man made computers made from manufactured parts that anyone with the right skills could produce?????? You are kidding, right? They are exactly that - Information processing machines.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolved? (10/7/2008 6:35:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: That's begging the question. It's not, it's a simple undeniable fact, which you can't contradict, so you are dissembling. I am not dissembling. If you wish to establish that "such structures and systems don't exist apart from intelligence," you cannot say that it is a "simple fact" that "such structures and systems don't exist apart from intelligence." quote: All the atheists have to do... Why would atheists want to do that? I'm content to let the biologists (theist and atheist alike) do biology. [sm=icon_smile_idea.gif]Besides, it is a simple fact that cells are an example of complex structures and systems arising without intelligence. quote: is to simply demonstrate otherwise; their inability to do so further verifies the notion. Just like your inability to argue against the pixie-mediated theory of gravity further verifies the notion. For ID to be taken seriously, its supporters first have to make a positive scientific case for it.

Aristocrat -> RE: Evolved? (10/7/2008 8:20:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: As long as you know what I'm referring to as common elements found in the natural world. The response in the same either way. Yes, if you were not addressing my posts it would. As it stands if you are replying to my posts your point is not relevant. quote: quote: That doesn't change my point that a computer requires man-made parts and materials to be built. And these manufactured parts that are sold wholesale to engineers is way off the subject. I will reiterate my statement: " .........we find that science is showing the correlation between the material components we find on Earth, even in the Universe and that material contained in DNA. If basic DNA components such as RNA for example exists, we need to ask how it got from point A to point B." We already know how computers got from point A to point B. The parts were manufactured in a factory. I don't wish to change the subject right now, if you don't mind. I'm making a point. A computer is simply an information processing machine, as is a cell. A computer is the result of a continuing production process that requires man-made components to make it work. A living cell is not anywhere near that in definition nor application. quote: The origin of such machines (as you acknowledge above) requires intelligently designed parts. But then they have to be manufactured to meet the specifications of the designers. A living cell requires nothing from outside its own structure to be a cell. quote: quote: Its obvious because any one of us with the right training can build a computer, unlike life. The parts are available and its been done over and over. Exactly, with sufficient intelligence, one can develop an information processing machine, my point. I didn't say intelligence, I said training. Are you saying the ID trained before attempting to make life and the ID buys the needed parts in a market place? And are you saying that a manufacturer designs parts to meet he specifications of the designer? Does this factory still exist, by any chance? Can we visit it?

Raptorman -> RE: Evolved? (10/8/2008 9:27:57 AM)
ID proponents actually are making something of a positive case, and have been for years. Whenever we find interacting systems remotely as complicated and specific as cells, they have always been man-made. Thus, they are arguing that the most reasonable conclusion is that something or somebody made the cell. It's not just a bunch of guys yelling "we don't know how this happens, so God did it!" BTW, Essentialsaltes, cells are "not the product of intelligence" only because they arise from other cells. The issue we wonder about is where the first cells came from. Just thought I should mention that... Why is anybody still using crystallization in this debate? We have firmly established that crystals happen because of the natural inclination of their constituent parts. When cooling from liquid material (whether it be water or subterranean magma), the molecules tend to align into geometric patterns, like blocks stacking on top of one another. As far as I know, protobiologists have had a considerably more difficult time hypothesizing the processes which would, less frequently, give rise to biological life, no matter how many times we have run experiments with differing conditions/ingredients/time spans. Despite the impressive and commendable effort to discover "natural inclinations" to life, so far all it has done is make those inclinations more elusive, if they exist at all. Thus, it is not up to the intelligent design theorists to show that a designer could have made life. The burden is upon protobiologists to show how, despite all of their endless complexity and carrying out of specified tasks, the first functional cells could still have arisen via natural means. Natural origins will not exactly be the most believable scenario when an object is as complicated as a pocket watch, let alone a supercomputer.

Jhud -> RE: Evolved? (10/8/2008 9:40:40 AM)
quote: I am not dissembling. If you wish to establish that "such structures and systems don't exist apart from intelligence," you cannot say that it is a "simple fact" that "such structures and systems don't exist apart from intelligence." Sure I can; feel free to falsify by showing a single case to the contrary. quote: Why would atheists want to do that? I'm content to let the biologists (theist and atheist alike) do biology. Besides, it is a simple fact that cells are an example of complex structures and systems arising without intelligence. Well I trhink it would be in atheists interest to demonstrate intelligence isn't neccesary. I am sure they would if they could. quote: Just like your inability to argue against the pixie-mediated theory of gravity further verifies the notion. For ID to be taken seriously, its supporters first have to make a positive scientific case for it. It is a positive case; we have milllions of examples of intelligence being used to produce information driven machinery by intelligent agents; none by 'pixies'.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolved? (10/8/2008 10:23:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raptorman ID proponents actually are making something of a positive case, and have been for years. Whenever we find interacting systems remotely as complicated and specific as cells, they have always been man-made. This is clearly false, since cells themselves are not man-made. quote: BTW, Essentialsaltes, cells are "not the product of intelligence" only because they arise from other cells. The issue we wonder about is where the first cells came from. Just thought I should mention that... I certainly realize that. And since, so far as I know, intelligence cannot exist without cells, cells cannot be a product of intelligence. quote: Why is anybody still using crystallization in this debate? Because it is a perfect example of how our intuition of design can mislead us. Yes, we now understand how it works. That's the point! That's what shows this intuition is fallible.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolved? (10/8/2008 10:39:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud It is a positive case; we have milllions of examples of intelligence being used to produce information driven machinery by HUMAN BEINGS Fixed that for you. Sadly, human beings were not around before the first cells existed on earth. So that cannot be the explanation for life. But to lean further in your direction: Do you have scientific evidence for non-human intelligences that existed before life on earth? Now you cannot point to life as evidence, since that would make your argument circular (or again begging the question): Statement to be proved: Life could only have come from non-human intelligences that existed before life on earth. Supporting evidence: We know there are non-human intelligences that existed before life on earth, because there is life (and life could only have come from non-human intelligences that existed before life on earth). Bzzt! You can't use the statement you're trying to prove to prove it.

Jhud -> RE: Evolved? (10/8/2008 11:13:55 AM)
quote: Fixed that for you. Sadly, human beings were not around before the first cells existed on earth. So that cannot be the explanation for life. But to lean further in your direction: Do you have scientific evidence for non-human intelligences that existed before life on earth? Now you cannot point to life as evidence, since that would make your argument circular (or again begging the question): Statement to be proved: Life could only have come from non-human intelligences that existed before life on earth. Supporting evidence: We know there are non-human intelligences that existed before life on earth, because there is life (and life could only have come from non-human intelligences that existed before life on earth). I would certainly be amenable to the idea that the evidence we see is of the activity of a human-like intelligence; if that is what you want to argue, I agree completely.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI