Evolution VS Intelligent Design
The Theory of Evolution is simple and easy to understand. It's also convenient to cling to if you don't want to be bothered with the idea of an omnipotent arbiter of good and evil and the associated immutable standards of morality. Those of you that need a worldview adjusted to your existential philosophy and associated deviant behaviors won't care about the following questions. Those of you that think evolution actually makes more sense than intelligent design might want to read on. I once thought evolution made more sense but then I learned something about organic science.
If I remember correctly Darwin's Book is called "The Origin of Species." Here are some hard questions for Evolutionists about the Origin of Species:
Was the first single cell organism an animal or plant?
If it was an animal what did it eat? Animals only eat organic material.
If it was a plant, it would have needed to synthesize it's own food. It would need to bio-originate with a fully functioning photosynthesis capability. Probabability? Zero Point Zero to 20 decimal places.
But for the purpose of exploration, lets just allow that the immaculate bio-origination with a fully functioning photosynthesis actually happened. We now have a living single cell creature. Let's assume it has an extraordinary life span for a single cell creature, say... 200 million years. At the end of 200 million years, how many single cell creatures would there be?
Answer: One. This single cell creature would not be able to reproduce unless it had what we call DNA. DNA strings are the most complex molecular structures known to man. And it would have to bio-originate as one of these critters that splits itself in half to reproduce. Every living creature has DNA. Even viruses. Viruses steal the cells of other creatures to reproduce their DNA.
So this immaculate bio-genesis would also need to include the spontaneous accidental construction of DNA and the instinct/coding to cause reproduction. Probability? Add some more zeros...a lot more zeros.
Maybe more than one of these critters spontaneously bio-genesized. If there were two of them, they'd need to have recombinant DNA to reproduce. They'd also need to be in the same place at the same time and they'd need to have the instinct to reproduce. Add some more zeroes.
But just for the point of argument, lets say it happened just like that. Shazaaam! Right there in the midst of some primordial sea, a spontaneous, bio-genesis of a single-cell plant with fully functional photosythesis, DNA and reproductive instinct/coding. It starts reproducing. It makes more and more of itself. It even evolves into multi-celled plants. They multiply like roaches. They consume carbon dioxide and water and turn it into oxygen. There are no predators. What happens when a life form has no predators? It reproduces until it over tasks the food supply. Plants everywhere. The whole planet is green.
It's likely that the plants would consume all the carbon dioxide until they choked themselves to a level of balance. There are none of the little microbes and fungi that compost plants down into rich topsoil, the only reduction would be solar decay and combustion started by lightning, volcano or meteor. Maybe that would happen often enough to keep a supply of CO2 to keep the plants growing.
Suddenly at some point, a plant mutates and stops consuming carbon dioxide and begins to burn oxigen and feed on plants. Or suddenly a plant gives birth to an animal. I like science fiction, and that one sounds like science fiction to me. A plant giving birth to an animal. What are the odds on that one? Add some more zeroes.
These are just the questions that come off the top of my head. We need to remember that Chucky Darwin didn't know about DNA. He didn't have electron microscopes or a reasonable understanding of photosynthesis. In fact, organic chemistry was in the dark ages.
But there's another direction to start from: What if there was an original lifeform that didn't need photosynthesis and DNA. It needed nothing but sunlight, rocks to eat and water to absorb. It can reproduce itself and make it's own food. Sounds like a pretty hardy critter. Can live in the most austere of environments. Actually, it sounds like a weed. OK, cool... where is it now? It was prolific then but none of them survived. It could live then but not now. Now there's too many sources of nutrients to eat. But eventually it developed photosynthesis even though it didn't need it and it developed DNA even though it didn't need it either. Cool - it just invents two complex chemical processes for no reason. and then after a while it get tired of that and changes itself into an animal. Sounds pretty far-fetched to me.
Mr Darwin has sold you a bridge that goes most of the way from the present to the origin of life and then ends abruptly just before the other side. You can believe in it if you want. But it will require you abandon hard science and make a leap of faith. It requires an energetic leap of faith.
The requirement for a leap of faith means the theory of evolution becomes a religion when examined under 21st Century Science. Intelligent Design answers all these questions while Mr. Darwin stands speechless.
If I remember correctly Darwin's Book is called "The Origin of Species." Here are some hard questions for Evolutionists about the Origin of Species:
Was the first single cell organism an animal or plant?
If it was an animal what did it eat? Animals only eat organic material.
If it was a plant, it would have needed to synthesize it's own food. It would need to bio-originate with a fully functioning photosynthesis capability. Probabability? Zero Point Zero to 20 decimal places.
But for the purpose of exploration, lets just allow that the immaculate bio-origination with a fully functioning photosynthesis actually happened. We now have a living single cell creature. Let's assume it has an extraordinary life span for a single cell creature, say... 200 million years. At the end of 200 million years, how many single cell creatures would there be?
Answer: One. This single cell creature would not be able to reproduce unless it had what we call DNA. DNA strings are the most complex molecular structures known to man. And it would have to bio-originate as one of these critters that splits itself in half to reproduce. Every living creature has DNA. Even viruses. Viruses steal the cells of other creatures to reproduce their DNA.
So this immaculate bio-genesis would also need to include the spontaneous accidental construction of DNA and the instinct/coding to cause reproduction. Probability? Add some more zeros...a lot more zeros.
Maybe more than one of these critters spontaneously bio-genesized. If there were two of them, they'd need to have recombinant DNA to reproduce. They'd also need to be in the same place at the same time and they'd need to have the instinct to reproduce. Add some more zeroes.
But just for the point of argument, lets say it happened just like that. Shazaaam! Right there in the midst of some primordial sea, a spontaneous, bio-genesis of a single-cell plant with fully functional photosythesis, DNA and reproductive instinct/coding. It starts reproducing. It makes more and more of itself. It even evolves into multi-celled plants. They multiply like roaches. They consume carbon dioxide and water and turn it into oxygen. There are no predators. What happens when a life form has no predators? It reproduces until it over tasks the food supply. Plants everywhere. The whole planet is green.
It's likely that the plants would consume all the carbon dioxide until they choked themselves to a level of balance. There are none of the little microbes and fungi that compost plants down into rich topsoil, the only reduction would be solar decay and combustion started by lightning, volcano or meteor. Maybe that would happen often enough to keep a supply of CO2 to keep the plants growing.
Suddenly at some point, a plant mutates and stops consuming carbon dioxide and begins to burn oxigen and feed on plants. Or suddenly a plant gives birth to an animal. I like science fiction, and that one sounds like science fiction to me. A plant giving birth to an animal. What are the odds on that one? Add some more zeroes.
These are just the questions that come off the top of my head. We need to remember that Chucky Darwin didn't know about DNA. He didn't have electron microscopes or a reasonable understanding of photosynthesis. In fact, organic chemistry was in the dark ages.
But there's another direction to start from: What if there was an original lifeform that didn't need photosynthesis and DNA. It needed nothing but sunlight, rocks to eat and water to absorb. It can reproduce itself and make it's own food. Sounds like a pretty hardy critter. Can live in the most austere of environments. Actually, it sounds like a weed. OK, cool... where is it now? It was prolific then but none of them survived. It could live then but not now. Now there's too many sources of nutrients to eat. But eventually it developed photosynthesis even though it didn't need it and it developed DNA even though it didn't need it either. Cool - it just invents two complex chemical processes for no reason. and then after a while it get tired of that and changes itself into an animal. Sounds pretty far-fetched to me.
Mr Darwin has sold you a bridge that goes most of the way from the present to the origin of life and then ends abruptly just before the other side. You can believe in it if you want. But it will require you abandon hard science and make a leap of faith. It requires an energetic leap of faith.
The requirement for a leap of faith means the theory of evolution becomes a religion when examined under 21st Century Science. Intelligent Design answers all these questions while Mr. Darwin stands speechless.
posted by ironcross11 | 7:20 PM
8 Comments:
"Intelligent Design answers all these questions while Mr. Darwin stands speechless."
Sure, ID answers questions, but it answers them the wrong way. It is a bastardization of science. It says things are too complicated to understand and just ends there. That is not how science works. Sure, you can say we don't know and you're right. We don't know. Just because something provides simple answers to a complex problem does not make it right. Scientists never admit that they know all the answers and never admit that they are completely right.
Look in recent scientist journals and tell me if you see anyone peer reviewing ID. I'll answer for you: theRE aren't. It does nothing to scientifically explain the world around us and does not use the scientific method at all. It is a psuedoscience that muddies the world of science.
The way I see it is that religion and science have two different realms and each help answer a different set of questions. Religion is for theological questions and science is for natural and scientific questions. Keep them seperate please.
Though I do not know how we came into being, I do know that the more I read about evolution, the more it makes sense. The Origin of Life is just a small fragment of the evolutionary theory and certainly the easiest to attack because it is the section we know the least about.
Please do not say that because evolution can't explain the answer, than it must be ID. Conclusions do not work like that. Good premise, bad conclusion.
So we want to teach something that we cannot possibly scientifically support as the origin of mankind, but toss out the cultural and religious experience that has made Western Culture what it is.
When I dig up an old tool or automotive part in my pasture, I don't look at it and say, "over millions and millions of years, the earth shaped this at random". I look at it and say, that's pretty complex to be part of a random process, I'll bet that was created by an intelligent being and later discarded by a less intelligent being.
Once again you fail to even attempt to answer the question. I challenge you to come up with even the slightest framework of a theory that would explain the origin of DNA and the transition from plant to animal.
That dog don't hunt.
To discount the impact of something just because you can't measure it is the alloy of arrogance and ignorance.
Spirituality has proven benefits to health, happiness, and longevity, yet you think it can't possibly have any basis in reality. Can you hear yourself?
You're all behind things that can be documented unless it means that there's some validity to an idea you want to refute. Then it's just hogwash.
I'm waiting for science to explain the answers to those questions. Until then, Darwin is just a crackpot dreamer with some nice drawings.
Is it wrong of me to admit that I don’t know? Neither science nor ID has provided me with enough evidence for me to trust in their ‘origin of life’ theories. Certainly, science seems to be going in the right direction and may eventually lead to some inkling of the truth. Given, the ability for evolution to explain this is just a small facet also helps as well.
The problem I have with people digging up mechanical parts and using them as an argument against evolution is that we know someone created the item. If an evolutionist sees a watch in the desert, he isn’t going to say it evolved there from many other tinier watches or whatnot, he’s going to say there is a watchmaker because we have evidence of watch factories and watchmakers. Is that the case in nature? The answer is no. We don’t have a factory churning out animals. They are being born so obviously the process must be much different. Next, we find fossils and we wonder why they look so different from animals today and soon begin finding fossils that are similar to other animals of today and through various complicated methods, we can deduce that they are transitionary fossils in an evolutionary sense. It makes sense. To throw up your arms in exasperation and say, “Whoop, we can’t explain it, must mean there was a creator” is slapping science in the face. Certainly a simplistic version of evolution science but you get where I'm going and that this space is not meant for books that have been written on this material.
Repeatedly, science has eroded the ground that religion stands on. People used to think that lightning was God’s wrath. Now they find that silly. This is happening all the time. With evolution, it’s happening while we speak. There are Christian scientists everywhere who are devout Christens and still support evolution. It isn’t just a theory in the definition sense, it’s a scientific theory that crosses many fields of science.
To say science cannot explain just one small detail in the big scheme of things and refute it based on that is willful ignorance.
“Spirituality has proven benefits to health, happiness, and longevity, yet you think it can't possibly have any basis in reality. Can you hear yourself?”
This can be explained in a variety of ways. Personally, religion would never work for me. Facts work for me all the time and the fact that there is no empirical prove of God makes no sense to me. Santa Claus provides happiness to little kids but the fact remains that he does not exist. Certainly, you can see the effects he might have but that are just society’s reaction to this character, not the existence of the character. It comforts people that they think there is a reality after this when they die.
MY response here
http://acepilots.com/mt/2006/05/13/the-brutality-of-evidence/
aka,
The Commissar
If I remember correctly Darwin's Book is called "The Origin of Species."
If the fact that you had to struggle to remember the title of Darwin's book didn't show how little you have learned about "organic science", the rest of the post did.
So we want to teach something that we cannot possibly scientifically support as the origin of mankind, but toss out the cultural and religious experience that has made Western Culture what it is.
No.
Any further questions?
Look, I don't like ignorance and liberal hypocrisy any more than you do, but I don't like ignorance and conservative hypocrisy either. And you are arguing here from a position of near total ignorance of the subject. For example, you ask:
Was the first single cell organism an animal or plant?
And the answer, again, is no.
These are just the questions that come off the top of my head.
That's the problem. The questions you ask about evolution have already been answered in painstaking detail. The questions you ask about abiogenesis - how the first life forms (which were much simpler than single cells) came into existence - have been answered too, but rather more speculatively, since we don't know for sure.
I note that you focus most of your attention on abiogenesis rather than evolution. Intelligent Design actually focuses primarily on evolution, arguing that certain subsystems of already complex lifeforms cannot have arisen naturally. Unfortunately for ID's supporters, every example they have proposed has been shot down in flames, with clearly plausible evolutionary pathways identified.
What's more, we know that evolution happens. It's quite simple: We can see it happening. Whether all the details of the theory as it presently stands are correct is a question for considerable research and debate, but evolution is real, and it continues today.
We have seen, for example, a bacterium evolve the ability to eat nylon. This is not something that already existed, since we have earlier samples of the bacterium in question and they could not digest nylon at all. What's more, until quite recently there was no nylon for them to eat.
What's even more interesting is that we know exactly how this happened. It wasn't mathematically improbable, and did not require the hand of the divine (or of time travellers or space aliens, as some of the fellows of the Discovery Institute would have it). It was a single mutation, where part of one gene was copied into the wrong place. This then coded for a new protein), an enzyme that allowed the bacterium to digest nylon.
Read some of the work of the late Stephen Jay Gould. His work is marvellously accessible; he truly loves his subject matter and wants to share it with people. You can start with his collections of essays, beginning with The Panda's Thumb, or pick up Wonderful Life, which is the story of the Burgess Shale, a rock formation which contains marvellously detailed fossils of some of the earliest complex animals.
Give it a try. Please. There is so much beauty there in the world if you are willing to accept and understand it, rather than rejecting it because it does not fit your preconceptions.
So this immaculate bio-genesis would also need to include the spontaneous accidental construction of DNA and the instinct/coding to cause reproduction. Probability? Add some more zeros...a lot more zeros.
You do realize that this argument can be used, with very little modification to show how absurd and unlikely religious creation stories are...right?
It is not usually a good idea to use, as one of your main arguments, an argument that shoots down your own position as well. Just some advice.
Another dogmatic believer that calls their faith in a unproven sequence"science."
I have no doubt that the fabulously complex dna/rna blueprint has the capability to modify and adapt.
That is what evolution is.
I have complete confidence that it didn't originate accidentally.
Membranes (ain't no critter without some kind of membrane to keep the organic from mixing with the environment), some kind of energy intake/consumption process (life has to be fed) and reproduction (breed or die) all spontaneously originating.
Yeah, Right.
Post a Comment
<< Home