Translate

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Clearly true science and not political science supports intelligent design

I thought I would share a couple of items I have learned from this book I am reading on intelligent design which by the way for those new here is not trying to turn science to agree with religon but the opposite, that many scientists have found real problem with the evolution theory even though they were taught this in college. The biggest issue always is that various parts of the body is complex that it couldn't evolve which is one of the problems of evolution. Many parts of the body could not have evolved any more then a mouse trap which is a simple machine could evolve. If one part is missing the mouse trap doesn't work. Same with parts of the body which are 1,000 times more complex without one part it wouldn't function so HOW COULD IT HAVE EVOLVED??

Anyway, I am reading this book the Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design and here are two interesting facts.

Fact 1:The fossil record does seem to prove that the earth was populated by creatures that are no longer with us. The fossil record also provides evidence that the history of life has passed through several stages only the most recent of which includes us. For most pre-Darwinian geologists, the fossil record also COUNTED AGAINST A LITERAL SIX THOUSAND YEAR AGE FOR THE EARTH though NOT AGAINST A RECENT CREATION OF HUMAN BEINGS. That is very interesting although it doesn't provide all the answers and I have learned in life you can't know it all although the torah is not a history book although I admit I have trouble with the opinion that each day is let us say millions of years explanation from this as man should also be millions of years old if the sixth day was also a million years and studies do show that man is a recent creation. You could say that G-d created a world before this world that we know today but that world no longer exists although why would G-d do that I don't know but certainlly that could be an answer.

Fact 2: The oldest known fossils were from a geological period known as the Cambrian and this period DOES NOT START with one specie that evolves into other species. Instead, most of the major animal phyla and many of the major classes within them appear together abruptly in the Cambrian fully formed and this goes against Darwin's theory that all speices started from a single organism.

If you want to comment on this debate of intelligent design vs. evolution feel free to do so. I am only listed a few issues with evolution but there are many and it is a shame that darwin's theory you are not allowed to question it in many colleges whether as a student or teacher and if you do you are punished whether a teacher or student. Sad in school that are suppose to be places of discussion and sharing different idea's but this really isn't the case.

13 comments:

John the Skeptic said...

The main reason we see many more fossils starting in the Cambrian than we see in the pre-Cambrian is that hard-bodied creatures like trilobites first evolved in the Cambrian. Soft-bodied organisms (like worms) and single-celled organisms (like bacteria) do not fossilize very well.

Malcolm said...

you said Instead, most of the major animal phyla and many of the major classes within them appear together abruptly in the Cambrian fully formed and this goes against Darwin's theory that all speices started from a single organism

That is 'Abrubtly' in geological terms. In fact the period described as the cambrian explosion lasted at least 10 -20 million years - more than enough time for vast physiological changes to occur....

You said: it is a shame that darwin's theory you are not allowed to question it in many colleges whether as a student or teacher and if you do you are punished whether a teacher or student

Incorrect. The theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection is well established and backed up by huge volumes of data.

If you want to question its validity you need to provide strong evidence to back up your claim - otherwise you will not be taken seriously. So far, despite many attempts, no better explanation for the diversity of life on this planet has been offered.

Appeal to religious texts does not constitute scientific evidence.

No one is punished for questioning the theory. But you will not advance in your career in the biological sciences if you insist that the most fundamental concepts in biology are wrong without providing any evidence to back up your claim..

Analytical Adam said...

Well John the Skeptic this argument that you give has been rejected. But before I mention this regardless not having fossil records does not mean that therefore evolution is correct. At best you need more evidence. But anyway the argument you give recent evidence rejects this.

"In the past few decades, however, paleontologist have discovered microfossils of tiny bacteria in rocks estimated to be billions of years older then the Cambrian. Furthermore, detailed studies of fossils from the Cambrian explosion itself show that many of them were soft-bodied. According to Cambridge University paleonotologist Simon Conway Morris These remarkable [Cambrian] fossils reveal not only their outlines but sometimes even internal organs such as the intestines or muscles. The long-held notion that Precambrian organism must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials is now recognized as incorrect.
As more fossis are being discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was even more abrupt and extensive then previously envisioned. -1

1- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Intelligenet Design page 16-17.

Analytical Adam said...

Malcolm wrote > Incorrect. The theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection is well established and backed up by huge volumes of data.

Sorry Malcolm it isn't and you haven't provided any evidence that sticks and the issue that John raises doesn't prove evolution. It just is unclear and recent evidence proves John wrong.

Malcom wrote> Appeal to religious texts does not constitute scientific evidence.

Sorry Malcom there is no appeal to relgious texts. In fact I pointed out that most scientists including scientists that reject darwinism do believe the world is much older then 6,000 years old although human's are a recent development. If they were trying to fit ID to religious texts that would be a serious problem but it isn't about fitting a religious agenda it is about the fact that the evidence DOES NOT support darwin's theory. Regardless though the evidence supports a much older world then 6,000 years old but since this is about science not religon even the scientists that reject darwin for scientific reasons do agree the world is much older then 6,000 years old.

Have you ever read any of the scientific evidence that suggests that Darwin was wrong and there is much evidence that he was wrong. It doesn't sound like it. None of it has anything to do with religon what so ever. Any good theory withstands the evidence that disagrees. You should read some of the evidence on the other side and you will find all of it is based on science and math. None of it is based on religon.

I just mentioned two issues but there are many other problems with his theory including the complexity of many organs that couldn't have evolved any more then a computer. No evidence of any spieces to turn a water animal into a land animal has been found that suggest this evolutionary process. Those are just a few other problems with evolution.

John the Skeptic said...

"Well John the Skeptic this argument that you give has been rejected."

By whom? Do you have citations to the peer-reviewed literature?

"But before I mention this regardless not having fossil records does not mean that therefore evolution is correct."

No, but it does mean that this particular objection you raise is invalid.

"At best you need more evidence."

NDE is perhaps the most well-documented theory in all the sciences. It is supported by such varied sources of evidence as comparative anatomy, comparative biochemistry, genetics, virology, and paleontology. So if you want evidence, it's there by the truckload. As a starting point, I'd recommend the talkorigins.org web site.

"But anyway the argument you give recent evidence rejects this."

Actually, no.

"In the past few decades, however, paleontologist have discovered microfossils of tiny bacteria in rocks estimated to be billions of years older then the Cambrian. Furthermore, detailed studies of fossils from the Cambrian explosion itself show that many of them were soft-bodied. According to Cambridge University paleonotologist Simon Conway Morris These remarkable [Cambrian] fossils reveal not only their outlines but sometimes even internal organs such as the intestines or muscles. The long-held notion that Precambrian organism must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials is now recognized as incorrect.
As more fossis are being discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was even more abrupt and extensive then previously envisioned."


I did not say, and the scientific community is not saying, that fossilization of bacteria and soft-bodied multicellular organisms is impossible. It is simply much less common than fossilization of organisms with hard body structures. Once hard-bodied organisms evolved, we would expect to see much more fossilization. If fact, that is exactly what we see.

So the appearance of much larger numbers of fossils in the Cambrian, in particular fossils of hard-bodied organisms, is exactly what we would expect, and it is entirely consistent with NDE.

Moreover, the existence of these simple pre-Cambrian fossils negate your original point, that the more complex Cambrian organisms sprang from nowhere. Well, they did not: they evolved from simpler pre-Cambrian organisms, the very same simpler pre-Cambrian organisms that you just pointed out the existence of in your reply.

Malcolm said...

Malcolm :The theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection is well established and backed up by huge volumes of data.

Adam: Sorry Malcolm it isn't and you haven't provided any evidence that sticks


I didn't think it necessary to remind you of all the fields of study that support the idea of common descent. For starters look up
- geographical distribution of species
- comparative anatomy,
- taxonomy,
- embryology,
- cell biology,
- molecular biology,
- paleontology.

More recently as the technology to examine the genomes of organisms has become available it has been able to construct a tree showing the historical relationships between various species, phyla, and genera.
This tree, independently constructed, is almost identical to the tree constructed over centuries by other more traditional methods. This is pretty much incontrovertible evidence that the model of species relationships used by biologists today is largely correct.

Adam: Have you ever read any of the scientific evidence that suggests that Darwin was wrong.
What evidence? The fact that mutations occur, and that some variations are more successful than others is undeniable. the rest is just detail.

Malcom wrote> Appeal to religious texts does not constitute scientific evidence.

Sorry Malcom there is no appeal to relgious texts.


Really? Maybe not from you on this page but it is the only reason that Evolution is a controversial topic in the USA - because it conflicts with the religious beliefs of certain fundamentalist sects.

the complexity of many organs that couldn't have evolved any more then a computer
Such as? name one organ that *could not* have evolved, please. You are aware that Dembski's argument from irreducible complexity has been refuted many times? You should also be aware of the impossibility of proving a negative assertion.

No evidence of any spieces to turn a water animal into a land animal has been found that suggest this evolutionary process.
Really? Try these links for starters:
http://physiologyonline.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/18/4/151
http://tinyurl.com/cv85rm
http://respiratory-research.com/content/2/S1/1.5

I don't pretend to understand all of the information presented in the papers I reference above, but I do know that tens of thousands of people smarter than you or I who spend their lives studying these things have presented evidence that shows the evolution of aquatic species, to amphibians, to air breathers.

To say there is 'No evidence' is simply wrong. To repeat it would be lying.

ps my name is malcolm, not malcom.

John the Skeptic said...

By the way, one of the single most persuasive pieces of evidence for evolution is the presence of identical endogenous retroviruses (erv) in the genomes of humans and other apes. An erv is like a small scar in our genome, left over from an ancestral viral infection.

Here is a brief video explaining what ervs are, and how they support NDE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI&feature=related

Analytical Adam said...

Sorry for not responding in a while but here is my response.

Malcolm wrote:

>Really? Maybe not from you on this page but it is the only reason that Evolution is a controversial topic in the USA - because it conflicts with the religious beliefs of certain fundamentalist sects.

Malcolm, that is simply not true. There are some in that category but many are not. Scientists who don't agree with evolution nevertheless have said the world is not recent although human's are. So that refutes your idea right off the bat.

Second of all much of the EVIDENCE has problems with it and biologists and others have found problems with some of the evidence they used to claim the theory is true. Why is it called a theory if it is the truth.

Lastly, it is darwinists who have shown extremism by claiming anyone who disagrees is a fanatic and dumb which we all know people engage in name calling when they don't have the facts on their side. Michael Behe came to his conclusions from science not religon. Many journals refuse to publish his response. If his response is wrong don't you think they would publish his response and then refute it. If they don't publish it it is because they don't have an answer. His example of a mouse trap could not evolved and while each part may have some use it wouldn't be in the place it was except the mouse trap and clearly it was designed and didn't develop randomly from one piece of wood.

Your idea that this is a negative assertion is basically saying we should assume everything random unless proven otherwise. The problem with that is that if someone show a car they would not assume it happened randomly they would assume somebody made the car. So to assume that because species are so complex there must have been a creator is a reasonable assertion. And the response to this criticism is not very convincing.

It seems your site are government sites and aren't very convincing since I have read the other side which you haven't.

It sounds to me that you both feel that anything suggesting there is a G-d you have to refute and that is extremism too and shows you have a bias as well. I don't agree with everything that goes on in organized religion but it seems obvious to me that whatever your beliefs there is an intelligent design to the world and it was not random.

Which is another problem with the theory is natural selection only works on a very limited way but does not lead to change in species and if the conditions change the species go back to the original condition. This was the case with beaks in a certain climate. But when the climate changed the beaks when back to normal. They didn't turn into another species.

So it is a THEORY and the scientists I have read who have problems with evolution sound more convincing then the one's who support evolution and that certain journals will refuse to publish anything that doesn't agree with Darwinism says it all. If their theory was so correct they could hear problems with their theory and respond to it. If they can't then I think they have something to hide.

Analytical Adam said...

Anyway here is a link on intelligent design all by scientists and other intellectuals who their own studies and observations caused them to question evolution.

The mystery of life

Ron Krumpos said...

There are three excellent books related to this topic, written by contemporary scientists who are also deeply religious. Intelligent design need not mean creationism; evolution need not mean lack of intelligence.

"The Language of God," by Francis S. Collins (Free Press/Simon & Schuster 2006). Dr Collins was head-Human Genome Project. He believes that faith in God and science can co-exist and be harmonious.

"Let There be Light," by Howard Smith (New World Library 2006). Dr. Smith is a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center. He explains how modern study of the cosmos complements the Kabbalah.

"Intelligence in Nature," by Jeremy Narby (Jeremy P. Thatcher/Penguin 2005). Dr. Narby has a doctorate in anthropology. He makes a reasoned connection between shamanistic beliefs and modern science.

Analytical Adam said...

Thanks Ron. The books you mention are just talking about believing in G-d and science. Yes I don't see that being a contradiction.

The last book you mention I don't know what to make because I don't really believe in Kaballah today. A lot of this is just taking out of pop psychology. I think a lot of Kaballah is not really legit. It is about as legit as evolution is.

Ron Krumpos said...

The discussions of creationism and evolution are about life on Earth, but our planet is just a speck in the Universe.

Most people, especially in the West, view life in linear time with a beginning and an end. To some in the East, life is cyclical and continuous; time repeats itself endlessly in an altered form. For them the Universe itself is infinite and eternal, a continuum of expansion and contraction.

The Oxford American Dictionary defines "brane" as: an extended object with any given number of dimensions, of which strings in string theory are examples with one dimension. Our universe is a 3-brane.

"Endless Universe / Beyond the Big Bang" (published by Doubleday 2007) was written by Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein professor of physics at Princeton, and Neil Turok, Chair of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge. They write:
"The big bang was not the beginning but the moment separating our current period of expansion and cooling from a previous one. ...the universe has an extra dimension [beyond space-time] bounded by branes...the branes collided with each other to create the bang."

In "The Fabric of the Cosmos (published by Vintage Books 2005), Columbia University professor of physics and mathematics Brian Greene says:
"...if cosmological evolution on our three-brane [universe] is driven by repeated collisions with a nearby brane, time as we know it would span only one of the universe's many cycles, with one big bang followed by another, and then another."

Ron Krumpos said...

Physicists are searching for the "creator"; they call it the Higgs boson. Evolution came later. To say evolution is not intelligent or lacks design is to deny recent discoveries of microbiology and astrophysics. Before anyone rejects ID entirely, they should read the 40 books on psychology, biology and physics in the bibliographies of my e-book at http://www.suprarational.org If we were to completely dismiss that which we didn't understand, progress in science and technology would come to a halt. It is the mysteries of life that drive researchers onward.