Login

Join for Free!
119234 members


Alas the creationists are right though...

Debate and discussion of any biological questions not pertaining to a particular topic.

Moderator: BioTeam

Alas the creationists are right though...

Postby GnnS » Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:04 am

Hi first of all i must explain that my English is not my native language so forgive me if i make some mistakes.It is about a month now that the debate Creation Vs Abiogenesis(Not creation vs evolution, evolution is a fact)bothers me.I must say that if you asked me a year ago i would claim that Life is a natural phenomenon undoubtfully, since Creation is a superstition

Then at some point i started to study scientific theories about how Life emerged on Earth and how it evolved.They are not satisfactory(and at some points they are irrational).What bothered me with science is the fact that claimed evolution doesnt have a plan it is based on natural selection and random genetic mutations(i am not a biologist so perhaps i am wrong at some points please correct me).I started to question certain scientific theories. I cannot disprove the fact that Natural selection exists(it is a fact).Then i started to wonder how traits like eyes, ears or the nose started to emerge.These traits fall in the category of random genetic mutations.In other words today we could be blind if a "special" neuron never existed

Then i thought that ears have a common characteristic with eyes(they both help us to understand the environment).I questioned the randomness theory.It cant be true.Surely both traits emerged to help us understand the environment.It isnt luck it isnt random.Then i tried to think how many random eye or ear mutations have occured elsewhere to the body of organisms.None.This is not randomness it is the logic of a designer.It was a shock for me since i suddenly realised that creationism sounds more logical compared to abiogenesis.Life doesnt have a blind logic, it has the logic of a designer.

Science at some point will have to face this designer's logic.The current scientific models dont touch the subject but at some point it must be studied how could Life, if it was really a natural phenomenon developed this logic...
GnnS
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:55 pm

Postby biohazard » Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:19 am

So you say it is more logical that someone designed life? Admittedly there is not a conclusive theory as to how life initially begun, but there are even less evidence and credible theories concerning the assumed designer. Just because we do not know how exactly life begun does not mean someone had to design it. Umm, who designed the designer, by the way?

I think you got something wrong about the randomness as well. The tools of evolution are random (that is, mutations). However, evolution itself is not. This applies to eyes and ears as well. If there is evolutionary pressure towards something, then it is more likely that something evolves that helps to lessen the pressure - so it is not random. Obviously there was a strong pressure towards sensing your environment better. A few lucky mutations gave some early organism a neuron able to sense light and sudenly it became better able to navigate towards light where the plankton were plentiful. This early "eye" was so successful that its owners became more numerous and thus the eye started to evolve.

This was just a simplified example, but I hope you got the point. In this hypothetical scenario, for example a poison stinger would have not evolved, since there was no need for such - this would evolve much later. Studying the organism's environment one can pretty successfully predict what features may evolve there and what not. Again, this is clearly not random if you can predict it.

Animals have camouflage, it is not random that they have it. It is because they need it. Animals have antennae, wings, red blood cells and kidneys all because there was some use for them. There was a constant pressure and a good working pair of kidneys made living easier, hence the kidney evolved. And so on.

What would have been pure randomness is if you desperately needed horns so that you could defend yourself from predators, but instead you got another butt hole :)

Mutations are random, but evolution steadily heads to the direction where there is least pressure. The pressure, in turn, is determined by the organism's imminent surroundings, not by what might be useful in the future. So evolution can of course come up with all kinds of useless inventions as well. For example, around industrial areas some insects have develpoed a darker camouflage because of the soot in the environment - and this trait would instantly became useless when humans installed proper pollution filters to their factories. But developing that dark colour was not random, even though the needed mutations were so. Natural selection simply "chose" the suitable mutations from the big number of overall mutations.
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Postby biohazard » Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:52 am

I came up with this odd metpahor that might help to better describe what I tried to say in my previous post. Imagine that:

You = Natural selection
Skyscraper = Eye
Factory = Gene pool
Blueprint = Environment

Now, you want to build a skyscraper. You have a factory that has an extremely high output of building blocks, but as a downside all the blocks come in random shapes and forms. So you must choose correct blocks from the useless ones and use them to build the skyscraper according to the blueprint you have. So, the skyscraper is not there because of a random chance, even though the building blocks were chosen from a random pool.

In terms of evolution, the natural selection (in the example You) selects randomly produced "building blocks", that is genes, from the gene pool (the factory) and those blocks produce purposeful things like eyes (the skyscraper). And the environment (the blueprint) is the element that determines, which blocks are useful - not random chance.
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm


Re: Alas the creationists are right though...

Postby canalon » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:43 pm

GnnS wrote:Then at some point i started to study scientific theories about how Life emerged on Earth and how it evolved.They are not satisfactory(and at some points they are irrational).


I will concede that we have no clue exactly at how life started and that many hypotheses are competing. But would you care to provide example of the irrational that you see?

GnnS wrote:What bothered me with science is the fact that claimed evolution doesn't have a plan it is based on natural selection and random genetic mutations(i am not a biologist so perhaps i am wrong at some points please correct me). I started to question certain scientific theories. I cannot disprove the fact that Natural selection exists(it is a fact). Then i started to wonder how traits like eyes, ears or the nose started to emerge. These traits fall in the category of random genetic mutations.In other words today we could be blind if a "special" neuron never existed


I thought you wanted to talk about abiogenesis? This is all about evolution, nothing to do about abiogenesis.
But let's not stop about such a little detail.
If you have no problem with natural selection, what is your problem with the emergence of complex traits like the eye? They did not evolve on one step, but by gradual improvements of what probably started as a patch of photosensitive cells. And yes we could have been blind if this specific patch of cells never evolved the way it did. Or have a completely different type of eyes like the squids or the insects.

GnnS wrote:Then i thought that ears have a common characteristic with eyes(they both help us to understand the environment).I questioned the randomness theory.It cant be true.Surely both traits emerged to help us understand the environment.It isnt luck it isnt random.Then i tried to think how many random eye or ear mutations have occured elsewhere to the body of organisms.None.This is not randomness it is the logic of a designer.It was a shock for me since i suddenly realised that creationism sounds more logical compared to abiogenesis.Life doesnt have a blind logic, it has the logic of a designer.

Science at some point will have to face this designer's logic.The current scientific models dont touch the subject but at some point it must be studied how could Life, if it was really a natural phenomenon developed this logic...


Why would the fact that living creatures evolved organs that allowed them to understand their environment would make you doubt the randomness of creation of mutations? As was pointed above, the random part is in the creation of mutations. The selection is far from random. It selects some qualities that will increase the fitness of their bearer. And the more the better/stronger the positive selection will be. You are conflating 2 different issues: the random creation of diversity and the very pointed selection. There is no logic necessary, no creation needed. So science will not touch a designer with a 10 foot pole since it is completely useless and that only people trying to force their religious beliefs into the real world in spite of all evidence that they are irrational and unsupported by any physical phenomenon

And one of the weakest point of all theory requiring a designer to be there is the origin of the designer. If organization could only arise from previous organization, then your designer itself needs a designer and so on. Any person with more than one neuron interacting should be able to see that.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby GnnS » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:23 am

I dont know gyes.I have a sense that science is wrong on some issues.To say that eyes, ears, nose are random genetic mutations its like saying that God did.You evade to explain how and why these traits first emerged.Surely science doesnt accept the idea that organisms are designed but i see myself in the mirror and i realize that i have eyebrows,eyelashes...How could i persuade myself that these traits do not require design?Science cannot always escape from this issue proclaiming that everything we have is coming from a random process...
GnnS
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:55 pm

Postby JackBean » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:16 pm

First you said that there are no doubts about evolution, what what are you discussing IS evolution and not biogenesis :roll:

Where did the creator come from?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re:

Postby canalon » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:45 pm

The fact that you cannot persuade yourself of something is not a good scientific argument against that something. Biologist have explained time and time again how complexity can arise from simpler thing. If you were ever interested in the subject you would have found the extensive literature on the subject and started to read it. But you just looked at yourself in the mirror and saw your eyes, and decided that it is so marvelous that it is beyond your comprehension. And that is the proof of a designer.
This only demonstrate your intellectual laziness and a probable lack of both understanding of science and imagination. You want to disprove evolution, go read and educate yourself and last try to come back with something that is not 10 times more stupid than subpar Behe. This guy demonstrated all the scientific value of the irreducible complexity argument at the Dover trial (or rather the lack of it), and you come here with even worse, wrapped in lies and deceptions. So back to study, and come back when you have more substance.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Jonl1408 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:42 pm

_at_ GnnS about your earlier post, about science being wrong, you messed up there. Science has simply been misinterpreted. Here is an example, if someone who had never seen a ballon before saw a balloon in the air, and thought that it was a ball, stated that they knew that balls fly, it would not make it correct, just misinterpreted. Many things in science have been misinterpreted, just like the Brontosaurus, which happened because a scientist that wanted to find a new dinosaur so badly, that he accidently made one up out of two different dinosaurs.
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould
User avatar
Jonl1408
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:26 am
Location: South Carolina

Postby Jonl1408 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:50 pm

_at_ GnnS if you really want to have a good source about science and the Bible, then you should check out the Get Answers section of Answers in Genesis.
_at_ Jack Bean, I meet your question with a question. Where did matter come from? In one of my earlier posts on a different subject, I said that if you go back to the beginning of either viewpoint, then you come up with either an eternal Intelligent Designer (God) or eternal matter.
_at_ Canalon why is it that you always answer people's arguments, whether scientific or otherwise with sarcasm, and pretty much call them stupid. That doesn't sound very intelligent. Why not discuss things calmly, with answers, rather than calling names.
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould
User avatar
Jonl1408
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:26 am
Location: South Carolina

Postby Jonl1408 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:09 pm

_at_ Biohazard
Who designed the Designer? Well, its either an Eternal Designer (God) or eternal matter, as I said before.
As to what you said about how none of that was random, I agree with you totally, but if it is not random then are you saying that it was Designed. Because animals getting just what they needed to survive sounds pretty Designed, to me.
Also by your example, are you saying that natural selection is an intelligent being, because if it isn't an intelligent being, which of course it is not, why and how would it know to give just the right changes.
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould
User avatar
Jonl1408
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:26 am
Location: South Carolina

Re:

Postby biohazard » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:27 am

Jonl1408 wrote:_at_ Biohazard
Also by your example, are you saying that natural selection is an intelligent being, because if it isn't an intelligent being, which of course it is not, why and how would it know to give just the right changes.



If something is not random, it still does not prove it was designed. If you drop an apple, it falls down - the outcome is predictable, just like with evolution the outcome can be predicted if we know the environment and selection pressure it causes well enough. In some other environment (say, outer space) the apple does not fall down. Just as we can predict the behaviour of the apple based on its environment we can predict the outcome of evolution. The problem is that evolution and all that it involves is often so incredibly complex phenomenon that we do not know all the factors affecting it, thus making predictions also much harder - but still doable in many cases.

So, no I'm not saying natural selection is an intelligent being - quite to the contrary. Natural selection can cause incredibly stupid things to happen as well because of its "short-sightedness". Take kiwi for an example: maybe it looked like a good idea to have the bird's wings disappear because there were no land predators around. However, natural selection, being completely unable to predict the future, did not happen to think that land predators might come from other continents. And not, because the lack of intelligence on behalf of the natural selection, the kiwi bird is in big trouble because freal cats and dogs hunt it, and it cannot even fly. And of course, this was figuratively speaking since in reality natural selection does not think or predict or see or do anything - it is just the effect of an organism's environment regarding that given organism.

So if there was any intelligence behind the design of the kiwi bird, surely the designer would have allowed the bird to keep its wings so that it could fly away from its predators that are now about to make the bird go extinct? Most definitely, natural selection has not given organisms all the right changes. Instead, some very crappy features exist as well - things that looked good at the time of their evolution, but turned out to be shitty later :)
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Postby Jonl1408 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:13 am

If the Creator, had made all animals, so that they wouldn't ever be eaten by other predators, then we would not be alive right now. The food chain is designed in such a way, that a species of animals should not go extinct, by being eaten by other animals, unless it becomes unbalanced, which is mostly where man comes into the picture, if man kills off all the wolves in an area, then there is going to be a humongous amout of bunnies, in the next few years.
If animals were all able to get away from each other or defend themselves from each other, it would be chaos. What if gazelles, evolved protection from their natural predators, and their predators couldn't kill them, then the predators would die off
slowly, until they became extinct. If you think about it animals are set up just right,
make some changes and you would mess up everything.

Also as to the comment about the kiwi, have you read up on how the humans hunted kiwis, and introduced stoats into their habitat to hunt them.

P.S. Just to make this clear I am not one of those people who protests cutting down trees and stuff
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould
User avatar
Jonl1408
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:26 am
Location: South Carolina

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests