Intelligent Design [ID theory]

Hey fellas. Having not been around much I went through the old threads to see if you guys had chatted about this and I apologise if its already been explored.

Intelligent Design [id] theory - have you heard of it? ID theory contends that life on Earth is too complex to have simply evolved through random chance, as Darwin had theorized, thus ID theorists suggest that instead, life [particularly homo-sapiens] can only have been 'designed' by a lead designer/creator.

Naturally, the scientific world - for the most part - have been quick to call this as being: 'creationist theory in disguise.' Interestingly though, here in Aus, a leading private Christian school, with minimal evidence at hand, has put ID theory straight into the curriculum.

Mr Bush in the US recently announced that he thought ID theory to be relatively plausible, given that Darwinism, he felt, was hardly infallible.

Is anybody here an ID convert or have an interest in being called as such?

<b><font color=green> "Nobody ever lives their life all the way up except bullfighters." - Ernest Hemingway, <i> The Sun Also Rises </i> </b> </font color=green>

ID=BS

s signature has been formatted to fit your scr

People that use this kind of reasoning have no clear concept on what evolution actually means. Darwin, btw, never said that life itself (the beginning of it) was not by design. He described the evolution of species.

Remember that what we observe today is the result of many eons of evolution, the failures didn't make it. We only see the failures of our own generation. Evolution does not only apply to genes, it can also be seen in action when you observe culture or even more general, ideas.

BigMac

<font color=green>(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into
(" )_(" )your signature to help him gain world domination.</font color=green>

The problem with your elephant scenario is that you are picturing an elephant sans trunk evolving a trunk. Take a look at the aardvark or anteater. They have long noses. Don't you think one of them could have just gotten big?

s signature has been formatted to fit your scr

In itself a valid point but it does not invalidate snorkius's issue about features that are not of any use while they're being developed. Which is why I made the point that not every change has to be gradual.

BigMac

<font color=green>(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into
(" )_(" )your signature to help him gain world domination.</font color=green>

Changes don't have to be, and are not, as proved by the existing fossil record - gradual. But I have a hard time believing that <b>BlAM!</b> and completely random-like, more than one mutation (just one individual has very little, if any, chance of changing the genome of a species) appear during the space of just a few generations, mutations to fit the changed environment perfectly.

<font color=blue>The day <font color=green>Microsoft</font color=green> will make something that doesn't suck is the day they'll start making vacuum cleaners.</font color=blue>

...*croons to the unintelligent, vacuous snorkius*...

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(" )ù(" ) Bite my bunnyplums, emu-sperm

A similar argument as is used by Intelligent Design adepts.

However in evolution we only see the successes, the failures die off. So in your specific experiment, imagine the books being sold to the public, and the money the monkeys earn, they can use for their survival. Only the great works of fiction will be sold, so in the end, we will only see monkeys that can produce these great works of fiction. These monkeys have no idea what they're writing or how they do it, they just do it.

This example may be somewhat far fetched because we assume that the chance of writing the master piece is very small indeed, whereas in evolution we're discussing features that are actually enhancing chances for survival, so it isnt hard to understand why such features are profitable. However the principle applies.

Another (perhaps better) example. I'm a bad chess player but using evolutionary principles I can beat any world champion chess player there is.

I take a thousand boards and do a random move on each board, then the champion will look at the board and give his counter move, also his assessment of the current situation. I will only retain those boards that have the best situation for me (according to the champion's assessment), I multiply these boards again by a thousand, and do the next random move, this process continues till I've won the match, (or at worst since it's chess, I have a draw, the example works even better if you apply it to an unknown game that does not allow for a draw to happen).

If you know look at the board where I won, and its history in hindsight it appears that I am a master chess player capable of beating the world champion.

This is also the fallacy of intelligent design.

Mind you, evolution does not explain (yet) how life started, it only covers how life evolved after its conception. Life is essential to the concept of evolution because an evaluation is needed of what is a good step in evolutionary terms, and what is a bad step. To die either before or after (adequate) procreation is the evaluation criterion. And dying is only possible if one is alive first.






BigMac

<font color=green>(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into
(" )_(" )your signature to help him gain world domination.</font color=green>

...*serenades the quirky, shite-talking snorkius*...

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(" )þ(" ) Bite my bunnyplums, emu-sperm

Evolution is not intelligent, it does not know what is good or what is bad. It is evaluated by the success of the life form. As I tried to explain with the chess example, you cannot extrapolate to the future, one can only show the success in hindsight, conveniently forgetting all the failures in the process.


BigMac

<font color=green>(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into
(" )_(" )your signature to help him gain world domination.</font color=green>

What about a giraffe? How do you think that they came to have a long neck? What about the fossil record?

<font color=red><pre> _ ___
#_~`--'__ `===-,
`.`. `#.,//
,_\_\ ## #\
`__.__ `####\
~~\ ,###'~
\##'
</pre><p>

To survive is good to die is bad.

Evolution is a self-correcting process, those animals that adapt quickest and best are the ones who survive. Their adaptation 'skill' is carried forward. Thus, at the end, you have an animal that adapts when needed those things it needs.

<font color=blue>The day <font color=green>Microsoft</font color=green> will make something that doesn't suck is the day they'll start making vacuum cleaners.</font color=blue>

No that's not the way it works. I don't understand how an intelligent person could miss such a MASSIVE detail.

Where do you think the "skill" comes from? Do you think they just magically grow a trunk, or lose their eyesight, or get better hearing? Mutation and natural selection play a HUGE role here! Time isn't really much of a factor either since many evolutionary processes span millions of years.

<font color=red><pre> _ ___
#_~`--'__ `===-,
`.`. `#.,//
,_\_\ ## #\
`__.__ `####\
~~\ ,###'~
\##'
</pre><p>

Actually our genome contains a huge amount of "coding" that is not used, in other words, this material isnt used in reproducing the building blocks (enzymes, etc) in our body today.

This old stuf is remnants of the numerous mutations our genome went through. Sometimes, through a mutation, such an old part is activated again, at other times different old parts are recombined with current parts into new genome.

However it is not likely (there is no proof) that there is some kind of memory here, other than that the building blocks were there all along (and who knows how long ago they were formed). The success of a mutation is determined by the life form as it is alive, previous successes are no guarantee of it being a success again (and apparently such parts were rendered useless by the same evolutionary process earlier) due to changing circumstances in our environment.

Adaptation itself is not a feature! The adaptation is part of the process, natural selection, the response to the evaluation criterium: procreation and death. However, a genome that is susceptible to lots of mutations will be able to adapt more quickly given a large population and a short lifespan. Not because such a species will efficiently evolve specific features, but because many mutations will result in lots of trial and error and inevitable success somewhere down the line. Mind you, too much mutation volatility will lead to an unstable species and certain extinction, it's a fine line between life and death (and love and hate).




BigMac

<font color=green>(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into
(" )_(" )your signature to help him gain world domination.</font color=green>

You don't get it.

There is no right and wrong mutation.

<font color=red><pre> _ ___
#_~`--'__ `===-,
`.`. `#.,//
,_\_\ ## #\
`__.__ `####\
~~\ ,###'~
\##'
</pre><p>

There is a mutation that ensures survival. This is the right mutation.

There are many mutations that lead to death. These are the wrong mutations.

<font color=blue>The day <font color=green>Microsoft</font color=green> will make something that doesn't suck is the day they'll start making vacuum cleaners.</font color=blue>

Just caught the last paragraph and I understand.

I was specifically referring to species adaptation rather than gene adaptation.

I'm getting my head around this so bear with me.

<b><font color=green> "Nobody ever lives their life all the way up except bullfighters." - Ernest Hemingway, <i> The Sun Also Rises </i> </b> </font color=green>

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, most changes are cyclical and have happened before. Second, there is the basic feeling of need. When grass disappears and to reach food you need a longer neck, I don't see why we can't semi-consiously trigger the right changes.

Our brains can predict the environment well enough, I don't see why the body can't react.

Did you know that the instinct of hatching is messed up in chickens from the developed world? This is not something a chicken learns. It's bred into, or as the case may be, bred out of the chicken.

Explain to me how we could mess with their instinct so bad in so short a time.

<font color=blue>The day <font color=green>Microsoft</font color=green> will make something that doesn't suck is the day they'll start making vacuum cleaners.</font color=blue>

You're out of the realm of science.

I can't predict the weather with my brain. I do it with observations.

<font color=red><pre> _ ___
#_~`--'__ `===-,
`.`. `#.,//
,_\_\ ## #\
`__.__ `####\
~~\ ,###'~
\##'
</pre><p>

If you see dark storm clouds gathering, I think you'll predict the weather well enough. And animals predict the weather with astounding accuracy. They even predict tsunamis. And better than people too.

I don't remember the specifics, I read them more than a couple years ago, but there are some very intersting things written on ethology. Things I think can't just be explained away by natural selection.

If we can act to change our instincts, something hard-wired into our genes...

<font color=blue>The day <font color=green>Microsoft</font color=green> will make something that doesn't suck is the day they'll start making vacuum cleaners.</font color=blue>

D, or anybody for that matter, have you read Daniel Quinn's: Ishmael?

<b><font color=green> "Nobody ever lives their life all the way up except bullfighters." - Ernest Hemingway, <i> The Sun Also Rises </i> </b> </font color=green>

Its a fictional, explorative novel, that theorizes about the nature and development of man. Given that you have not read it I wont bore you with the details. Needless to say though, if you ever come across it in your local Vintage [they truly are the best publishers] bookshop then keep it in mind as it is a fantastic read.

<b><font color=green> "Nobody ever lives their life all the way up except bullfighters." - Ernest Hemingway, <i> The Sun Also Rises </i> </b> </font color=green>

Yeah. Anything good?

<b><font color=green> "Nobody ever lives their life all the way up except bullfighters." - Ernest Hemingway, <i> The Sun Also Rises </i> </b> </font color=green>

This may not be up your alley, D, but I've just finished Laura Hillenbrand's excellent: Seabiscuit - Three men and a Racehorse.

You may have seen the film which was very solid but the book is an inspiration that explores the lives of these people much more thoroughly. Now I'm a mad horse fan - horse racing in particular - but I can see why it would be so popular with non-racing people given the depression in which the story was born from and the rise of three most unlikely men into the fore of American modern sports history - although Charles Howard was a fantastic entrepreneur. I only wish I'd been alive then to see the mighty Seabuiscuit race. Tens of thousands of people used to go to the races and pack out the stands just to catch a glimpse. What an era!

Superb read!

<b><font color=green> "Nobody ever lives their life all the way up except bullfighters." - Ernest Hemingway, <i> The Sun Also Rises </i> </b> </font color=green>

Telling snorkius about shelters.... I think he knows all about shelters, specifically bunkers [/snicker]


BigMac

<font color=green>(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into
(" )_(" )your signature to help him gain world domination.</font color=green>