BF2S Forums Intelligent Design

nzjafa wrote:

kilroy0097 wrote:

Hence if we were to be evolved from apes and them from other organisms over billions of years this was all the plan of some higher being who designed this to happen.

here is another point. if we evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? how come they didnt evolve with us? hmmm..

Actually, that's an easy one - evolution doesn't happen to a species as a whole - it happens to individuals! I.e. one individual ape mutated to become just very very slightly 'more human' (please note I'm NOT suggesting intelligent design, the idea of 'more human' can only be decided by us after the fact). This mutant ape had mutant ape children which all had their own mutant ape children which all had their own mutant ape children and so on... throw in a few more mutations along the way and however many hundred thousand years and however many thousand of generations and - hey presto - humans!

Now all the while this process was happening there were still 'normal' apes all having 'normal ape' children who had their own 'normal ape' children who all had their own 'normal ape' children and so on... again, for however many thousands of generations and - hey presto - we still have 'normal apes' AND we have 'mutant ape' humans...

See ? Simple isn't it.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2005-11-11 14:41:01)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

nzjafa wrote:

kilroy0097 wrote:

Hence if we were to be evolved from apes and them from other organisms over billions of years this was all the plan of some higher being who designed this to happen.

here is another point. if we evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? how come they didnt evolve with us? hmmm..

Actually, that's an easy one - evolution doesn't happen to a species as a whole - it happens to individuals! I.e. one individual ape mutated to become just very very slightly 'more human' (please note I'm NOT suggesting intelligent design, the idea of 'more human' can only be decided by us after the fact). This mutant ape had mutant ape children which all had their own mutant ape children which all had their own mutant ape children and so on... throw in a few more mutations along the way and however many hundred thousand years and however many thousand of generations and - hey presto - humans!

Now all the while this process was happening there were still 'normal' apes all having 'normal ape' children who had their own 'normal ape' children who all had their own 'normal ape' children and so on... again, for however many thousands of generations and - hey presto - we still have 'normal apes' AND we have 'mutant ape' humans...

See ? Simple isn't it.

i see what you mean and agree with you, and another guy actually suggested this to me about the fish today.
but i doubt one mutant ape would do it. sure, the mutant ape would create a noticeably different strain of ape, but i think there must have been a much larger amount of apes mutating in order to produce an entirely new species.
i'm no doctor or scientist or evolutionist. i just got turned down by a petrol station.. so theres no obvious answer here to me..
so i just wonder what triggered it? and what triggered the fish? because again, if one fish started to imitate the leaf, sure, its offspring would be slightly more leaflike, but in order for a new species to emerge there must have been a widespread change in their genes, and the reason ID sort of makes sense to me is that i don't know how else that would have been set off.
but on the topic of schools, i don't think it should be taught in science class. i think it belongs in a social studies or even better a philosophy class because to me it seems more like a theory than a strand of science.

Last edited by nzjafa (2005-11-12 22:48:09)

And there you go Ladies and Gentlemen. Just as Evolution has been disproven by some, Intelligent Design has just been disproven right here by us. Since we are all dealing with hypothesis and theory here in both Evolution and Intelligent Design and the Big Bang Theory...

ID: The Evolution of the Human Species is a Design created by another being.

If this being created the human species? Then who created the being? But still again who created the being that created the being that created the human species?

As you can see this question can be asked into infinity. Hence the Infinite Loop. Hence the Circle of the Big Bang. Hence any Religion or Theory out there that comes from a singular instant or point.

How was that singular instant or point created?
If God created it then who created God?

And as such all things are disproven when it comes to theories of Origin of the Species, be it from Science, Religion, or other belief.

The End.

Thank you all for this very excellent discussion. I think we have all exercised our brains rather well with this. I welcome any sort of insight or further discussion or commentary on this subject or any other subject.

Thank you again.

Cheers.

nzjafa wrote:

the universe starts in a big bang from a singularity, then expands outwards, but billions and billions of years later the stars and galaxies and stuff begin to fall in on their own gravity, creating blackholes, eventually creating one big black hole, contracting into a singularity... then starting all over again. i followed him that far, and thought, 'yeah i can beleive that'
'but when did it start?' i asked him.
'its a circle', he said. 'try find the start of a circle.'
but thats stupid! things cant just have always happened in the past, without a beginning, because that doesnt make sense. the same can be applied to the designer, as dshak mentioned. he cant have 'always been'.
so if there was a 'designer', it must have just popped into existence. but why? this is about when my brain blows a fuse....

Ah, yes, common misconception amongst those who are 'intelligent' enough to understand this, yet don't really understand the origins of the universe. Well, it's one possible universe, but as we're talking about our universe, well, I wouldn't say I even begin to understand where the universe came from, but it's so much more complicated, yet, once you begin to really understand it, so much more simple than this.

It makes my brain hurt too... I think it makes most peoples brains hurt, even those that really do fully understand it all...

-xDookiex- wrote:

If we came from monkeys, why the hell are there still monkeys? If all land animals came from fish then why the hell are there still fish? As I recall they found one of those fish that had "limbs" off the coast of Africa a couple decades ago. Thing was if it was from millions of years ago, and was what animals evolved from, then why is it still alive in the deep ocean? Things like that disprove evolution. Theres nothing like that that disproves intelligent design.

This doesn't disprove evolution at all. If say only 1 out of every 100 apes mutates, then for that 1 mutant there are 99 other non-mutant apes.

Don't forget one of the beleifs of Darwanism, survival of the fittest...
If one monkey mutates, it does become slightly superior/less superior, then another will mutate to survive that monkey, and another, and another...

Point being, both of these theories are confusing since they loop to infinity in basicaly every aspect of them...

confusing=wrong? on what planet is this true? so the simplest explanation has to be right? yikes.

So many people will adamantly support evolution and mock any other theory without considering the EVIDENCE.  This is probably because that is all they've ever heard and been taught, which is precisely why that theory is NOT all that should be taught in schools.  There are serious foundational flaws with the theory of evolution that most people have no clue about, although redfoxster listed some of them.  Here are a few: 

The fossil record's complete lack of any clear transitional animals. 

Natural selection would actually act to weed out the transitional animals (if they had existed)

Here's one of the biggest ones:  Evolution is built upon simple creatures becoming more and more complex.  One-celled creatures slowly over time somehow through random mutations growing appendages, etc., eventually becoming the vast array of creatures you see today.  The evidence simply isn't there.  In fact, the evidence goes completely against this notion.  FACT:  Mutations in DNA replication occur, although not very often.  FACT:  In every case, mutations *destroy* useful information contained in DNA.  Can mutations be beneficial?  Yes, sometimes they can.  However, the key is that no new information is added.  Mutations only affect information already present in the DNA.  Ask a scientist, teacher, professor, etc. for an example of new information being added to DNA - they won't be able to give you one. 

Real world hypothetical example of natural selection at work:  Say there's a species of dog in a moderate climate.  Some of the dogs have longer hair and some have shorter hair, so the information for both is in the DNA.  Say the climate begins to change and becomes more and more cold.  The longer haired dogs have a better survival rate than the short haired dogs, so generation after generation the long-haired genes keep becoming more and more common and the short-haired genes may eventually disappear.  The species has adapted to the new climate, so that's evolution, right?  Wrong, the information for the long hair was there all along, no new information was created in the dna.  If the short-hair information had disappeared from the species and the climate changes back to a warmer environment, then the species is in a lot of trouble because there is no mechanism to create the new information.

So the evidence shows that we are losing useful information in DNA as we go forward rather than gaining it.  So the question is, where did the information come from in the first place . . . . ?


Sorry for the long post.  I know many people have very strong feelings on all sides of this debate, but I would just ask that you consider the real evidence before dismissing other theories as garbage.

thurdawg wrote:

The fossil record's complete lack of any clear transitional animals.

No it doesn't - there are plenty of clear transitional animals. A suprisingly high number considering the rarety of fossilisation.

thurdawg wrote:

Natural selection would actually act to weed out the transitional animals (if they had existed)

Only those that were less fit. Any mutation that confers a benefit to it host WILL survive into its hosts offspring. And then on all of their offspring. Natural selection does not just operate as a negative it gives some mutants a greater chance of survival.

thurdawg wrote:

Here's one of the biggest ones:  Evolution is built upon simple creatures becoming more and more complex.  One-celled creatures slowly over time somehow through random mutations growing appendages, etc., eventually becoming the vast array of creatures you see today.

Correct.

thurdawg wrote:

The evidence simply isn't there.

Incorrect.

thurdawg wrote:

In fact, the evidence goes completely against this notion.

Incorrect.

thurdawg wrote:

FACT:  Mutations in DNA replication occur, although not very often.

Correct.

thurdawg wrote:

FACT:  In every case, mutations *destroy* useful information contained in DNA.

Incorrect.

thurdawg wrote:

Can mutations be beneficial?  Yes, sometimes they can.

Correct.

thurdawg wrote:

However, the key is that no new information is added.

Neither correct nor incorrect - most often information is CHANGED, however under some conditions new information CAN be added during DNA transcription.

thurdawg wrote:

Mutations only affect information already present in the DNA.

Again, neither correct nor incorrect - most often information is CHANGED, however under some conditions new information CAN be added during DNA transcription.

thurdawg wrote:

Ask a scientist, teacher, professor, etc. for an example of new information being added to DNA - they won't be able to give you one.

Incorrect.

thurdawg wrote:

Real world hypothetical example of natural selection at work:  Say there's a species of dog in a moderate climate...

Well, lets look at your hypothetical example in a more scientific manner.

For a start there is not a single gene that is for long hair and a single gene that is for short hair. There are multiple genes that combine to determine hair length. So a mutation in one gene may cause shorter hair growth and a mutation in a different gene may cause longer hair growth.

So, if the climate changes to get colder, even if we start of with nothing but short haired dogs, some of those short haired dogs will have offspring with very slightly longer coats. These will be better able to survive the climate change and so will produce more off spring than the shorter haired siblings. Then, within the offspring these longer haired dogs will be ones that have the genes for even more slightly longer hair, which will be even better adapted to survive the inclement climate. And so, over a number of generations a longer haired fitter group of dogs will prevail.

If the climate should then start warm again, the same process will happen in reverse - some dogs will have very slightly shorter hair, which will have more offspring, some of those will have even shorter hair, and so on...

thurdawg wrote:

So the evidence shows that we are losing useful information in DNA as we go forward rather than gaining it.  So the question is, where did the information come from in the first place . . . . ?

Incorrect.

Sorry for the long post.  I know many people have very strong feelings on all sides of this debate, but I would just ask that you consider the real evidence before dismissing other theories as garbage.

(note: I deliberately used your last paragraph as the last paragraph of my post)

Scorpion0x17 -

Transitional animals:  I would challenge your statement that there are any clear transitional creatures, much less many.  The lack of these has been well documented and the best examples given are highly debatable, to be kind.  Care to point me to some examples?

Mutations/DNA:  It goes back to the difference between data and information. 
   Data:  "xjfielsl;eivnv,eeshs.fei"
   Information:  "My name is thurdawg"
Yes, mutations *change* data, but the information is likely destroyed.  Simplistic example, but randomly change (mutate) half of the letters in the second sentence above and see if any information still exists, much less useful information.

Dog scenario:  Yes, it is far more complex than a single gene for both, but for discussion's sake I simplified it.  However, the point still remains.  The differences in the length of the dogs' hair is controlled by their DNA.  As the population becomes more long-haired (ie. the genes that would cause short hair are disappearing from the population) the genes for long hair become more and more dominant.  Think about all those punnett square exercises from high school biology. 

I'd love to see an example of mutations adding information to DNA.  Since you said that my statement about them not existing was incorrect, could you point me to some?

kilroy0097 wrote:

Most likely because evolution has only been defunct in the eyes of a single group of scholars and is not widely accepted as a disproven theory. Though I am not a proffesional in the field and so I can not comment on if it was scientifically disproven and unless you are a proffesional I can not take your word for it. Please state a source or two so that we can better discuss this portion of your argument. It might even branch off to it's own thread if we can get a compelling banter going on it.

I hate you.  I was away for the weekend, so Im a little behind on the thread and dont want to rea dup, cause all that stuff from scorpion looks like it would make want to eat my brain.   I'll hit the library in the next few days to go find them again if I can find the time, semi-crunch before Turkey Day break.

LOL Killroy, every time I was about to respond to a post in this thread, you took the words out of my mouth (although I'd say your arguments were much better than mine would have been).

thurdawg wrote:

Scorpion0x17 -

Transitional animals:  I would challenge your statement that there are any clear transitional creatures, much less many.  The lack of these has been well documented and the best examples given are highly debatable, to be kind.  Care to point me to some examples?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

thurdawg wrote:

Mutations/DNA:  It goes back to the difference between data and information. 
   Data:  "xjfielsl;eivnv,eeshs.fei"
   Information:  "My name is thurdawg"
Yes, mutations *change* data, but the information is likely destroyed.  Simplistic example, but randomly change (mutate) half of the letters in the second sentence above and see if any information still exists, much less useful information.

Ooh, you misunderstand the subtle difference between data and information here - Information is data. Data is information. in the most simplistic terms.

Ok, take your example of random mutations - for a start 'half of the letters' in any meaningful DNA sequence will never all spontaneously and completely randomly mutate - but that's a different point... Anyhow, say the 3rd letter of "My name is thurdawg" mutated to a 'g' - giving "My game is thurdawg" - the data has been 'lost' or 'corrupted' but the informational meaning of the data has merely changed.

thurdawg wrote:

Dog scenario:  Yes, it is far more complex than a single gene for both, but for discussion's sake I simplified it.  However, the point still remains.  The differences in the length of the dogs' hair is controlled by their DNA.  As the population becomes more long-haired (ie. the genes that would cause short hair are disappearing from the population) the genes for long hair become more and more dominant.

No, the gene does not become more dominant - it becomes more popular - the shorter haired mutation can still arise, and still has as much chance of arising as it ever did. So, as I said previously, this means that should the climate later become warmer again shorter haired offspring will appear, these will be better suited to living in a warmer climate, will therefor be more successful and so go on to sire more shorter haired offspring (which all have the same chance of themselves mutating into an even-shorter haired version).

thurdawg wrote:

I'd love to see an example of mutations adding information to DNA.  Since you said that my statement about them not existing was incorrect, could you point me to some?

http://www.google.com/

and a clue to get you started :

Frameshift mutations [insertions, deletions]
   1. Frameshift mutations
   2. are changes in the number of nucleotides. This would be the addition (insertion) or deletion of one or more nucleotide at a single point.
   3. Particularly, a frameshift mutation involves the loss or gain of some number of nucleotides which is not divisible by three (i.e., one or more codons).

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2005-11-15 02:29:17)