Archived blog post

Now it's personal

Posted by Ben on Sunday, July 16, 2006 | Permalink
 

Right, the gloves are off.

I'm starting a biology degree in September. I already know it's going to be hard work - not just the course itself, but the part time job I need to fit round it in order to have enough money to, well, live. My free time is going to be pretty fucking precious. And you know what the creationists have done?

Intelligent design creeps on to courses

Leeds University plans to incorporate one or two compulsory lectures on creationism and intelligent design into its second-year course for zoology and genetics undergraduates next Christmas. At Leicester University, academics already devote part of a lecture for third-year genetics undergraduates to creationism and intelligent design.

Compulsory lectures! To refute creationism! When I could be in the pub or watching Countdown or setting off bra-bombs. The rotten bunch of bastards. Terrorism, lies about contraception and charity blackmailing be damned - you make me miss pound-a-pint night at the union bar and there's going to some serious fucking trouble.

(Via the Leicester Secular Society)

Comments [ hide comments ]
Oh no. The Times reports that 'lecturers will present the controversial theories as being incompatible with scientific evidence' - how terrifying. What will the evil creationists think of next.
James, 16.07.2006, 4:34pm #
Ah. Sarcasm.
Ben, 16.07.2006, 5:34pm #
James, the point is that it's a pointless waste of time. Creationism doesn't need to be refuted. Having to bother doing gives creationists attention that they don't deserve.
Tim, 16.07.2006, 11:24pm #
The article in The Times claims that 1 in 10 science students don't believe in evolution. So presumably believe in some form of creationism or intelligent design. That presumably, these science students have also heard of evolution.

I think that alone makes it worth discussing the mertis (or otherwise) of the ideas.
James, 17.07.2006, 12:21am #
Yes James, the Leicester Secular Society says: "This is presumably happening because of comparatively larger intakes of students from evangelical Christian and Muslim families, who have acquired creationist teachings from their preachers and imams, or at overseas madrassas"

Now imagine you're a physics teacher at degree level, and have to spend time refuting the flat earth theory because of a rise in the teaching of this by religious schools.
Ben, 17.07.2006, 7:23am #
Well i don't see why you should have a problem learning about intelligent design. And it certainly should be compulsory in schools.

If you are actually going to be studying Intelligent design based on scientific arguments and with no religious teachings and no bible crap then what is the problem if its so easily disprove?

In fact ID is a lot easier to prove then it is to prove macro-evolution.
Whitty, 17.07.2006, 5:20pm #
I don't see this as such a bad idea. First, it could be a useful exercise in taking apart an argument (they're students, give them an easy one to start with) and besides, ID'ers are often so well prepped that unless you know their lines they can give the uninformed the impression of conducting a debate.

By the way, this is a useful site for those not already familiar;

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

They ain't going away anytime soon, so by all means familiarise young minds with their evasions, lies and scams.
Don, 17.07.2006, 7:07pm #
You can prove it can you Whitty? Fill your boots mate. Intelligent design just isn't science.

Don, if we were talking about 10 - 15 year olds I'd probably agree, but that Leeds situation is 2nd year undergrads and Leicester is 3rd year genetics students!
Ben, 17.07.2006, 8:27pm #
Ben: "Intelligent design just isn't science."

Your right - its philosophy. But then so is the alternative belief that there was no involvement from an intelligent designer in the formation of life (naturalism or humanism).
James, 17.07.2006, 10:32pm #
Ben, I heard they were offering a new Doctorate program at your college in Intelligent Design. All you have to do is look at a plant or animal, take a step back, and say "God made it."

Boom, instant Dr. Ben.
JGJ, 17.07.2006, 10:41pm #
Brilliant, saved me three years that has!

James - that's fine. The textbook I'm reading at the moment spares a sentence to explain why such arguments as intelligent design have no place in a science class, and that sounds fair enough to me.
Ben, 17.07.2006, 11:10pm #
"You can prove it can you Whitty? Fill your boots mate. Intelligent design just isn't science."

> Well equally I could ask you to prove macro evolution. Also how is intelligent design €œnot science it has everything to do with science, it is a scientific theory with strong scientific arguments.

The thing is on websites such as this is that you all hate religious teachings and ideas. I am no different, I am strongly against religious teachings, it's all about fooling the young and vulnerable. However this does not mean you can dismiss ID as if it's solely a religious idea. ID doesn't have to have anything to do with religion. It is a sound scientific theory that will only develop more as we learn more about cells and genetics.

As for proving ID, just look at cells and there DNA.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3398897723006201061&q=unlocking+the+mystery+of+life

There is no way to explain the level of complexity in a cell without an intelligent designer. Evolution can't create life. Without DNA there is no self replication, without self replication there is no natural selection.

Even if there was proof for macro evolution (currently there is non) The system that evolution is built on is too complex to explain the origin of life anyway.

And then there is the issue of there being no evidence for macro-evolution. There have been no transitional fossils found. The theory for macro-evolution is that through sure slow steps, one organism can develop into a new organism over a long period of time by a mutation happening that offers a functional advantage over other organisms. If it takes sure slow steps over a long period of time then surely there would at least be some transitional fossils found by now.

We all know micro-evolution is proven, but just because animals can evolve and change various features it does not hold any water when trying to argue for macro-evolution. Just because an animals features and be improved upon it does not mean that something completely new can be produced.

Just look at a feather for instance, how is it that an organism without feathers can somehow produce a feather from nothing. To produce just 1 cell type of a feather would be remarkable enough, but even it an animal did produce a small feather, with all its cell types and with it constructed perfectly. What kind of functional advantage would this change give to the organism?

How could an eye evolve? How can you start with no eye to then somehow create some kind of ability to see light, create the ability to send the light signals to the brain and have the ability in the brain to process the signals that it wouldn't be able to anyway ? Just having some small light sensitive pigment appear isn't going to offer any advantage to an organism.

For anybody who is interested in seeing the full 1hr documentary that the cell video was taken from
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5955663642317205059&q=unlocking+the+mystery+of+life
Whitty, 18.07.2006, 8:57pm #
Whitty, spend some time at http://www.talkdesign.org/ and http://www.talkorigins.org/

There you'll find evidence for macro evolution and a wealth of transitional fossils. Then read The Blind Watchmaker, which dealt with the ID arguments back in 1986.

Intelligent design has no scientific merit whatsoever, it says "wow, complex, must've been a creator" - this is not an explanation, it's just moving the explanation back a step. Seriously, it's bollocks.
Ben, 18.07.2006, 10:19pm #
Ben: "Intelligent design has no scientific merit whatsoever, it says "wow, complex, must've been a creator" - this is not an explanation, it's just moving the explanation back a step. Seriously, it's bollocks."

But what is more scientific about saying that the complexity (of for instance, the "simplest" form of life), *must* have arisen unguided by any creator?

I have linked to a diagram of a bacteria cell.* This is one of the simplest forms of life. It is actually not very simple.

Based on the scientific knowledge I have of the complexity of single celled organisms, I have come to the philosophical conclusion that the formation of life was guided by God.

--
*Click on my name and add "pg" at the end of the URL
James, 18.07.2006, 11:16pm #
Ben,
3rd year genetics students? Oh, shit.

Whitey,

How could the eye evolve? There are actually creationist websites around which warn people like you about what not to cite, because it just makes you look dumb. I suggest you check them out.
Don, 19.07.2006, 12:05am #
Whitey: "How could an eye evolve..."

I think this is a good point, although maybe not expressed very well - because presumbably if evolution happened, the eye originated before there was a developed brain.

However, even in single celled organisms, the process of responding to stimuli is actually quite complicated.

Again I have used my name to link to a website - a diagram of how a bacteria responds to a stimuli. Even this requires several proteins.
So maybe no brain, but still a high level of complexity for even simple responses to the environment.
Merely detecting changes in the environment will not help survival unless there is some way of responding to that information.
James, 19.07.2006, 12:07pm #
Ok lets take a look at - talkdesign.org

Moonshine: Why the Peppered Moth Remains an Icon of Evolution

Whitty: This article appears to be mostly drivel about releasing and capturing moths. Most of it seems to be arguing over whether the data is even accurate or not and keeps going on about the moon light effecting capture rates. I fail to see anywhere in the article where they explain how peppered moths are actually an icon of evolution.

€œSpecifically, a genetically determined dark, or melanic, form of the moth replaced the lighter form as industrial pollution killed lichens on the barks of trees and also coated the bark with a layer of soot

Whitty: This is the only part that I can see that even seems to mention any change of characteristics. And all we have is that the colour of the moths changed. This is a fine example of micro-evolution. If anybody else can point out where the article addresses macro evolution then feel free.
----------------------------------------------------

Next I find myself linked from talkdesign.org to talkorigins.org then as I start reading this article by Keith Robinson. €œIrreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? This trying to address Michael Behe's irreducibly complex argument. (as explained in the 1 hr video - http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5955663642317205059&q=unlocking+the+mystery+of+life )

Point 1. Keith Robinson: €œBehe starts with the example of a mousetrap; he claims that a standard mousetrap is irreducibly complex"

€œYep. The wooden base can be discarded. Where do you put a mousetrap? On the floor. What if I assemble the mousetrap by pounding the staples into the floor? Would I have a fully functional mousetrap? Of course I would.

Whitty: I would have laughed at this if only I wasn't so p*ssed off with such drivel. So because this guy can come up with a solution for losing the base of a mousetrap he has disproven behe's irreducibly complex argument?

No. Firstly he is using the idea of a certain floor type being able to substitute the base so this is more like replacing the base rather then doing away with it. Secondly, even without the base, sitting there looking down at his mousetrap stapled to the floor he is still facing a problem. He is still looking at an irreducibly complex system, he can't take anything else away, how did the parts all get produced and put in the correct place? Answer: intelligent design.

As far as I know Behe has never dismissed that a cell could use other parts from simpler and similar machines. However you can only borrow so many parts before you have to address the origin of these parts, and the assembly instructions for them (this is all addressed in the 1hr video I posted)

The article then goes onto say that Behe replied to the argument

- Behe goes on to say:
€œFurthermore, you were essentially given a disassembled mousetrap, which you then assembled. All of the parts were pre-adapted to each other by an intelligent agent. The point that has to be addressed is, how do you start with *no* pieces (at least none specifically designed to be part of a mousetrap), and proceed to a functioning, irreducibly complex trap.

Keith Robinson : Which exposes a general problem with "irreducible complexity" -- it is a "God of the Gaps" explanation. Each time we show that a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now "irreducibly complex". Any similarity to Zeno's Paradox is surely accidental. ‚problem with irreducible complexity I fail to see one. By supposedly removing 1 part of a complex system (this part of his argument is easily disputed by Behe and anybody with common sense) you are still left with a irreducibly complex system with working parts that are formed correctly to there specification and that are assembled in a particular manner.

This part of the article fails to address the fact that this now lesser complex system is still complex and fails to address the fact that each part of a mousetrap is built to a specification by a designer. This article completely ignores the point made by Behe.
------------------------------
Point 2. The next part of the article tried to argue that the €œamazing amount of flotsam and jetsam in genomes somehow disproves Behe's arguments

Behe: “The second reason why Miller's argument fails to persuade is that even if pseudogenes have no function, evolution has "explained" nothing about how pseudogenes arose. In order to make even a pseudocopy of a gene, a dozen sophisticated proteins are required: to pry apart the two DNA strands, to align the copying machinery at the right place, to stitch the nucleotides together into a string, to insert the pseudocopy back into the DNA, and much more. In his article Miller has not told us how any of these functions might have arisen in a Darwinian step-by-step process, nor has he pointed to articles in the scientific literature where we can find the information. He can't do that, because the information is nowhere to be found.€œ

Keith Robinson: The fact of the matter is, the answer can be found in almost any genetics textbook. There are two major mechanisms for producing such duplications in biology, and both have been demonstrated experimentally.

Behe is apparently completely ignorant of the enormous amount of literature on tandem duplication, in which one copy of a gene spawns multiple copies. A common mechanism is unequal crossing over, due to the recombinational machinery misaligning two chromosomes. These can be shown to occur in the lab.

Whitty: Hang on, Behe is ignorant that €œone copy of a gene spawns multiple copies Yet it is Keith who totally ignores Behe's argument. €œOne copy of a gene Where on earth does this gene (a mechanical information rich system) come from, Where does he explain the origin of this system? He makes reference to the €œrecombinational machinery misaligning two chromosomes Where does this recombinational machinery arise from? These kind of points keep coming up the more the article goes on.

Keith: The generation of tandem duplications (Bar mutating to Ultrabar) and their reduction into fewer repeats (Ultrabar mutating to Bar) is an inevitable consequence of the recombinational machinery of the cell.

Whitty: Again, where does this €œrecombinational machinery come from? Out of all the fruit flies that are being produced where is a transitional fruit fly? Only micro evolution is being demonstrated.

Keith: Hence we see that the available body of biological knowledge predicts that pseudogenes are an inevitable phenomenon -- given enough time. The complex machinery that Behe claims is necessary for pseudogene formation not only exists, but it exists for completely different purposes, in all living systems.

Whitty: Again he backs up behe, €œThe complex machinery that Behe claims is necessary for pseudogene formation not only exists Exactly, Behe stated that a complex system would be needed. The machinery is complex, it doesn't just happen by chance. Keith fails to address this fact and only goes on to backup Behe by admitting that €œThere are two major mechanisms for producing such duplications in biology

Whitty: I would go on reading such an article but my time would be better spent banging my head against a wall. Keith keeps failing to actually address and explain the complex systems that makes life work and only goes on with the theme that if u can find a less complex system that this less complex system isn't complex at all. If anybody can actually point to the part where he addressed the origin of an information rich system please do so.
----------------------------------------------

Ben: Intelligent design has no scientific merit whatsoever, it says "wow, complex, must've been a creator" - this is not an explanation, it's just moving the explanation back a step. Seriously, it's bollocks.

How is identifying (not only a irreducibly complex system but) a information rich system as having a creator not an explanation? When to identify such a thing you need improbability and specification.

It is in-fact the failure to demonstrate life arising from nothing, the failure to show any transition fossils and the failure to produce anything resembling a transitional form through mutation that is not explaining anything. You say €œwow, complex, must be the result of chance
-------------------------------------------

Don: €œHow could the eye evolve? There are actually creationist websites around which warn people like you about what not to cite, because it just makes you look dumb. I suggest you check them out.

I suggest that you actually point me to a specific website and the specific part of that website that explains the structure of the eye arising from nothing before you start labeling me as dumb.

This goes for anybody else who is going to throw links at me and tell me that the proof is in pages and pages of writing. If the answer is there and you have seen it then present it clearly for us all to see.
------------------------------------------

Can anybody even try to address the fact that even if macro-evolution could be demonstrated and was proven you would still have the major problem of origins? How can you explain the origin of DNA and the first cell without intelligence?
Whitty, 19.07.2006, 5:24pm #
Whitty - those of us on the side of science have been refuting this crap for years, if the best we can muster now is to wearily point you in the right direction and hope something sticks, you'll have to forgive us. But please don't stand there demanding that we engage your arguments more directly. Let me ask you this question - if your preference for ID is non-religious, where does the creator come from? Doesn't it demand explanation too? How can YOU explain the origin of some intelligence able to create DNA? Anyone who tries the ID argument comes up against this eventually - you need an explanation that doesn't rely on such a feeble get out. Evolution is that explanation, and has the additional benefit of being backed up by fuckloads of evidence. Regarding abiogenesis - why do we have to provide a thorough explanation now? People are working on it and may one day have an answer - The Blind Watchmaker discusses one such theory. In the meantime, it's enough to know that it happened and from there natural selection took over.

James - forgive my snooping, but you appear to be a member of a Christian Union. Can I ask which came first - your belief in the Christian god, or your support for ID as the explanation for life? I've got a suspicion your beliefs might have prejudiced you against the evidence somewhat, but am willing to be corrected. If god did create life he's crap at it - he wired our eyes backwards for a start off, and buggered the giraffe's neck up something terrible. How does that fit in to the idea of some omnipotent creator?
Ben, 19.07.2006, 7:19pm #
One other thing Whitty - if ID is such sound science, can you provide us some links to some peer-reviewed, scientific studies using ID as their underlying assumption? Cos I'm aware of only one that's ever been published, and it got trashed on an - ironically enough - Biblical scale.
Ben, 19.07.2006, 7:25pm #
I became a Christian before I had thought much about creation / evolution /I.D. However, I have read some Richard Dawkins, TalkOrigins.org and Infidels.org so think I have not just blindly accepted things.

Our eyes work well. I am not too concerned about allegations of bad wiring.
James, 19.07.2006, 8:19pm #
I didn't say you'd blindly accepted things, just that your initial beliefs probably colored any further thinking - I'm sure it's very hard to objectively review any kind of evidence that contradicts something as dearly held as a religious belief.

It's not an allegation, it's the truth. And it should concern you, because if we were created - and by someone who knew what they were doing - then they wouldn't be that way. Our blind spots are evidence of evolution. And your eyes may work well - others may disagree.
Ben, 19.07.2006, 8:35pm #
I don't need to go to the AiG website to find out that they may be benefits in the way our eyes are wired:

"...Because the rods and cones are at the back of the retina, the incoming light has to go through the other two layers in order to stimulate them. We do not fully understand why the retina develops in this curious backward fashion.
One possible reason is the location behind the receptors of a row of cells containing a black pigment, melanin (also found in skin). Melanin mops up the light that has passed through the retina, keeping it from being reflected back and scattering around inside the eye; it has the same function as the black paint inside a camera. The melanin -containing cells also help chemically restore the light -sensitive visual pigment in the receptors after it has been bleached by light (see Chapter 8). For both functions, the melanin pigment must be close to the receptors. If the receptors were at the front of the retina, the pigment cells would have to be between them and the next layer of nerve cells, in a region already packed with axons, dendrites, and synapses.
As it is, the layers in front of the receptors are fairly transparent and probably do not blur the image much.."

(Harvard Medical School website. Click on link)

I have read similar things in textbooks, but cannot find a reference at the moment.
James, 19.07.2006, 9:47pm #
Very interesting, but I was referring to the nerves running through the eye to get to the brain, and the blood vessels being inside rather than outside the eye - this is by Jerry Coyne:

"But the eye is not a watch. The human eye, though eminently functional, is
imperfect--certainly not the sort of eye an engineer would create from scratch. Its
imperfection arises precisely because our eye evolved using whatever components
were at hand, or produced by mutation. Since our retina evolved from an everted
part of the brain, for example, the nerves and blood vessels that attach to our
photoreceptor cells are on the inside rather than the outside of the eye, running
over the surface of the retina. Leakage of these blood vessels can occlude vision, a
problem that would not occur if the vessels fed the retina from behind. Likewise,
to get the nerve impulses from the photocells to the brain, the different nerves
must join together and dive back through the eye, forming the optic nerve. This
hole in the retina creates a blind spot in the eye, a flaw that again would be
avoidable with a priori design. The whole system is like a car in which all the
wires to the dashboard hang inside the driver's compartment instead of being
tucked safely out of sight."

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/jacNR.pdf
Ben, 19.07.2006, 10:21pm #
Ben: "Very interesting, but I was referring to the nerves running through the eye to get to the brain, and the blood vessels being inside rather than outside the eye"

That is what the quote in my previous post was about. The author clearly believes in evolution, and calls the design of the eye "curious", but states that there may be a "possible reason" for it being the way it is.
James, 19.07.2006, 10:47pm #
€œWhitty - those of us on the side of science have been refuting this crap for years

> refuting it with what? If its been refuted for years then show me 1 solid argument that disproves a creator or proves macro-evolution. Why am I not on the side of science? What side am I supposed to be on when I'm looking at scientific discoveries and arguments.
-----------------------

€œif the best we can muster now is to wearily point you in the right direction and hope something sticks, you'll have to forgive us

> Well what does this say to you? I thought you had been refuting ID for years? And the best you can muster is to wearily point me to websites with no answers? To me this demonstrates the fact that there isn't 1 argument that can be used to dismiss ID or prove macro-evolution.
-----------------------

€œLet me ask you this question - if your preference for ID is non-religious, where does the creator come from? Doesn't it demand explanation too? How can YOU explain the origin of some intelligence able to create DNA?


> Just the same as I don't know who or what created DNA, I don't know who created the creator. It does demand explanation, but how would I or anybody else be able to answer such a question. I fail to see the point you are making here. Its not easy accepting the possibility of a creator, I've certainly never wanted it. But I can't accept the complexity of life being down to a theory of evolution that can't even begin to explain the origin of such complexity.

The theory of macro-evolution has nothing to do with origins. Evolution relies on natural selection and without DNA there is no self replication. Hence - no evolution. Life can't come from nothing. ID is the most likely argument.

Yet ID is dismissed at all angles with no evidence to disprove it. Show me the evidence and ill believe, I'm not conditioned to follow some blind faith (although I did believe in macro evolution for many years)

The only problem I can see with ID is the paradox yes, who created the creator? Would this creator not have to be irreducibly complex too? How could this creator appear by chance? Either way I don't know.
-----------------------

€œwhy do we have to provide a thorough explanation now? People are working on it and may one day have an answer

> Well your claiming its truth, I think its more then reasonable to expect an explanation, isn't that science? plus even if evolution was provable. How did complexity arise from non living matter, the question can not be avoided no matter how far the theory of evolution develops. Btw: you have just admitted that there isn't a thorough explanation and that there is no current answer, yet how is it that your so sure of the theory?
------------------------

€œOne other thing Whitty - if ID is such sound science, can you provide us some links to some peer-reviewed, scientific studies using ID as their underlying assumption?

Well I wouldn't know of any studies. How can you produce a study to show a creator if the creator isn't there clearly demonstrating the creation? I'm sure there are plenty of studies using evolution as their underlying assumption. But what does this prove if macro-evolution isn't proven?
-----------------------

As far as your reasoning seems to go because you can't prove a creator that means there isn't one, and because evolution sounds likely, or micro evolution is observable this means macro-evolution is truth even though there are no transitional fossils and there is no other way to explain such complexity arising from nothing.
Whitty, 19.07.2006, 11:21pm #
Whitty - while you continue to go on about transitional fossils I won't bother taking this any further.

James - I'm not an eye expert, but it seemed to me the two quotes were talking about two different characteristics of the eye.
Ben, 20.07.2006, 7:48am #
Come on Ben, Look at all the magnificence of the digital camera, how could man ever line up all the molecules on the silicon chip, or the other parts and pieces that make up the something so wonderous that it can take stills and motion and transform them into reproducable images. It's so obvious that there had to be some kind of divine creation in it.

Honestly, the eye is a rather simple organic organ. You guys are reading way too much into it.

"Yet ID is dismissed at all angles with no evidence to disprove it."
Easy, too easy. There is no evidence to support it so there is no evidence to disprove it. No reason to disprove the unproveable. Just because something exists cannot be an argument for evidence. If it didn't exist you would have no evidence at all. It is illogical, lame, and cowardly to claim the only evidence for the existence of an ID'er is the existence of design itself.

It's all faith and people will, can, and should believe what they want to believe. But leave religion to the religious and science to the scientist. ID has no place in public schools because it is faith and not science. Life begins with proteins and nucleic acids and biology investigates that, ID begins with "God said..." and leaves us in ignorance with a warning not to question it. I think you learn more from science than ID.
JGJ, 21.07.2006, 1:31pm #
@JGJ
Easy, too easy. There is no evidence to support it so there is no evidence to disprove it. No reason to disprove the unproveable.


> Excuse me? There is no evidence to support it? And there is for macro-evolution? Any? Whatsoever? How is it truth? Do you just assume it? Can you show evidence? Is it good enough that evolution sounds right, or seems likely?

€œJust because something exists cannot be an argument for evidence

>Sorry I fail to understand your reasoning. What is an argument for evidence? If you found a digital camera on the floor its existence and complexity isn't evidence for anything? Please enlighten me.


If it didn't exist you would have no evidence at all. It is illogical, lame, and cowardly to claim the only evidence for the existence of an ID'er is the existence of design itself.


> Sorry but the existence of design is a very good example of why life was designed. What is your argument here? You actually seem to be arguing for ID now. If it didn't exist there would be no evidence well it does exist, and it is evidence!

It is illogical to claim that no evidence can mean macro-evolution is true and that it should be taught as a fact to the young and vulnerable.

---------------------------------------

€œIt's all faith and people will, can, and should believe what they want to believe. But leave religion to the religious and science to the scientist.

> I agree, leave religion out of it.

€œID has no place in public schools because it is faith and not science.

> Can you please explain to me why believing in something that is not proven (macro-evolution) is not  also. Why is it ok to teach macro-evolution if this is your reasoning?


€œLife begins with proteins and nucleic acids and biology investigates that, ID begins with "God said..." and leaves us in ignorance with a warning not to question it. I think you learn more from science than ID.


> Sorry but how did life begin with proteins and nucleic acids. Proteins and nucleic acids are not life. They cant self replicate, they can't organize themselves (unless you can point to an experiment that can show this) Just because they are used by cells and are a part of cells does not mean that there existence alone can explain the origin of complexity.

Dene Kenyon, a scientist who actually wrote a book trying to theories that chemical evolution can give birth to live (Chemical Predestination) wrote:

€œLife might have been biochemically predestined by the properties of attraction that exist between its chemical parts. Particularly between amino acids and proteins.

Dene Keynon now actually dismisses his own theory and believes ID is currently the best explanation for life on earth.

I keep getting the feeling that the macro-evolutionists have not watched the video I keep posting. This video addressed all of the arguments that are being used here, please take 1 hour to watch and then give me arguments against this video.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5955663642317205059&q=unlocking+the+mystery+of+life


Religion leaves us in ignorance. Macro-evolution leaves us in ignorance by not being able to question the origin of life. Well that's the way I feel anyway, every time I question the existence of cells and DNA I'm told about amino acids and proteins and that seems to be good enough for macro-evolutionists. Nobody can prove, or argue as to why the complexity of life arose, yet macro-evolution is a fact? How?

I can argue for a creator because of irreducible complexity and all the hallmarks of ID that are observable throughout all forms of life on earth. I admit I can't prove the origin of the creator, but to dismiss design as not showing evidence of design is a crazy line of thought. Design = Design (a designer).
Whitty, 22.07.2006, 2:46pm #
I know how much you love links-as-argument, Whitty - enjoy!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Ben, 22.07.2006, 5:13pm #
So Ben if im going to take time to read the content on that website (which i will) can i assume that you have, or that you are going to watch the 1 hr video i linked?
Whitty, 23.07.2006, 12:50pm #
Whitty - no to both questions. I've read a lot of stuff on Talk Origins but I've not read the lot by any stretch. And I know enough about ID to know I don't need to bother with that video. What it boils down to is this - you're on here demanding answers, and I've given you links that contain those answers if you can bothered to read them. If you can't, I really don't give a shit - you're not doing me a favour by reading it, you know, you wanted evidence and I've supplied it. If you want to know about evolution, read the links. If you're just spoiling for a fight, bugger off somewhere else. Since you claim to favour ID from a scientific stance, I'm sure you'd be happy to read the best evolutionary arguments for their own sake, rather than some tit-for-tat exchange.
Ben, 23.07.2006, 10:36pm #
you know, there is about as much evidence for "intelligent" design as there is for a ten foot tall squirrel overlord with laser eyes that rules our pitiful planet from his great stone palace on the moon of garlic somewhere in the andromeda galaxy.

the proof?

you can't prove otehrwise.

ID seems to be the lazy way to texplain things. the only difference between ID and the ten foot tall squirrel overlord with laser eyes that rules our pitiful planet from his great stone palace on the moon of garlic somewhere in the andromeda galaxy is that ID has significantly less syllables.
Shaggy, 01.08.2006, 9:20am #
I believe in intelligent design.

Any highly evolved being with a brain believes this. The question we need to be asking is who is the designer? That question can't be answered properly because the question is flawed. It is intelligent designers and each one you reading this is one. A good question for evolution is who made the rules for it? The man of faith clams that a superperson that we have absolutely no evidence of, is the one that chose to make imperfect eyes. Apparently because he didn't want us to see everything. This is coming from an artist that can't see all colors. I believe the laws that evolution follow were never created. It's difficult to, if not impossible, for us mere mortals to imagine anything without a beginning or end. The word thing implies a grouping of matter or energy that had a distinct beginning, end or a relatively predictable end. Evolution is not a thing in the traditional scene, it is an eternal law. It is just as much a part of matter and energy as gravity, nuclear forces and the electromagnetic facts. Life was never an accident, it is inevitable. If we start looking at time properly I think things clear up rather nicely. Time is not the year, day, hour, second....... Time is matter and energy itself. The more one has of ether and the slower the rate of change. Since time is E/M all we need to do is look up in the sky and think about how much time is up there. I haven't done my research but I'm pretty sure there is a ton or two of it. The divine moment when the first few elements join and begin coping itself only takes the right levels of mass and energy. We are positive it happens because we are alive on the most beautiful planet in the solar system. I love my home. As animals look back at there history on earth, we see that we evolved from plants. I love plants but I think their pretty dumb. They really are only half life. Animals are a far more elegant form of life because we have something a plant does not, a mind. Even the silly cockroach has a mind. I wonder what it thinks? We are very similar to this buggy bug. How? We both have a head. A place to house our mind. Some animals seem to value their minds more than others. Mammals are probably the best example of this. We value our minds so much we designed our young to be dependent on us so we had a few years to load software into the hardware. Each program is different. Each parent unique. There is only one designed program that is evil. The program is called "fiction as fact" It is very dangerous and ugly. It sponsors intolerance, greed, segregation and sets individuals up for disaster. An example is having faith that one can float. Richard Dawkins explains this beautifully in his documentary. If a parent loads evil software into the mind of a child the child will willingly walk of a cliff.

My question. Why are there so many bad designers?
sOuthside Rabbitpellet, 03.08.2006, 4:32pm #
Unfortunately, it IS necessary.

The cretinsit?ID-iot line is gaining gound - seen the fundie churches in this country, never mind the USA.

The best defence is attack.

Shout LIAR, as loud and as often as possible.

Sooner or later on of these morond will try to sue - then we get the NSS and the Royal Society to act on our side.
Until then, I'm sorry to say, we will have to get used to answering their idiocies in public.
G. Tingey, 07.08.2006, 9:53am #
Ben, Tim,
be careful guys. Your country is full of Muslim nut jobs.
I've cancelled my trip to the UK, don't feel safe in London.
Don't take anything I say personally, just trying to irritate you guys.

take care,

RHF

[Says Ben: Allowed this comment cos it made me smile]
RHF, 12.08.2006, 11:38pm #
so, speaking of science, i've ehard soemthing amazing. in the town right next to mine, scientists ahve discovered a way to remove stem cells from a human embryo without destroying the said embryo, and from the cell they take, they then grow a hole colony of the things.

pretty nifty, eh?
Shaggy, 26.08.2006, 8:10pm #
i think the problem with most of us atheists,is apathy.most don't want to fight or argue with people we mainly consider to be brainwashed/stupid/ignorant or insane/desparate.i would personally like to burn all religious stuff maybe i will.
zorb8, 04.09.2006, 10:10pm #
"And I know enough about ID to know I don't need to bother with that video. What it boils down to is this - you're on here demanding answers, and I've given you links that contain those answers"

Its quite simple Ben, I'm not going to spend all my time reading lots of text trying to find an answer to something that hasn't been proven and something that you yourself can't locate. I have a life, I have a job, I have shit to do. I have already read a bunch of pages from one of those websites that apparently held answers and arguments against irreducible complexity, yet I have not read anything that addresses the problem.

You tell me to go read crap loads of information yet you have no intention of watching a 1 hour video. Based on the fact that you are some know it all about ID. How does that stop you watching a video? After all, the video contains views from scientists using scientific arguments. Isn't that what you are about? Science?

We are talking about a group of scientist and philosophers here. They all sat down together and looked at the evidence. If you are so certain of evolution and your knowledge of ID then why not take a look and let scientific evidence convince yourself even more.

People have a problem with me raising the point about transitional fossils. Why? All the millions and millions of years it has taken for millions and millions of living organisms to change and evolve and there is nothing? Would it not be expected to find something? Yet as far as you're concerned it's a matter that should simply be ignored and I must be crazy to even be concerned that there is no evidence that has been found.

€œIf you want to know about evolution, read the links. If you're just spoiling for a fight, bugger off somewhere else

Spoiling for a fight? What because I don't believe in a theory that isn't proven? Because I don't believe what you do? Because I refuse to sit here and read text to find arguments for you? That may not even be there?

Fine, I will go elsewhere, believe what u want. Fact There is no evidence for evolution and evolution is an incomplete theory. Sorry I don't have blind faith, but after all I thought this site was against that sort of thing?

I don't know if there is a creator, but I am dam well aware of the very, very big problem that the theory of evolution has to address. All is explained in the video

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5955663642317205059&q=mystery+of+life
Whitty, 10.09.2006, 7:45pm #
I apologize that I didn't read your comments. I was just looking for a space to write my own. I may have found it, and will read your article as soon as I finish blathering on.

I have been working on my Bullshit Page more fervently since it occured to me that religion was bullshit and deserved some quality coverage.

Discovering this site gave me the strenght to continue in the face of ugly winds attempting to blow my skirt up and expose my privates.

Gonz Bless You All!

Wilhemlm Sebastian Gonz
Thomas Daly, 14.09.2006, 4:47am #
If we amusse for a second the innatist position ? that language is more a product of genetic evolution ? then must it follow that all languages have a common ancestor in Africa? If this was not the case and populations evolved an innate grammar separately then we would perhaps expect to find that different populations have different proclivities towards different types of languages.It seems to me, however, that the cultural position is more compatible with languages having fundamentally different structures: i.e. humans left Africa with the same general cognitive machinery, but different types of linguistic structure emerged under cultural evolution.So I wonder if the ?all languages basically have the same structure? assertion is a little bit more on the innatist side of the debate. Although I guess that either genetic or cultural evolution could have converged on the same optimal solutions, giving the appearance that languages all have basically the same linguistic structure.Just some musings.
Grecia, 29.02.2012, 3:25am #

New comments disabled due to spam