Is life so complex that it requires a designer?

[MisterMike]

You know what, close me out. I'm done for now, maybe I'll sign up again some day.

Clarification:

If an admin could close this account, please do.

 

[heretic888]

What does not have a design? order from chaos?

It should be noted that 'design' doesn't necessarily equate to a personal 'intelligence'.

The Baldwin Effect shows us that populations can 'guide' their own evolution through communal 'learning', cultural transmission, and imitation --- and, that over the course of generations, these immediate morphological and phenotypic adaptations can accumulate into gradually emerging patterns within the population's genome.

In other words, organisms that are more likely to independently 'learn' a new skill or ability (i.e., have a greater inclination toward phenotypic flexibility) will tend to adapt more effectively to the environmental niche. This skill or ability is then 'taught' to other members of the population (most likely through imitation), making it a mainstay of the population as a whole. Over time, organisms with the genetic makeup toward this form of phenotypic plasticity are favored, as it requires less effort and investment of resources for them to 'learn' the now-established skill or ability. Thus, gradually, phenotypic plasticity becomes an inherited part of the population's genome (as in the case of humans).

This phenomenon of organic selection also has interesting consequences pertaining to 'Intelligent Design'. No longer do we require an omnipotent Other to postulate the appearance of increasing 'design' or 'order' in nature. Such apparent 'design' can very well be the product of populations 'guiding' their own phylogenetic evolution through 'learning'.

Unfortunately for the 'metaphysical' versions of neo-Darwinism, however, it also demonstrates that the sheer randomness argument for complexity is large lacking in the face of apparent 'directional' trends in evolution. Ultimately, I think research into phenomena like this will lead to a gradual 'broadening' of our definition of natural selection.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

Clarification:

If an admin could close this account, please do.

MisterMike - I would prefer that you don't go. Whilst we do not often agree on topics in the Study, I think your experience elsewhere is a benefit to the society. I, further, think that you, when in your nobler spirits, tend to keep those of us who view the world from the other side of the fence honest.

In this topic, however, you seemed to hit boil before anyone turned up the heat.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

What does not have a design? order from chaos?

Daniel Webster once said.

..."Men hang out their signs indicative of their respective trades; shoe makers hang out a gigantic shoe; jewelers a monster watch, and the dentist hangs out a gold tooth; but up in the Mountains of New Hampshire, God Almighty has hung out a sign to show that there He makes men."...

Was this a random geologic feature upon which Mr. Webster (perhaps under the spell of his encounter with the Devil) projected his own humanity? Or, was it just a rock?

Anyhow, it's gone now .... do we ascribe that to God, or Gravity?

 

[Makalakumu]

If ID is the way to go, I've got a couple of questions...

1. What did the "designer" actually do?
2. How can we see that in nature?

If anyone can point to this, I'd be more apt to accept it as a scientific theory, however, everything I've read, thus far, has been conjecture.

On the other hand, Dr. Andrew Knoll at Havard published and interesting book, Life on a Young Earth. In it, he lays out an argument and shows evidence that supports the view that life started out much simpler then what we see now. The earliest cells were very simple and are not very analogous to what we see now. They were like carts with four wheels compared to formula one racers. The similarities end with four wheels.

The bottom line is that there is ample evidence of archaen and proterozoic cellular life...including fossils...some of them were even found in my neck of the woods. The record shows that life evolved in response to the environment and I don't see very much room for a designer to fit in.

Mars. I brought out mars before because the above point dovetails nicely into the next. If life has simple origins, then it is entirely plausible that life is extremely common in the universe. The simple fact that we found life in one of the two spots we really looked should speak volumes. If this is the case and simple life assembles readily where does the designer fit in? Perhaps life isn't so complex after all...

upnorthkyosa

 

[Cryozombie]

The simple fact that we found life in one of the two spots we really looked should speak volumes. If this is the case and simple life assembles readily where does the designer fit in? Perhaps life isn't so complex after all...

upnorthkyosa

One of 2? Thats not such a big sampling and I would be wary of deciding that was evidence. I could turn on the TV and "I love Lucy" could be playing and then change the channel and its not on the other... thats not strong evidence that "I love Lucy" is the predominant show on all 585 of my channels... If I found it on... 10 channels, then I might go... Hmmm... but I dont think 2 is a big enough sample to derive any conclusions from.

(Personally I believe that there is a lot of life "out there" but I have no proof... just a random belief.)

 

[Andrew Green]

Depends on how you define spot...

Really, we've only looked at one solar system. It has life in it.

Therefore I can conclude that all solar systems have life based on my 100% statistic...

We don't have a sample, no matter how you look at it, given the size of the univers, or evenr the galaxy, it will be a very long time, if ever, before we have a good enough sized sample to draw any conclusions about the frequency of planets capable of creating and supporting life.

 

[Kane]

Even if there is a designer to life, it doesn't mean the Yahweh God was the designer. There is no way in hell some creation myth from the middle east can have anymore validity than the cherokee creation myth (no offense).

I'm a creationist, as well as an evolutionist. Why couldn't God use evolution to create life?

The Vedic creation story at least has some truth in it, as it doesn't claim to know who this creator is.

From Omshakti, Before the beginning, the Brahman (absolute reality) was one and non-dual. It thought, "I am only one -- may I become many." This caused a vibration which eventually became sound, and this sound was Om. Creation itself was set in motion by the vibration of Om. The closest approach to Brahman is that first sound, Om. Thus, this sacred symbol has become emblematic of Brahman just as images are emblematic of material objects. The vibration produced by chanting Om in the physical universe corresponds to the original vibration that first arose at the time of creation. The sound of Om is also called Pranava, meaning that it sustains life and runs through Prana or breath. Om also represents the four states of the Supreme Being. The three sounds in Om (AUM) represent the waking, dream and deep sleep states and the silence which surrounds Om represents the "Turiya" state.


Here is a quote from the Rig Veda;

The Song of Creation

Then there was neither Aught nor Nought, no air nor sky beyond.

What covered all? Where rested all? In watery gulf profound?

Nor death was then, nor deathlessness, nor change of night and day.

That One breathed calmly, self-sustained; nought else beyond it lay.



Gloom hid in gloom existed first - one sea, eluding view.

That One, a void in chaos wrapt, by inward fervour grew.

Within it first arose desire, the primal germ of mind,

Which nothing with existence links, as sages searching find.



The kindling ray that shot across the dark and drear abyss-

Was it beneath? or high aloft? What bard can answer this?

There fecundating powers were found, and mighty forces strove-

A self-supporting mass beneath, and energy above.



Who knows, who ever told, from whence this vast creation rose?

No gods had then been born - who then can e'er the truth disclose?

Whence sprang this world, and whether framed by hand divine or no-

Its lord in heaven alone can tell, if even he can show.

Notice how the creation story asks more questions than gives solutions. Because in truth there is only one way we can ever know God. That is through science and possibly through meditation.

Anyways, just wanted to add a different perspective on creation, since now a days creationism is usually used more by judeo-christo-islamo creationists trying to prove their way if creation.

There are other more complex religions out there that mankind can benefit from. Vedic Religions as well as Buddhism are examples .

 

[Jonathan Randall]

The "Intelligent Design" debate is heating up around the country and especially in Dover, Pennsylvania. The fundamental question in this debate, in my opinion, is, "IS life so complex that it requires a designer?"

Please vote in the above poll and tell us why you believe this or why don't you believe this.

Good question. I just finished "Cosmos", the complete series by Carl Sagan on DVD. He says no; I say, I don't know...

 

[Makalakumu]

One of 2? Thats not such a big sampling and I would be wary of deciding that was evidence. I could turn on the TV and "I love Lucy" could be playing and then change the channel and its not on the other... thats not strong evidence that "I love Lucy" is the predominant show on all 585 of my channels... If I found it on... 10 channels, then I might go... Hmmm... but I dont think 2 is a big enough sample to derive any conclusions from.

(Personally I believe that there is a lot of life "out there" but I have no proof... just a random belief.)

Its plenty big when you consider the numbers. In fact, its more then big enough. According to some, the chances that life would randomly assemble are are around 1x10^56 :1 and if our universe is only 15 billion years old, the fact that life formed at all is staggeringly amazing...according to those numbers.

Finding life on Mars changes all of this. Not only did life "miraculously appear" once in the universe, it appeared twice! In fact, it appeared twice in the same solar system! Coincidence? No way. The chances for this are so rediculously huge that its obvious. Life must be MUCH more common in the universe then we ever expected.

It is instructive to remember that we are way out in BFE in our galaxy. Our little solar system sits on the end of a little spiral arm and the bulk of our galaxies stars are very far away. The conclusion that life is extremely rare in our universe is understandalbe. However, I think it may end up being one of the "flat earth" ideas that people discard. In the two places we looked, we found life in one...in this little podunk solar system way out in the boondocks...Its absolutely amazing.

 

[Cryozombie]

.

Finding life on Mars changes all of this.

Just out of curiosity, what is the proof of life on mars? I recall in the late 90's, early 2000's they clamed there was life based on a meteor or spacerock or somthing, but it was always considered "Possibly bacterial life" and they didnt have hard evidence to prove it actually was... did the mars rover find somthing else? Id google for the proof of life on mars, but Im getting ready for work and olny have like 5 minutes here...

 

[kenposis]

As one living very near the Dover debate, I've been involved with many of these discussions. The real question is not whether someone believes in God as the Creator or not (which I do, for clarification purposes), but whether ID is a plausible theory, though not necessarily a scientific one.

PM me if I need to say anything else, I need to get ready for class.
~Jessica

 

[Makalakumu]

Just out of curiosity, what is the proof of life on mars? I recall in the late 90's, early 2000's they clamed there was life based on a meteor or spacerock or somthing, but it was always considered "Possibly bacterial life" and they didnt have hard evidence to prove it actually was... did the mars rover find somthing else? Id google for the proof of life on mars, but Im getting ready for work and olny have like 5 minutes here...

Upthread, I linked a MT thread on the subject. The Mars Rovers did indeed find something...

 

[michaeledward]

As one living very near the Dover debate, I've been involved with many of these discussions. The real question is not whether someone believes in God as the Creator or not (which I do, for clarification purposes), but whether ID is a plausible theory, though not necessarily a scientific one.

PM me if I need to say anything else, I need to get ready for class.
~Jessica

Jessica, the question is whether Intelligent Design is a plausible, scientific, theory. The lawsuit is about challenging the theory of evolution and introducing Intelligent Design into the biology classroom.

People supporting Intelligent Design spend a great deal of energy attacking the Theory of Evolution, because, like all science, our understanding is not complete. This creates targets of opportunity to attack.

People supporting Intelligent Design do not spend a great deal of time defending their own position, because, in that arena, weaknesses appear.

Intelligent Design does fairly well in colloquial discussion. Once the believers are seated and sworn to give testimony, the Intelligent Design discussion falls apart. This is what we will see in this current trial. Under cross-examination, cleared away from the smoke and mirrors, Intelligent Design is accurately portrayed as what it is; Creationism according to Fundamental Christianity.

And that has no place in the science classroom.

 

[7starmantis]

Purpose is natural selection, doesn't need a designer.

Within any species there is a good deal of natural variation. Looking at people, we got different heights, widths, skin color, hair color, IQ, physical ability, etc.

Those who's natural variation gives them an advantage survive better, mate with others who are at a natural advantage and produce offspring which got started based on genes that have an advantage.

Grant it, but is height, width, skin color, etc. mutable variations that offer some advantage?

Those who's natural variation puts them at a disadvantage don't survive as well, and there gene lines are eventually removed as they die out.

Mutation will be excellerated by a change in environment, which will make the variations more important. Or rather specific variations more important.

This could happen a bit faster in my opinion.
I'm not arguing against evolution, I think there is enough evidence to show this as accurate. (Visit Galapogos) What I'm saying is that the generally accepted "beginning point" of evolution is thin at best. Is it intellegent design? Who knows, but I dont think the "lucky one shot in infinite time" is an argument that holds much merrit.
Intellegent design is being labeled as creationism in a suit, but I think thats incorrect. As Heritic pointed out, it all depends on where you place the intellegence.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

Just out of curiosity, what is the proof of life on mars?

I thought it as just a matter of evidence of organic chemicals, like those that occur in living beings...but which could also appear without them.

 

[arnisador]

Intelligent Design is not its own theory, as a practical matter; it's a series of attacks on evolution, as one would see upon perusing any book allegedly on the subject of ID. It's the false alternative approach--if evolution is wrong, my pet theory, the only alternative, must be right!

Until I get a good answer to the question "Who designed the Dessigner?" I'm going to be very skeptical of ID.

 

[Cryozombie]

Upthread, I linked a MT thread on the subject. The Mars Rovers did indeed find something...

Direct Quote from your Link:

What Stoker and Lemke have found, according to several attendees of the private meeting, which took place Sunday, is not direct proof of life on Mars, but methane signatures and other signs of possible biological activity remarkably similar to those recently discovered in caves here on Earth.

So... thats not proof in my book. Now... the aliens at Roswell on the other hand...

 

[Cryozombie]

Until I get a good answer to the question "Who designed the Dessigner?" I'm going to be very skeptical of ID.

The Spaghetti Monster.

No, I am not trying to be funny. Look it up.

 

[arnisador]

The Spaghetti Monster.

OK, that's just wrong.