Multi-Million/Billionaires Owning Farms
Society & Culture0 min ago
A question of intelligence
Err.. what is 'intelligent design'? something to do with evolution ( or opposing it ).. ya, that one. Can anyone give it to me in layman's terms?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gnisy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The scourge of the guilt driven, fear motivated proliferation of anti-reason evident even in todays world is regrettable. But even if those who perfer to inform the world of the destructive nature of such misinformation are in the minority, for them belief in the boogie man continues to not be an option.
Those who adhere to reason realize that intimidation and force, or appeals to ones fears or guilt to regress to a former state do not produce free thinking individuals which are our hope for the sustained and forward evolution of our species.
The scourge of the guilt driven, fear motivated proliferation of anti-reason evident even in today�s world is regrettable. But even if those who prefer to inform the world of the destructive nature of such misinformation are in the minority, for them belief in the boogie man continues to not be an option.
Gnisy, The unstated underlying premise of �Intelligent Design� presupposes that intelligence itself is not a product of evolution, that intelligence can exist prior to a world where learning is possible to a creature/s that has no physical body or brain. Only a creature possessing a faculty of reason (or unreason in this case), could even create such a ludicrous �idea� as �Intelligent Design� so therefore if one continues to grant credence to this �idea� then one must dispense with reason.
Any more questions?
My apologies to Gnisy, but in light of there apparently being no reasonable answers to the majority of the questions asked so far, I thought I'd make it a little easier.
Intelligent design crew: to help our understanding, can you give us sceptics an example of a phenomenon in nature that - without a doubt - could not have come to exist according to evolution theory? (Notice how lenient I'm being here? You need only describe how one characteristic of one organism defies evolution, but here's the catch: your reasoning must be indisputable, and not so complicated that the majority of us can't understand it.)
I am sorry for not contributing anything but questions to this discussion, but frankly, the topic in question here is so vast, so complicated and spans so many fields of study that I'd be lying if I said I understood it back-to-back. We must be coming to the end of the argument now, anyway, because certainly no one will be able to answer this question.
Fair enough... but first we set some ground rules... Fristly, we rely on Darwin for the definitions and secondly we then agree if my example(s) defy his requirements.
In his Origin of Species, Darwin says:
�If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.� Darwin, C., (1872), Origin of Species, 6th Ed., New York University Press, New York, p. 154, 1988. (Emphasis added)
The concept of irreducibility requires a set of characteristics that must exist simultaneously. Such characteristics are termed critical characteristics. The advantage of identifying critical characteristics is that they give an indication of the minimum quantity of design information that must exist simultaneously in the genetic code for a mechanism to have any useful function. (Source:Stuart Burgess is a lecturer in Engineering Design in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University, United Kingdom.)
Contd.
Contd.
The irreducible mechanism of the knee joint is shown to contain at least 16 critical characteristics, each requiring thousands of precise units of information to exist simultaneously in the genetic code. This demonstrates that the knee could not have evolved but must have been created as a fully functioning limb joint from the beginning of its existence.
To wit: Steven Vogel (Cat's Paws and Catapults, Penguin Books, London, p. 23) 1998says:
� � the evolutionary process faces constraints far more severe than anything impeding human designers. We biologists recognise these constraints, but we don�t often rise above our natural chauvinism and make enough noise about them. Every organism must grow from an initially smaller to an ultimately larger size. Nature in effect must transmute a motorcycle into an automobile while providing continuous transportation. The need for growth without loss of function can impose severe geometrical limitations.�
(You didn't say this had to be short)
The human knee is a marvel of engineering... It's called a condylar joint because the femur has two condylar protrusions which are matched by concave "dimples" on the tibia. The two central ligaments that connect the tibia to the femur are called cruciate ligaments because of the way they form a cross. These cruciate ligaments fit neatly inside the space between the two condyles.
(I wish that I could copy and paste a diagram, which I can't).
Contd.
Contd.
The knee joint is an irreducible joint because each of its four complex parts needs to exist simultaneously and in a complex assembly to be able to perform its basic function. The two bones are essential because they perform the rolling and sliding motion. The two cruciate ligaments are essential because they act as mechanical linkages and perform a vital guiding function in the joint. If just one ligament is removed, then the joint cannot function as a hinge, and the joint can have no useful function.
The irreducibility of the knee joint is most clearly demonstrated by identifying the critical geometrical characteristics that must be defined in the genetic code. The knee has many critical geometrical characteristics because the two cruciate ligaments and the two leg bones form a very sophisticated and precise mechanism, called a four-bar hinge.
The knee joint is a particularly sophisticated kind of four-bar hinge, because the cruciate ligaments are not rigid and have to be kept taut by the rolling action of the bones.
The 16 critical characteristics must not only be present, but must also be precisely compatible with each other to produce the right physical motion. The two bones must have a compatible curvature at their interface and this curvature must also be precisely compatible with the position and movement of the cruciate ligaments.
Contd.
Knee diagrams and photos. (Warning: photos depict mild gore.)
Contd.
In particular, the bones must be shaped so as to make the lower leg rotate around the instantaneous centre of rotation of the four-bar hinge. If the attachment points are not in the right place on the bones, then the instantaneous centre of rotation of the knee joint will not be compatible with the shapes of the bones, and the knee will seize up or fall apart. The ligaments must also be assembled to the correct attachment points so that the ligaments form a cross. If one of the ligaments was assembled to the wrong attachment point such that the cross was not formed, then the knee could not function as a hinge and would be useless.
Since a human characteristic is typically specified by one gene with about 1,000 chemical units of information, it requires many thousands of units of information in the genetic code to specify the essential design information of the four-bar hinge. The theory of evolution proposes that mutations cause random changes to units of information in the genetic code and that this leads to evolution. Yet with the knee, many thousands of precise units of information must be in place simultaneously for the knee to have any usefulness.
Contd.
Contd.
Not only must all critical characteristics be present from the start but they must also remain unchanged, otherwise this will cause the physical system to break down.
It is interesting to note that some biology books describe the knee joint as a �highly modified hinge joint� implying that the knee must have evolved from the simple pivot joint that exists in the elbow. The use of the term �highly modified� shows that evolutionists are aware that there is a big difference between a pivot joint and a condylar joint. In fact, the difference is enormous because there are no known intermediate mechanisms between a simple pivot hinge and a four-bar mechanism. In particular, a pivot joint has nothing remotely like the two crossed cruciate ligaments at the centre of the joint. The evolutionist might argue that there is a similarity with the curved surfaces of the bones. However, there is even a distinct difference in the curvature of the bones between the knee and elbow joints because of the complex motion of the knee.
It would seem impossible for evolutionism to explain how an evolutionary process could cause two ligaments to suddenly become crossed at the centre of a pivot joint, precisely at the same time that a space is formed to accommodate them, and precisely at the same time that a complex and compatible rolling motion is formed!
Contd.
Contd.
The basic principle of the knee joint is unique whether it is the knee joint of an animal or human being. However, there is yet a further problem for the evolutionist in that the human knee is distinctly different from animal knees. In the case of humans, the knee is designed to lock easily in extension (straight leg) so that maintaining straight legs and a vertical posture is easy. This design feature is one reason why man is a biped (two-legged) and is able to walk and run upright in a completely natural way. Apes� knees cannot lock and must be continually loaded in flexion (bent leg). Thus apes are generally quadrupedal (four-legged) and it is extremely difficult for apes to maintain a vertical posture with its legs.
Whether gene mutations are random (as atheists believe) or planned (as many theistic evolutionists believe) the process of evolution cannot produce an irreducible mechanism because evolution is restricted to incremental change in the genetic code.
Rebuttals please...
One final offering...
Darwin also said (I use paraphrase, citation on request) that if any end result of evolution that proved to harm the recipient could be shown, it would destroy his theory.
May I offer the humble honey bee? This insect has existed, unchanged (stasis), by most estimates for 70MA (millions of years). As most of us know, if the honey bee stings in protection of its hive or itself, it immediately dies, because it is disembowled by tearing out of itself the stinging mechanism. Seems to me to be the ultimate in harm to the recipient, no? So, how can this be, in light of Charles' predicition?
Last one... human eye. So, you can reconcile (I can't) all the individual adaptation of mechanisms that are required to be present for the eye to function. Then explain, even giving you (which I don't) incremental development, how evolution provided for the fact that the image projected on the retina is upside down, yet our brains are able to make sense of that image and it is righted, producing an accurate picture of the world around us? Do you not see that the brain would have had to prepare for this function independantly before the eye developed, or conversely, the eye would have had to know the image was inverted and made some kind of correction? Do you really think this to be logical explanation?
Hi Drusilla, Ya, I went to bed and when I got up there were an additional 15 posts. At least they posted my name in Bold so I know which part actually answers my question and which part are just part of an ongoing debate happening here. Happy to see everyone enjoying themselves (sic). I finally got an inkling of what ID is. As to which design is more accurate, I leave i up to the experts to decide.
I see what you're getting at - it is beyond the scope of the human brain to visualise and understand the intermediate steps between [creature with no knees] and [creature with fully functional knees], therefore the intermediate stages did not exist? Personally, I wonder why an intelligent designer would go well out of His (or Her) way to design deliberately inefficient, needlessly complicated structures such as our knees and ears and eyes when He (or She) has already produced better examples (e.g. horses' legs, owls' ears, hawks' eyes). Why not give them all to humans - we're smart enough not to abuse our superiority, right? Why didn't the designer see fit to make us the perfect creature, with no physical or mental weaknesses, so that we might enjoy our lives free of illness and injury?
Evolution, of course, correctly predicts a natural balance to occur between all creatures, most of the time. That is to say, organisms tend to be "only as good as they need to be" with no particular creature evolving into an all-powerful form, for this is obviously its own weakness. If a species gets an evolutionary "boost" through a chance series of beneficial mutations and becomes, shall we say, a little "too good" then its success will soon cause it to exhaust its own food supply, diminishing the species' own population until food supplies build back up. This oscillating pattern is abundant in nature. The more significant the boost to a species, the faster that species will exhaust its food supply and the closer it will bring itself to extinction as a result. You can see that no "perfect animal" could ever evolve without simultaneously destroying itself. And besides, the chances of random mutations producing such a creature are minute, if not physically impossible.
I will admit that I am no knee expert. However, I do truly believe that even an intricate structure such as the knee joint can evolve in a series of small steps. The stumbling block is the belief that every mutation to an organism's DNA must convey obvious benefits to that organism in order to stay in the gene pool. This is blatantly untrue! A mutation, or large group of mutations brought together in a single organism (i.e. through reproduction) might bestow that organism with one of three things: an advantage, a disadvantage, or a neutral addition to its DNA. All three can stay in the gene pool. All can be passed on! So what if a mammal was born with a stump on the end of its leg? That's a neutral addition to its DNA - give it a million generations and you have yourself a mammal with paws that it can use to dig a burrow. In the future, there is no doubt in my mind that we will have computers capable of accurately modelling the process of evolution, and perhaps even deducing what "missing link" creatures may have looked like, and how they lived. Until then, it is always a pleasure to discuss such topics with you, Clanad, and everyone here on the Answerbank.
P.S. I find your postulate that evolution cannot create an irreducible mechanism particularly powerful, and I wish I had a better answer for you, but I maintain that, as much as knees and eyes and bees might appear useless if you take an imaginary "step back", it would take a truly gigantic intellect to exhaust every possibility and pursue every train of thought in order to come to the conclusion that a step back is impossible. In short, these are not �irreducible mechanisms�, and none shall ever exist.
P.S. I find your postulate that evolution cannot create an irreducible mechanism particularly powerful, and I wish I had a better answer for you, but I maintain that, as much as knees and eyes and bees might appear useless if you take an imaginary "step back", it would take a truly gigantic intellect to exhaust every possibility and pursue every train of thought in order to come to the conclusion that a step back is impossible. In short, these are not �irreducible mechanisms�, and none shall ever exist.
Well, netsquirrel, it's not enough to just say "in short, these are not irreducible mechanisms, ans none shall never exist." That may be your opinion, and you're certainly welcome to it, but where's your "proof". Lacking that, should not all possible alternatives to evolution be considered... and taught? Why is a theory that is so obviously lacking so sacrasant? I believe I know, but that's porridge for another thread...
I too am no expert in knees, and don't possess the necessary information to refute that particular example, but personally suspect that it is not an irreducibly complex system at all. I also know that the originator of the term Michael Behe, has presented many examples of supposedly irreducibly complex systems that have subsequently been shown to be nothing of the kind - the blood clotting mechanism, one of his key examples in his original examination of the topic, for example. See also Venus Fly Trap, falgellum in microbes - http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
My understanding is that with every example that is presented then debunked, yet another is postulated. My point being that there seems to me to be something a little suspect about dogmatically sticking to a theory despite the fact that every time an example is proposed it gets debunked. Surely this tends to suggest the underlying contention is in need of a little rethinking?
I do know a little more about eyes however. Your example seems to me to commit an obvious fallacy. You present the eye as something arriving in situ as a complete system, with no antecedents. But this misses the fundamental point about how evolution explains the development of such systems.
Evolutionists would tell you categorically that the eye of a human - or indeed any similarly complex eye is the result of mutations in previous forms. Your argument is a human's eye is a complex system that could not have evolved since it would have been useless until it reached its present complexity. But evolution is perfectly transparent on the fact that the eye of a human was *always* this complex. Its evolution into this complex form took place in pre-human organisms, back when life was still in the oceans, and would not have been the complex system we see now. A partially functioning eye would have been of obvious benefit to creatures in some environments. Natural selection would favour that mutation and it would develop. A good example to give would be squid where one can see potentially transitional eyes from very simple to eyes every bit as complex as the human eye. Thus the eye is not irreducibly complex because simpler eyes exist that are perfectly serviceable within the environment of the organisms that have them. Just by looking around we can find eyes ranging from basic photo-receptors to the black and white vision of a domestic cat to the eye of a human, with numerous examples at every stage in between. Given that evolution states unequivocally that human beings have developed from in stages from more primitive organisms, does the irreducible complexity argument, as you've presented it hold any water at all?
Evolutionists would tell you categorically that the eye of a human - or indeed any similarly complex eye is the result of mutations in previous forms. Your argument is a human's eye is a complex system that could not have evolved since it would have been useless until it reached its present complexity. But evolution is perfectly transparent on the fact that the eye of a human was *always* this complex. Its evolution into this complex form took place in pre-human organisms, back when life was still in the oceans, and would not have been the complex system we see now. A partially functioning eye would have been of obvious benefit to creatures in some environments. Natural selection would favour that mutation and it would develop. A good example to give would be squid where one can see potentially transitional eyes from very simple to eyes every bit as complex as the human eye. Thus the eye is not irreducibly complex because simpler eyes exist that are perfectly serviceable within the environment of the organisms that have them. Just by looking around we can find eyes ranging from basic photo-receptors to the black and white vision of a domestic cat to the eye of a human, with numerous examples at every stage in between. Given that evolution states unequivocally that human beings have developed from in stages from more primitive organisms, does the irreducible complexity argument, as you've presented it hold any water at all?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Strands#265 Did You Hear That?
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
