Reading about the ID/Evolution conflict

[daniel_i_l]

I was reading about the ID/Evolution conflict and saw some of the arguments aginst evolution. Some of them were pretty convincing:
1) I the first human on the moon would find a clock, no one would believe that the clock got there "by chance", it'd be easier to believe that aliens (or the Russians) put it there.
2) The body, and even one cell are so complicated and elegant, where each part has an exact purpose, and without just one part they'd die. How could that all evolve by chance and how did all of the critical organs appear at once?

The list goes on but those are the main ones. So does evolution answer those questions or does it look at them as unimportant and hope that maybe later the answers will come? I personally think that evolution is a beutifull theory, but those questions have been naging me for weeks.

Thanks.

 

[Monique]

I was reading about the ID/Evolution conflict and saw some of the arguments aginst evolution. Some of them were pretty convincing:
1) I the first human on the moon would find a clock, no one would believe that the clock got there "by chance", it'd be easier to believe that aliens (or the Russians) put it there.

And where did the russian come from.

2) The body, and even one cell are so complicated and elegant, where each part has an exact purpose, and without just one part they'd die. How could that all evolve by chance and how did all of the critical organs appear at once?

Ask yourself that question with a car in mind. How did it appear, you need every little bolt for it to work.. how did an engineer think to put everything together in such a masterplan? Truth is that a car evolved over years and at first was very simple. That does not take away that the end-result IS very elegant and intricate

 

[daniel_i_l]

But for the car you need an engineer, there is basicly 0 chance of the car, even a simple one being built on its own, how can we accept a theory that's against such impossible odds?
Thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

1) Logical error: faulty analogy. We would first have to accept that finding advanced life is analagous to finding a working clock on the Moon.

2) Evolution does answer this issue. (But it's not a simple answer, which is why the simplistic question sounds convincing to those who have not studied the theory.)

The flaw in the argument comes from a misunderstanding of how evolution works. Suggesting that a given item evolved all at once with the critical elements in place is tantamount to suggesting that birds first appeared with fully working feathers and the ability to fly, and that there were no intevening steps wherein they had a bodily coating that had other purposes than flying.

The key to understanding evolution is to understand that the parts evolved first, and evolved as a result of other survival needs. The use to which those parts were put came afterwards when they were they found to be repurposable.

 

[DaveC426913]

But for the car you need an engineer, there is basicly 0 chance of the car, even a simple one being built on its own, how can we accept a theory that's against such impossible odds?
Thanks.

Yah, Monique, that's exactly the wrong argument, becasue it's an argument FOR ID.

 

[Monique]

Yah, Monique, that's exactly the wrong argument, becasue it's an argument FOR ID.

It just goes to show that with small steps you can build a big thing and that something complicated can come from something simple. Maybe not the best example.

 

[daveb]

Also, the problem with ID isn't that it states that things were ultimately created by some intelligent being. The problem with ID lies in the fact that it touts itself as science, yet follows no scientific principles. ID is a fine philosophy, faith, whatever, as long as it stays out of trying to dictate the science of biology.

 

[DaveC426913]

Also, the problem with ID isn't that it states that things were ultimately created by some intelligent being. The problem with ID lies in the fact that it touts itself as science, yet follows no scientific principles. ID is a fine philosophy, faith, whatever, as long as it stays out of trying to dictate the science of biology.

OK, but the OP is not asking about what ID puts forth, he is merely asking about the validity of the arguments against natural evolution.

 

[DaveC426913]

It just goes to show that with small steps you can build a big thing and that something complicated can come from something simple. Maybe not the best example.

Right. But it makes the point that an intelligent designer is required to make a big thing out of small steps, which is precisely what ID is trying to say.

 

[daveb]

2) The body, and even one cell are so complicated and elegant, where each part has an exact purpose, and without just one part they'd die. How could that all evolve by chance and how did all of the critical organs appear at once?

This is not quite true. There are numerous redundant systems in the body and in a cell. Millions of cells die every die and are replaced. The cells aren't replaced and then die. Also, cells become damaged but are repaired at an amazing rate. Most individual organelles inside a cell can die or become non-functioning, but this doesn't cause cell death. So the whole idea of a cell, body, organ dieing without just one part is completely wrong. It depends on how much of it is damaged (and how much varies from organ system to organ system).

 

[Monique]

Right. But it makes the point that an intelligent designer is required to make a big thing out of small steps, which is precisely what ID is trying to say.

That is why I said it is not the best example. The point I was trying to make is that all critical organs needn't appear at once, that evolution AND design can build up from a simpler prototype. A better example would be grouping organisms into a phylogenetic tree and showing their common descent (for instance the different mechanisms for energy generation). You can also compare organisms that were separated in space and look at their divergence: evolution in progress (for instance the worm C. elegans: one variety was isolated in England, the other Hawaii. Both worms have a common descent but show subtle differences, for instance in their mating behaviour).

 

[Moonbear]

2) The body, and even one cell are so complicated and elegant, where each part has an exact purpose, and without just one part they'd die. How could that all evolve by chance and how did all of the critical organs appear at once?

Patty elegantly answered your first question. I'll answer this one.

All one needs to do is find examples where this is not true to show the reasoning is flawed. Not every part has a purpose or is needed for survival of the organism. Many are redundant or vestigial. A few obvious examples come to mind quite quickly in the human on an organ system level (there are many more examples at a cellular or molecular level, but there's no need to get into those when we can think of some at a more macroscopic level). If you damage your spleen, it can be removed, and you'll survive just fine. With kidneys, we only need one of them, so can survive well enough if one of the pair ceases to function properly, as does happen. Our appendix is considered a vestigial organ with no function in humans (other animals have a well-developed cecum that aids in digestion of plant material, but it doesn't seem to serve that function in humans), so that when it becomes infected, it can be removed and we continue to live quite well. Tonsils are thought to have useful function for children in development of the immune system, but when they chronically become inflamed/infected, then they hinder health/survival unless removed.

I can give you a few examples at a cell/molecular level too, but I'll only do so if you request it, because it will take a good deal more explaining of the biology that accompanies it than examples using organ systems with which we're all familiar.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hang on - the OP is talking about some very specific examples that the ID-theorists have come up with, he's not talking about just any old interdependent systems.

I can't remember what they are, or the details, but there are several well-known examples - such as the complex eye and the mitochrondrial cell or somesuch - that generally, are very difficult to explain how they came to be (at least, to ID-theorists, that is).

 

[PIT2]

1) Logical error: faulty analogy. We would first have to accept that finding advanced life is analagous to finding a working clock on the Moon.

It isn't necesarily a false analogy, since it isn't claimed that the cell is analogous to the clock, only that it could be analogous to the clock. The clock example demonstrates that even if a clock (or some unknown alien-produced device)was found, people would still claim it was the result of chance and evolution, because the design alternative is regarded as unnatural. It also shows that even if a natural (non-design) alternative is given, that still doesn't make the non-design alternative right. In that sense the example simply demonstrates that the design option should not be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Taoist]

1) I the first human on the moon would find a clock, no one would believe that the clock got there "by chance", it'd be easier to believe that aliens (or the Russians) put it there.

This example I am not familiar with, something tells me this is some comment to a thesis like Schrödinger’s Cat.

2) The body, and even one cell are so complicated and elegant, where each part has an exact purpose, and without just one part they'd die. How could that all evolve by chance and how did all of the critical organs appear at once?

Well we know it didn’t appear at once especially as theology depicts. I say this because of a physical item such as “dinosaur bones;” it would mean they were put into the Earth for our curiosity or just to employ people, you make that determination for us. Evolution and the basis is a sound viable method of assisting and understanding. For example; do you look like your parents or your grand parents, etc….. Or the platypus …. If that critter did not evolve to fill an evolutionary niche then the creator has a great sense of humor.

Living things are all organized supporting each other to accomplish the ability to continue, recreate… etc…. so this would apply not only to a single cell, but also a multi-organ creature, all the way to a society of ants or even an ecologic system. Autonomy is superficial when addressing a system and any description should have the same parameters no matter the scale. So parts or organs are important even though immediate survival adjustments are made.

DaveC . ..The key to understanding evolution is to understand that the parts evolved first,

That’s a great statement and going to the molecular level will be a must just as Patty mentioned. So defining what laws can describe the base parts of a living thing at the molecular level is necessary before the rest of the descriptions can be thoughtfully completed.

What a concept!

 

[Taoist]

So here I ask can we entertain ideas?

and thanks PIT2 ... I like a thinker who can share good thought processing!

 

[Phobos]

1) I the first human on the moon would find a clock, no one would believe that the clock got there "by chance", it'd be easier to believe that aliens (or the Russians) put it there.

A clock is a known human artifact and the moon is a place where clock-making humans have visited. What if you found a complex, self reproducing, unidentified, organic thing on a planet we've never been to?

As I note below, the "chance" argument is a strawman.

2) The body, and even one cell are so complicated and elegant, where each part has an exact purpose, and without just one part they'd die. How could that all evolve by chance and how did all of the critical organs appear at once?

(1) Remember that evolution is not random chance. Not meaning to personify nature here, but natural selection selects variations that work. Variations that work eventually make other variations that work differently. Some variations include additions or delations. Eventually you can get a complex looking thing which would seem impossible if you assumed it all came together at once. Which is not what evolution shows.
(2) As noted above, critical organs did not appear all at once. Also note that with duplicate genes, a cell can still perform a critical task while the duplicate is allowed to vary. If the variation is better than the original, then the original can be replaced.
(3) On a large scale, consider vestigal features. On a small scale, consider duplicate or inactive genes.

 

[Gokul43201]

1) I the first human on the moon would find a clock, no one would believe that the clock got there "by chance", it'd be easier to believe that aliens (or the Russians) put it there.

This is true, and it only tells you how science works - nothing about why Evolution is wrong.

The existence of aliens and Russians is not contradictory to our current scientific framework. The existence of an omnipotent being that violates the framework of our science is contradictory to the framework of our science.

With this scientific framework, we can assign/estimate probabilities to various events. The probability that Russians propelled a clock to the moon is pretty low. The probability that aliens once visited the moon and left no noticeable trace (other than the clock) is also pretty darn low. The probability that the clock self assembled is, however, much lower than the above two numbers.

As for complex lifeforms, from a purely theoretical point of view, the probability that they self-evolved is much greater than the probability that an undetected, unobserved being that violates this theoretical construct engineered their evolution. The former probability is greatly enhanced by observational evidence.

 

[Taoist]

Gokul43201 ….As for complex lifeforms, from a purely theoretical point of view, the probability that they self-evolved is much greater than the probability …

of course in a … ‘theoretical point of view’…. But what about within your reasoned thoughts knowing what you do now? Could it be possible that all life is based from a basic law of physics and progressed from there? And that maybe a re-look at how this “life” or possible energy is described upon the molecular structures could be a good place to look?

Maybe just an idea ….theoretically speaking of course!

 

[Phobos]

When you say something "looks" designed, you should ask yourself by what standard you are judging it. Similarity to other designed things? Absense of knowledge of how it works?

 

[Taoist]

Problem is ‘designed” has nothing to do with evolution. Are you designed to look like your parents or are you an evolved entity from the combination of your family tree?

So I will agree, by not knowing how this process work, exactly, the majority is still seeking that truth.

If the process was broken down to what is occurring at the molecular level and an identification of what “life” is upon these structures should reflect a base set of laws that all life in all its illustrious forms should follow. Would you agree?

So then to return to a molecular level than we need to observe physics and within physics we have base mass and energy. And these two are intertwined or directly associated, one cannot be without the other or better yet you cannot measure either without the other, how is that.

Well if life is to be described by either than I will choose ‘energy’ to be the life part because a rock doesn’t do much and I know the sun gives energy to molecular structures and then they do something afterwards.

So energy is a good choice. Now in physics what is all energy? A form of electromagnetic radiation!

Now here we have energy and mass to describe life at the molecular level, so what is occurring to constitute a living process? Would it be necessary to understand the properties of the both energy and mass and how they associate, first before trying to apply a set of rules to life?

A designed thing would have not need to follow rules but an evolving thing does.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This general conclusion is not so far off, but you have to recognize that electromagnetism comes in other forms than radiation; electric charge and magnetism for example! Almost all chemistry is based on electromagnetism; molecules swapping or sharing electrons, with their propensity to do so based on the gradients of the local electromagnetic field. How this all goes down is WELL-UNDERSTOOD, and in many cases basic properties of it are important for life. The role of the Hydrogen Bond, and its very special properties in the dynamics of DNA is a good example.

 

[Taoist]

How this all goes down is WELL-UNDERSTOOD, and in many cases basic properties of it are important for life

I agree in a sense …. Well understood (r u yelling with the caps) is not really all that true otherwise we would not have all these people asking questions now would we kind sir?

Where biology has failed is in addressing the reactions occurring within metabolic processes. “It looks like this but is giving us that, why? I don’t know!” that is current biology. For example when you look into a microscope and watch a living cell having all these little bursts of energy, no one has described these but they only see the before and after of the base molecules but do not have a framework to address the energy released, nor what effects these bursts have on the neighborhood molecules.

Try this reading …. A whole new approach to addressing this missing description is being studied now http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m12592/latest/

Basically they suggest they are ………….” We are interested here in an understanding of the energetics of chemical reactions. Specifically, we wish to know what factors determine whether heat is absorbed or released during a chemical reaction. With that knowledge, we seek to quantify and predict the amount of heat anticipated in a chemical reaction. We expect to find that the quantity of heat absorbed or released during a reaction is related to the bonding of the molecules involved in the reaction.
Prior to answering these questions, we must first answer a few questions regarding the nature of heat. Despite our common familiarity with heat (particularly in Houston), the concept of heat is somewhat elusive to define. We recognize heat as "whatever it is that makes things hot," but this definition is too imprecise to permit measurement or any other conceptual progress. Exactly how do we define and measure heat?”

So basically what you said about “well understood” must be some theory you have but chemical reaction have proven to be not so well understood even in today’s educational facilities.

Sorry to be so direct but what you posted is not as well understood as you profess which is very misleading to a couple folks still here on the globe!

Take a seat and ask a few questions before YELLING at me kind sir.

 

[Monique]

Where biology has failed is in addressing the reactions occurring within metabolic processes. “It looks like this but is giving us that, why? I don’t know!” that is current biology. For example when you look into a microscope and watch a living cell having all these little bursts of energy, no one has described these but they only see the before and after of the base molecules but do not have a framework to address the energy released, nor what effects these bursts have on the neighborhood molecules.

Could you specify exactly where biology (biochemistry) has failed to address metabolic processes and what you mean by 'little bursts of energy, no one has described'?

 

[Moonbear]

For example when you look into a microscope and watch a living cell having all these little bursts of energy, no one has described these but they only see the before and after of the base molecules but do not have a framework to address the energy released, nor what effects these bursts have on the neighborhood molecules.

Huh? What little bursts of energy do you see when looking at a cell through a microscope? Molecules are not visible through a microscope either. Quite a good deal IS known, however, about the molecular interactions within cells. Just check out how many shelves of the library are taken up by journals covering biochemistry, molecular biology and cell biology.

Take a seat and ask a few questions before YELLING at me kind sir.

Some people selectively use capitals for emphasis. I suggest toning it down a notch and asking a few of your own questions before making unfounded presumptions.

 

[Taoist]

Biology cannot describe the energy released in any metabolic process but here is what I am drilling down from ...Metabolic reactions; type; Catabolism; exothermic reactions….

So I ask very nicely, "Please share with us any descriptions of this regarding the energy released in any biological system in any volume published, please!"

Yes it’s in thermodynamics or their descriptive models but please in biology.

Little explosions? Have you ever looked at a living cell under a microscope? I did not say a molecule an individual cell.

Try this http://science.nhmccd.edu/biol/microbio.html#bacteria or more clearly this link
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/biomi290/MOVIES/PASTEUR.HTML

or this for a whole bunch of little explosions…… http://depts.washington.edu/fishscop/Boss/pages/movie_pages/epidermal/epidermal.html

In any system of chemical reactions you have activity, and although no one can see and electron or photon exchanging, it's the wave or resonant effect that is clearly viewable and the problem is no where are these effects described.

Just food for thought as this is like all other interpretations, ideas that are yet to be proven, right?

 

[Moonbear]

Biology cannot describe the energy released in any metabolic process but here is what I am drilling down from ...Metabolic reactions; type; Catabolism; exothermic reactions….

So I ask very nicely, "Please share with us any descriptions of this regarding the energy released in any biological system in any volume published, please!"

Yes it’s in thermodynamics or their descriptive models but please in biology.

Little explosions? Have you ever looked at a living cell under a microscope? I did not say a molecule an individual cell.

Try this http://science.nhmccd.edu/biol/microbio.html#bacteria or more clearly this link
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/biomi290/MOVIES/PASTEUR.HTML

or this for a whole bunch of little explosions…… http://depts.washington.edu/fishscop/Boss/pages/movie_pages/epidermal/epidermal.html

In any system of chemical reactions you have activity, and although no one can see and electron or photon exchanging, it's the wave or resonant effect that is clearly viewable and the problem is no where are these effects described.

Just food for thought as this is like all other interpretations, ideas that are yet to be proven, right?

I've looked at quite a lot of cells under a microscope, and the images in those links are quite standard. You do realize that the "bright spots" you see in those images are labels added by the researchers to identify structures in the cells, not something naturally occurring, right? Perhaps you should take a course in microscopy so you can better understand how cells are prepared for such imaging and appreciate what it is you are seeing in those images.

As it is, this has nothing to do with the topic of evolution being discussed here.

 

[Monique]

Biology cannot describe the energy released in any metabolic process

Biochemistry describes such processes and it all comes down to bonding energies and energetic hills. Such material belongs to chapter one and two of any biochemistry book, I'd say it is well understood (as selfAdjoint mentioned). I can look up all the equations for you.

Little explosions? Have you ever looked at a living cell under a microscope? I did not say a molecule an individual cell.

Try this http://science.nhmccd.edu/biol/microbio.html#bacteria or more clearly this link
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/biomi290/MOVIES/PASTEUR.HTML

or this for a whole bunch of little explosions…… http://depts.washington.edu/fishscop/Boss/pages/movie_pages/epidermal/epidermal.html

I looked at the videos, one is of a simple biochemical process and the others of cell biological processes. They have nothing to do with little explosions, they are chemical reactions.

In any system of chemical reactions you have activity, and although no one can see and electron or photon exchanging, it's the wave or resonant effect that is clearly viewable and the problem is no where are these effects described.

Still you are talking in riddles, what are the effects that are not described? Hydrogen bonding, van der Waals bonding, ionic bonding, covalent bonding? Electrostatic interactions between molecules?

 

[Rade]

I was reading about the ID/Evolution conflict and saw some of the arguments against evolution. Some of them were pretty convincing...

Dear Daniel...as you can see from the answers provided to your OP, there are 0.0 % "ID arguments" against organic theory of evolution that are convincing--not a single one. Now, there is discussion on the relative importance of the various mechanisms of the evolution process (e.g., natural selection vs genetic drift vs mutation vs recombination, etc.)--but there is no controversy that all forms of life on Earth have evolved over time, in general, from simple forms of design (single cell) to more complex (many cells) to yet greater complexity (the oak tree). A very nice and recent book on this topic is by Eugenie C. Scott, "Evolution vs Creationism" (2004), University of California Press.

You must understand that the ID philosophy concerning the origin of life on Earth is grounded in religion and not science (this was recently even understood by a G.W. Bush appointed judge), and a very specific religion at that. In fact, natural selection is a process of "design". The concept "design" has important application to organization of "systems", and all forms of life (even a bacteria cell) are systems. What it means to say that "design" has occurred is to say that the designer has more than one option in each step of the design process, and selects one part from many possibilities to continue in the design. And this is exactly the way natural selection works. The population gene pool provides many phenotypic possibilities, but only a few genotypes "survive" and "reproduce" over time. In my view, the falsified scientific thinking of the ID philosophy is not over the term "design" (since I hold that natural selection in fact designs living systems). The false concept in the ID argument is "intelligent"--one does not have to be intelligent to "design", one only needs to communicate information by selecting one option out of many possibilities, and natural selection has been doing just this for many 100's millions years.

 

[Tojen]

1) I the first human on the moon would find a clock, no one would believe that the clock got there "by chance", it'd be easier to believe that aliens (or the Russians) put it there.
2) The body, and even one cell are so complicated and elegant, where each part has an exact purpose, and without just one part they'd die. How could that all evolve by chance and how did all of the critical organs appear at once?

1) Say an alien lands on the moon and finds a flag and a few golf balls. If he assumes they were made by a supernatural creator, he would be mistaken.

2) Besides the incorrect assumptions that have been pointed out, that implies that genes mutate "intelligently", that they react to changes in the environment in order to benefit their host. But let's say the climate starts getting colder. In order for you to benefit from a mutation that helps keep you warm, it has to be in place before the temperature drops (that is, when you're born). The gene doens't know that the climate is going to get colder a few years later; that mutation would be there simply by chance.