Evolution

[truthreality]

Im not claiming to explain where the laws of the universe come from. You are. and invoking watchmaker does nothing to actually support your claim, nor does comparing them to laws of humans.

First, the laws of the universe are very simple things that combine to produce complexity. Second, no one is arguing that the laws of the universe come from nowhere. But you claim that they come from intelligence, and without objective evidence to boot. (by the way, we call them laws, but they are more akin to properties that we have observed)



There IS chaos in the universe, yes, but there is also a lot of order. We see planets orbiting other stars. we see galaxies all orbiting one another. We see gravity collapsing gas clouds to form stars.

And i never said that the nature of the universe is to form objects. I said that simple gravity is all you need to form stars, planets, galaxies and the orbits that those objects follow. And yes, orbits are all elliptical, but simply looking at the orbits of the planets in our own solar system show that they are far from neat and tidy. Mercury follows a rather chaotic orbit in which the perigee is constantly moving, and pluto orbits in such an eccentric orbit that it actually orbits closer than neptune for a portion of its orbit. Not to mention that the orbit of the earth is far from perfect. We cross into the path of various asteroids from time to time, and we KNOW that they have hit and caused some major damage in the past.

Besides, an intelligence makes this GIGANTIC universe and then only develops complex life on a single, insignificant planet orbiting one star of hundreds of billions of stars in a single galaxy, of hundreds of billions of galaxies? You may not be able to buy the "life from non intelligence", but I cant buy THIS. seems much more like a happy accident than a grand plan.




Yes, there is a lot chaos in the universe, but there is also a lot of order, as I said above. And it doesnt matter if you can accept it, it matters if its accurate. So again i ask, can you demonstrate your claim of the universe requiring an intelligence?

You have managed to oversimplify the universe and it's creation while at the same time ignoring the precision and accuracy with which the present conditions require, especially life.

A happy accident? Really?

According to David Deamer who is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at University of California, Santa Cruz the probability of a ribozyme assembling by chance is 4^300.

"Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'. It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet. People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1. There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe."

So explain to me how your theory of odds and probability explain life.Am I overestimating the odds now? Peter said that given enough time anything is possible. With these chances it's unlikely that life will form even once within the 14 billion time span of our universe.

We know very little about the universe. Probably not more then a spec. Your entire argument relies on odds and probability. With probability events don't just happen once they are repeated. If life on earth is just a happy accident did it happen once? In that case you cannot explain it with probability or odds. It's a fucking miracle. And you don't believe in miracles. Or do you now? If, however, you say that life happens because of probability and chance then the probability of life happening else where in our gigantic universe is high. This is assertion is supported by Steven Hawking. In fact a legitimate theory of the origins of life is that life was transported from other planets.

You admit that there is order but you are unwilling to admit intelligence. Back to my clay analogy. Dispersed disorder does not just randomly come together as order. Are we playing the probability game again? Should we analyze these odds? Anyways according the second law of thermodynamics there is a tendency for systems to go form order to disorder.

[truthreality]

I havent made a claim here. All I have asked for is a demonstration that complex life is unable to develop without oxygen and all you do is continue to point to ONE DATA POINT, as if one data point is convincing evidence. Its not.

and its not two to four degrees. Its two to four degrees ON AVERAGE. that last addition makes a very large difference.

I have an idea. Why don't you stop breathing. Just stop. Will you do that? And then tell me whether life can survive without oxygen. Just kidding.

Your request is akin to asking me to demonstrate why humans can't fly. Or why humans can't fly to mars and live there comfortably. After all it seems your assertion is that life can adapt any environment because life is like a superhero. I am starting to think you are more open to the supernatural and miralces then thesists. Also why are you asking me to demonstrate what should be general knowledge. You are starting to sound like a creationist who won't buy evolution

You want data points? Here are data points:

Evolution of oxygen utilization in multicellular organisms and implications for cell signalling in tissue engineering J Tissue Eng 9 December 2011: 2041731411432365v1-2041731411432365.

"Oxygen is one of the critically defining elements resulting in the existence of eukaryotic life on this planet. The rise and
fall of this element can be tracked through time and corresponds with the evolution of diverse life forms, development of
efficient energy production (oxidative phosphorylation) in single cell organisms, the evolution of multicellular organisms
and the regulation of complex cell phenotypes. By understanding these events, we can plot the effect of oxygen on
evolution and its direct influence on different forms of life today, from the whole organism to specific cells within
multicellular organisms. In the emerging field of tissue engineering, understanding the role of different levels of oxygen
for normal cell function as well as control of complex signalling cascades is paramount to effectively build 3D tissues in
vitro and their subsequent survival when implanted.'

"The appearance of eukaryotic cells ~2 billion years ago has been linked to the introduction of oxygen in the atmosphere and therefore aerobic metabolism.4,14 The increased presence of oxygen produces a more efficient energy source in the form of aerobic metabolism, producing 16–18 times more adenosine triphosphate (ATP) per hexose sugar than anaerobic metabolism.4,15 Since aerobic metabolism generates more energy, approximately 1000 more reactions can occur than under anaerobic metabolism.16 This allowed the generation of new metabolites, for example, steroids, alkaloids and isoflavonoids.15 Steroids and polyunsaturated fatty acids are important elements of membranes; thus, they must have been involved in promoting organelle formation and cell compartmentalisation.17 As some of the metabolites produced from respiration are involved in processes that target nuclear receptors, it has been hypothesized that higher ambient oxygen promoted these nuclear signalling systems within cells. Nuclear factors have conserved volumes and are highly hydrophobic, since they must pass through cell membranes. Experiments comparing the volume and hydrophobicity of both aerobic and anaerobic metabolites to those known for nuclear ligands indicate that aerobic metabolites are more hydrophobic and more closely match the required volumes of appropriate molecules for nuclear factors compared to the anaerobic molecules.15 Since these appear important in superior eukaryotes, it has been hypothesized that such events influenced by increased oxygen levels have influenced biological evolution."

"In this review, we have discussed oxygen in different contexts: oxygen and evolution, species adaptation to oxygen changes, the effect of hypoxia on cells and cell processes. Oxygen is crucial for cell survival and changes in its concentration influence cell fates, cell proliferation, pH, angiogenesis and other processes mainly through HIF and its downstream factors. Oxygen is not merely an element
important for survival for its role in energy production, but it has a much more complex role in regulating life. Its ‘power’ to influence organisms can be deduced from both its role in evolution, species adaptation mechanisms to changing oxygen concentrations and to the current focus on its effects on different cells and cell processes. With specific reference to tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, oxygen plays a critical role in the proliferation and differentiation of cells, particularly cells of ‘stem cell’ origin, which is a tool that can be utilized to control the formation of specific tissues from a uniform cell source. By developing more sophisticated tissue models, we will be able to decipher more accurately the roles of oxygen in determining cell signalling and cell phenotype. The angiogenic cascade is an example of a process that can be controlled using oxygen as an environmental stimulus, to enhance vascularisation of constructs both in vitro and in vivo. For engineering complex tissues in vitro, we can utilize the same oxygen response system that controls specific cell behaviours in vivo, in a more physiologically complete manner. Using native micro-environmental cues to control cell behaviour is likely to yield physiologically relevant responses."

Oxygen in the Evolution of Complex Life and the Price We Pay Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Bio. 1 May 2009: 507-510.

"Aerobic organisms use molecular oxygen (dioxygen; O2) to generate chemical energy in the form of adenine triphosphate (ATP). Energy transforms cellular structure to function, a defining property of life. Due to its favorable thermodynamic properties, O2 appears to have been selected during biological evolution to serve as the terminal electron acceptor in the reduction of carbon-based fuels to generate ATP by oxidative phosphorylation. That O2 is essential to sustain human life is perhaps best illustrated during an acute cardiopulmonary arrest—commonly referred to as “code blue” on the medical wards. Indeed, the “A-B-Cs” of basic life support is to ensure gas-exchange via the lungs and O2 delivery to internal organs: “A” for airway, “B” for breathing, and “C” for circulation. A less well appreciated role of O2 is in the evolution of organismal size, multicellularity, and biological complexity. An understanding of the key role of O2 in the evolution of complex life and mammalian physiology may provide novel insights of O2, and its metabolites (reactive oxygen species), in the pathophysiology of diseases that affect the lung."

"Multiple lines of evidence from evolutionary biology (1, 2), geochemistry (3), and systems biology (4) build a compelling case for a central role of O2 in the evolution of complex multicellular life on earth (5, 6). The oldest life forms are estimated to have been present over 3.7 billion years (Gyr) ago (7). In the relative absence of O2 and under the strong reducing conditions that existed on the primordial earth's surface, early unicellular life forms relied on metabolic pathways that used electron acceptors such as CO2 and SO4. Between about 2.5 and 2.2 Gyr ago, however, the earth's atmospheric concentration of O2 rose significantly (3). This rise in atmospheric O2 is thought to have been due to biological and geological factors that led to an increase in O2 production relative to its consumption. Biological processes, most notably the emergence of cyanobacteria capable of oxygenic photosynthesis (8), were an important source of O2 production during this early period. Geological events such as the burial of organic carbon (9) and a shift from submarine to subaerial volcanism (10) accounted for decreased O2 consumption."

"The availability of O2 was a major coup for early life forms, since it allowed for the use of energy-efficient metabolic pathways. O2 is well suited to serve as an electron acceptor in the oxidation of carbon-based fuels for several reasons. First, the reduction of O2 provides the largest free energy release per electron transfer, with the exception of fluorine. Second, unlike fluorine, ground state triplet O2 is a diradical with its outer electrons in parallel spin, allowing for its greater stability and consequent accumulation in the earth's atmosphere. Third, aerobic metabolism yields at least 4-fold more energy per molecule of glucose oxidized than the most efficient anaerobic pathways. Fourth, ability of O2 to diffuse across biological membranes and to bind heme moieties in proteins (e.g., hemoglobin and cytochromes) facilitates O2 delivery to systemic organs and mitochondrial electron transfer functions. Finally, the biochemical symmetry of oxygenic photosynthesis and aerobic respiration (H2O → O2 → H2O cycle) maintains homeostasis within our planetary biosphere."

"Increasing complexity in metazoan evolution has been linked to rising atmospheric O2 levels and the ability to use O2 to generate energy more efficiently (11). The evolution of the lung and circulatory system would have been critical for the transport of O2 to internal tissues/organs in larger, more complex metazoans, otherwise limited by the diffusibility of O2 across multiple cell layers. Complexity in organismal structure and function has been linked with the number of differentiated cell types and overall size of adult organisms (12). Estimates of the maximum number of cell types of common ancestors, combined with divergence times, showed an increase from 2 to approximately 10 cell types between 2.5 and 2.0 Gyr ago, and from 10 to 50 cell types between 1.5 and 1.0 Gyr ago (11) (Figure 1). The most prolific increase in speciation, however, occurred during the “Cambrian explosion,” approximately 540 million years ago. A second major rise in O2 concentration is thought to have been a critical factor (13), among other events such as mass extinctions (14), that created the “perfect storm” for this evolutionary diversification. A larger increase in O2 concentration occurred just before ∼ 300 million years ago, and this period was associated with the emergence of reptile and insect gigantism; the subsequent drop in O2 concentration during the Permian-Triassic period (∼ 260–245 million years ago) appears to have led to their extinction (15). The rise of O2 levels from approximately 10% (205 million years ago) to the current approximately 21% corresponds with vertebrate evolution and emergence of its key features: endothermy, placentation, and body size (humans are estimated to have > 200 different “cell types”)"

"The physiologic role of O2 in metazoan species is not limited to mitochondrial respiration. Recent biochemical networks analysis demonstrate that O2 is among the most-used compounds in a myriad of metabolic and biosynthetic pathways, superseding even adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) (4). In this analysis, O2 was predicted to be involved in more that 103 metabolic reactions not found in anaerobes (4, 5). O2 is involved in a large number of biosynthetic pathways. Aerobes appear to have adopted O2-dependent mechanisms for synthesis of monounsaturated fatty acids, tyrosine, and nicotinic acid, biomolecules that are also found in more archaic anaerobes; and in a number of macromolecules that carry out more specialized cell functions found exclusively in aerobic metazoans (16). The O2-dependent synthesis of sterols and polyunsaturated fatty acids (16), key components of cell membranes, may have allowed for the biogenesis of intracellular organelles essential for cellular compartmentalization. O2 is also required for a number of biosynthetic reactions for specialized cell functions, such as formation of the connective tissue proteins, hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine (17, 18), synthesis of the visual pigment, retinal from β-carotene (19), and histone demethylation reactions that regulate chromatin remodeling (20)."

Cells use oxygen for purpose. The purpose may be aerobic respiration, biosynthesis cell signaling and regulation. All these are purpose. Purpose to survive and keep us alive.

And I don't know what you mean two to four degrees on AVERAGE. They are measuring a total change of two to four degrees. :

'Peak warming is determined by the total amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere, not the rate we release it in any given year,' said Dr Myles Allen of Oxford University's Department of Physics and a co-author of the study.

At the Cancun conference, politicians will be discussing emission targets for 2020 and 2050 with the aim of limiting global warming to not more than two degrees Celsius. The new study found that setting targets for the peak rate of emission and total cumulative emissions to 2200 would be a much better way of framing an evidence-based policy for carbon dioxide emissions.

In an introduction to the special report, lead author Dr Mark New from the School of Geography and the Environment at Oxford University wrote: 'The 2009 Copenhagen Accord recognised the scientific view "that the increase in global temperatures should be below two degrees Celsius" despite growing views that this might be too high. At the same time, the continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions in the last decade, and the delays in a comprehensive global emissions reduction agreement, has made achieving this target extremely difficult, arguably impossible, raising the likelihood of global temperature rises of three or four degrees Celsius within this century. Yet there are few studies that assess the potential impacts and consequences of a warming of four degrees Celsius or greater in a systematic manner.'

Either way it defeats your claim that the sole reason we evolved was because of adaptation. We evolved through both adaptation and help from the environment. The two are team players.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

A happy accident? Really?

According to David Deamer who is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at University of California, Santa Cruz the probability of a ribozyme assembling by chance is 4^300. [and on and on...]

Such probability calculations are almost universally meaningless because they're heavily flawed. Taking a modern protein - or any modern biological structure - and suggesting that it's so unlikely to occur as to be impossible is nonsensical.

(1) Early life did not look like modern life forms. Life almost certainly came from simple polymers capable of recognition and self-replication - and such simple polymers have been made in the lab, some under conditions that mimic the early earth
(2) Probability calculations done thusly assume only a single amino acid or DNA sequence is apt to whatever job they perform - this is absolutely and unequivocally untrue
(3) Even if such probability calculations were valid, one cannot automatically infer design

More on this at some point in the future, when I have more time to write and find sources. For starters, though, see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

You admit that there is order but you are unwilling to admit intelligence. Back to my clay analogy. Dispersed disorder does not just randomly come together as order. Are we playing the probability game again? Should we analyze these odds? Anyways according the second law of thermodynamics there is a tendency for systems to go form order to disorder.

The second law of thermodynamics holds true of systems as aggregate over long time periods. This means the universe, as a whole, tends to increase in disorder. This does not mean that nothing in the universe can increase in order.

Take protein folding, for example. The second law of thermodynamics, to someone as blatantly unschooled in it as you appear to be, would seem to be impossible. After all, it requires a long sequence of amino acids (generally 100 or more) to adopt a highly ordered and highly specific conformation for function. And, indeed, this does lead to a decrease in entropy for the protein.

So how the hell can they fold? Well, part of it has a lot to do with a compensating increase in entropy by freeing water molecules to bulk solvent. Other parts of it are enthalpic though - which also increases entropy through the release of heat.

I realize that this seems tangential, but suffice to say that just because something seems like it defies the second law of thermodynamics to a lay person doesn't mean that it does. While the solar system is likely a too complex problem to really figure out if its formation involves an increase or decrease in entropy, I'd bet on the former. After all, what would you call the formation of new types of molecules that aren't present in interstellar dust (increasing the number of ways the elements - and by this I mean literally periodic table of elements - can be combined and thus increasing the entropy of the ensemble)? Or the formation of new elements in stars (again, increasing the size of the ensemble?)

[truthreality]

Such probability calculations are almost universally meaningless because they're heavily flawed. Taking a modern protein - or any modern biological structure - and suggesting that it's so unlikely to occur as to be impossible is nonsensical.

(1) Early life did not look like modern life forms. Life almost certainly came from simple polymers capable of recognition and self-replication - and such simple polymers have been made in the lab, some under conditions that mimic the early earth
(2) Probability calculations done thusly assume only a single amino acid or DNA sequence is apt to whatever job they perform - this is absolutely and unequivocally untrue
(3) Even if such probability calculations were valid, one cannot automatically infer design

More on this at some point in the future, when I have more time to write and find sources. For starters, though, see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html



The second law of thermodynamics holds true of systems as aggregate over long time periods. This means the universe, as a whole, tends to increase in disorder. This does not mean that nothing in the universe can increase in order.

Take protein folding, for example. The second law of thermodynamics, to someone as blatantly unschooled in it as you appear to be, would seem to be impossible. After all, it requires a long sequence of amino acids (generally 100 or more) to adopt a highly ordered and highly specific conformation for function. And, indeed, this does lead to a decrease in entropy for the protein.

So how the hell can they fold? Well, part of it has a lot to do with a compensating increase in entropy by freeing water molecules to bulk solvent. Other parts of it are enthalpic though - which also increases entropy through the release of heat.

I realize that this seems tangential, but suffice to say that just because something seems like it defies the second law of thermodynamics to a lay person doesn't mean that it does. While the solar system is likely a too complex problem to really figure out if its formation involves an increase or decrease in entropy, I'd bet on the former. After all, what would you call the formation of new types of molecules that aren't present in interstellar dust (increasing the number of ways the elements - and by this I mean literally periodic table of elements - can be combined and thus increasing the entropy of the ensemble)? Or the formation of new elements in stars (again, increasing the size of the ensemble?)

Yes of course. No one will ever be able to infer design. Even if a planet was designed step by step in front of your eyes you would deny that it was denied. Your not actually creating any explanations against design. You are only explaining how design occurs. I never said the universe cannot go from disorder or to order. In fact from the start I have been saying that the universe can form order from disorder thanks to laws. And you have just made my point. In general the universe does go to disorder over long periods of time. If this is the case why should order occur in a universe over 14 billion years when the nature of the universe is to go from order to disorder. Obviously more disorder cannot create order. Laws have to be introduced to create order, like gravity. I have never once claimed that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. You have jumped to an assumption. In fact I know that the second law of thermodynamics is completely compatible with evolution. I see you have tried to input whatever specialized knowledge you have into this discussion when in fact you have demonstrated absolutely nothing against my point. All you can do is explain processes that are clearly designed for purpose in order to divert the attention away from what seems most likely, design by intelligence.

I don't give a fuck if you have special knowledge in Chemistry. Once you take up a real subject like electrical engineering I might have a little more respect for your opinion. And let's not jump to conclusions. You aren't debating with a creationist who doesn't understand why the second law of thermodynamics is completely compatible with the evolution from simple to complex life. My contention that the universe in general moves towards disorder is correct and you pretty much just repeated what I said assuming I did not know that already. Come on man. Chemistry is easy. Chemistry is a fucking joke.

So in summary here is what your post looks like:

1. A primitive and basic introduction into early life.

2. Whether or not life is probable or improbable is unsure.

3. Protein folding is compatible with the second law of thermodynamics.

Good job man. You have accomplished absolutely nothing. I don't know what your purpose was but you have managed to go on an unnecessary tangent.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

As a general point, I'd suggest you knock off the ad hominems... that doesn't go over very well.

Yes of course. No one will ever be able to infer design. Even if a planet was designed step by step in front of your eyes you would deny that it was denied.

Your typo aside: from what evidence can we infer design?

The problem with your argument is that there's currently no evidence which one can point to and say "from this, we can infer that the universe/the planet/life was designed by an intelligent agent."

Your not actually creating any explanations against design.

Good, because that's not my intention. See, to a rational person nothing is true until it is proven to be so. I'm not trying to disprove design. I'm trying to show that there is no evidence for design.

You are only explaining how design occurs.

No, I’m not. I think I know very well what I am and am not saying, and I don’t need you inferring things that aren’t there.

I never said the universe cannot go from disorder or to order. In fact from the start I have been saying that the universe can form order from disorder thanks to laws.

Oh, really?

You admit that there is order but you are unwilling to admit intelligence. Back to my clay analogy. Dispersed disorder does not just randomly come together as order. Are we playing the probability game again? Should we analyze these odds? Anyways according the second law of thermodynamics there is a tendency for systems to go form order to disorder.

Now, maybe I read what you said more literally than you somehow intended, but don’t backtrack now and say “what I really meant was that the laws of the universe can make order come out of ‘randomness,’ and I just meant that it can’t happen without those laws” – particularly because that isn’t an argument at all. The only universe we know of for sure has the laws we observe, and those laws are capable of making ordered systems. All that this means is that while we cannot say with any certainty where those laws come from, we can, unequivocally state that the universe can and did develop exactly as we see it due to those laws.

I have never once claimed that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. You have jumped to an assumption. In fact I know that the second law of thermodynamics is completely compatible with evolution.

No, I wasn’t suggesting that you think it disproves evolution. Only that you stated explicitly (see quote above from post #183) that it precludes systems of high order coming into being in the universe spontaneously. This is absolutely and unequivocally untrue.

All you can do is explain processes that are clearly designed for purpose in order to divert the attention away from what seems most likely, design by intelligence.

From what do you infer that these processes are “clearly designed,”? If they are so “clearly designed,” why is it not clear to everyone? Either you’re bad at making your case, or they’re not so clearly designed.

I don't give a fuck if you have special knowledge in Chemistry. Once you take up a real subject like electrical engineering I might have a little more respect for your opinion.

I’m not getting into a pissing contest about who’s field of expertise is better than whose. I don’t give a good god damn that you can build a circuit board, and I couldn’t care less whether or not you’re educated – nor should you care whether or not I am. Debate the points, not the person.

You aren't debating with a creationist who doesn't understand why the second law of thermodynamics is completely compatible with the evolution from simple to complex life.

Then why recapitulate their arguments and flawed use of statistics to "infer," design?

Good job man. You have accomplished absolutely nothing. I don't know what your purpose was but you have managed to go on an unnecessary tangent.

Overriding point: there is absolutely no evidence from which one can, with any degree of certainty, infer intelligent design of the universe. Your argument in attempting to do so thus far is an argument that because life and the universe exists as we see them, clearly they were designed for us. This is a version of the strong anthropic principle.

In case you’re wondering, I’m not saying there’s no chance the universe is intelligently designed to be fit for life. What I am saying is that there’s no evidence that suggests this is true any more than an entirely random and/or naturalistic explanation for the universe’s properties. Therefore inferring with certainty intelligent design is irrational.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

As an entirely relevant aside: does this seem familiar to anyone?

"It is demonstrated,' [Pangloss] said, 'that things cannot be otherwise: for, since everything was made for a purpose, everything is necessarily for the best purpose. Note that noses were made to wear spectacles; we therefore have spectacles. Legs were clearly devised to wear breeches, and we have breeches. Stones were created to be hewn and made into castles; (the Baron Thunder-Ten-Tronkh) therefore has a very beautiful castle...'

[truthreality]

As a general point, I'd suggest you knock off the ad hominems... that doesn't go over very well.

Your typo aside: from what evidence can we infer design?

The problem with your argument is that there's currently no evidence which one can point to and say "from this, we can infer that the universe/the planet/life was designed by an intelligent agent."

Good, because that's not my intention. See, to a rational person nothing is true until it is proven to be so. I'm not trying to disprove design. I'm trying to show that there is no evidence for design.

No, I’m not. I think I know very well what I am and am not saying, and I don’t need you inferring things that aren’t there.

Oh, really?


Now, maybe I read what you said more literally than you somehow intended, but don’t backtrack now and say “what I really meant was that the laws of the universe can make order come out of ‘randomness,’ and I just meant that it can’t happen without those laws” – particularly because that isn’t an argument at all. The only universe we know of for sure has the laws we observe, and those laws are capable of making ordered systems. All that this means is that while we cannot say with any certainty where those laws come from, we can, unequivocally state that the universe can and did develop exactly as we see it due to those laws.


No, I wasn’t suggesting that you think it disproves evolution. Only that you stated explicitly (see quote above from post #183) that it precludes systems of high order coming into being in the universe spontaneously. This is absolutely and unequivocally untrue.

From what do you infer that these processes are “clearly designed,”? If they are so “clearly designed,” why is it not clear to everyone? Either you’re bad at making your case, or they’re not so clearly designed.

I’m not getting into a pissing contest about who’s field of expertise is better than whose. I don’t give a good god damn that you can build a circuit board, and I couldn’t care less whether or not you’re educated – nor should you care whether or not I am. Debate the points, not the person.

Then why recapitulate their arguments and flawed use of statistics to "infer," design?

Overriding point: there is absolutely no evidence from which one can, with any degree of certainty, infer intelligent design of the universe. Your argument in attempting to do so thus far is an argument that because life and the universe exists as we see them, clearly they were designed for us. This is a version of the strong anthropic principle.

In case you’re wondering, I’m not saying there’s no chance the universe is intelligently designed to be fit for life. What I am saying is that there’s no evidence that suggests this is true any more than an entirely random and/or naturalistic explanation for the universe’s properties. Therefore inferring with certainty intelligent design is irrational.

Hey man if you hadn't tried to display intellectual arrogance:

to someone as blatantly unschooled in it as you appear to be, would seem to be impossible

there would be no problems. So yeah lets knock off the Ad Hominems.

Design as a noun informally refers to a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system (as in architectural blueprints, engineering drawing, business process, circuit diagrams and sewing patterns) while "to design" (verb) refers to making this plan.

DNA, which contains the code or "blueprint" for organisms. is a example of design. The code in DNA is responsible for building an organism. DNA replication is responsible for reproduction and from an evolutionary standpoint reproduction is a purpose for a species. Here we have a code to design the organism that gives instructions through mRNA in order to get it's message across to protein. On top of this DNA replication prepares for errors by copying one half of the old strand in the new strand. Obviously this is an effort to reduce error. In all this there is a sequence to how RNA is made from DNA before mRNA is translated into protein: transcription. And it's sequence. It's a design. There is purpose to it. There is intelligence guiding it. It knows what it is doing. All one has to do is look at such a simple process to notice how there is evidence for design. As a "rational person" (whatever the fuck that means) I see DNA replication for reproduction as proof of design. The fact that a process or system is automated is more proof for design.

There is nothing more annoying then someone trying to manipulate your arguments for a cheap point. You have issues with me inferring correctly from your statements and yet you infer, through assumptions with grand leaps, from my statements. I meant what I said. It is clear what I said. The universe in general moves towards disorder. The the nature of the universe is to move towards disorder. The laws are what keep the universe in check. And I am right. Dispersed and chaotic matter in the Universe will not come together without the law of gravity. Period. Evolution in a sense is a law to me. There is a movement to coin evolution as a law. The reason primitive organisms can develop into complex organisms is because of the law of evolution. Your argument that we are not aware of other universes and therefore are not aware if they are governed by laws or not is not an argument at all. In fact it's a logical fallacy. I never once explicitly stated that the second law of thermodynamics prevent high order systems from arising in the universe spontaneously which is why you can't quote me and forced to point to a post in which I was making a completely different point.

I have already given an example of a process that is clearly designed. DNA replication. But to hit the point home stronger I will use your protein folding example and I think it ties well with my DNA replication example. The reason protein folding does not violate the the second law of thermodynamics has to do with its surroundings in addition to the actual system. When the protein folds, yes entropy is decreasing, but the entropy in the surrounding water increases. So really entropy is still increasing in the universe. For some reason, in your attempt to "school" me, you have focused too much on the detail and left out focus on the general purpose of the aqueous environment. Proteins cannot carry out cannot perform it's necessary function until it becomes a three dimensional shape. So really what we have is an intricate design filled with a loophole to a law that cannot be broken thanks to wonderful design. My use of design and my inference is not flawed. According to Cambridge University in 2005 88 percent of the world's population believes in God. As to why you and others are not able to see the clear design of the universe. I don't know. But I call it irrational tunnel vision.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Design as a noun informally refers to a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system (as in architectural blueprints, engineering drawing, business process, circuit diagrams and sewing patterns) while "to design" (verb) refers to making this plan.

How does one infer the action of an intelligent agent in the universe as opposed to undesigned occurances? In other words, what evidence is there for a designed universe versus an undesigned universe.

All you've given is examples that you say to you points to design. Again, and the rest of your post is pointless without this, provide evidence - that is, a transferrable and objective metric by which one can infer that a natural law or system is, in fact, designed.

And it's sequence. It's a design. There is purpose to it. There is intelligence guiding it. It knows what it is doing. All one has to do is look at such a simple process to notice how there is evidence for design. As a "rational person" (whatever the fuck that means) I see DNA replication for reproduction as proof of design. The fact that a process or system is automated is more proof for design.

You see it as proof of design. I do not. Until you're capable of providing any objective evidence that it is, in fact, proof of design, then your inference is merely opinion.

More to the point, you're still putting things backwards. Clearly, we have noses so we could wear eyeglasses.

We don't necessarily know even that carbon-based life is the only life that can possibly exist elsewhere in the universe. Hell, life on earth isn't even as restricted to common structures as we once believed. There are forms of life on earth that a hundred years ago no one would expect to find: bacteria and living things in even the harshest environments, and then there's things like this: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...nic-life-form/

There is nothing more annoying then someone trying to manipulate your arguments for a cheap point. You have issues with me inferring correctly from your statements and yet you infer, through assumptions with grand leaps, from my statements. I meant what I said. It is clear what I said.

Then what you said is wrong. You can try to say now that what you really meant is that the laws of nature (as we know them) are capable of creating order. Sorry if I take you to mean literally what you say: what you said was wrong. Perhaps I shouldn't believe what I read, eh?

The universe in general moves towards disorder. The the nature of the universe is to move towards disorder. The laws are what keep the universe in check. And I am right.

Actually, it's more that the laws of the universe are what keep the universe moving towards disorder.

Dispersed and chaotic matter in the Universe will not come together without the law of gravity. Period. Evolution in a sense is a law to me. There is a movement to coin evolution as a law. The reason primitive organisms can develop into complex organisms is because of the law of evolution. Your argument that we are not aware of other universes and therefore are not aware if they are governed by laws or not is not an argument at all. In fact it's a logical fallacy.

Wait... so it's a logical fallacy to say "we don't know enough to infer designed intent in our universe or not?" Seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

I never once explicitly stated that the second law of thermodynamics prevent high order systems from arising in the universe spontaneously which is why you can't quote me and forced to point to a post in which I was making a completely different point.

Alright, fair enough - you never explicitly stated it, in that you never said "The second law of thermodynamics says..." But clearly, you said it.

When the protein folds, yes entropy is decreasing, but the entropy in the surrounding water increases. So really entropy is still increasing in the universe. For some reason, in your attempt to "school" me, you have focused too much on the detail and left out focus on the general purpose of the aqueous environment. Proteins cannot carry out cannot perform it's necessary function until it becomes a three dimensional shape.

Right, systems and surroundings - except I didn't leave out any focus on the aqueous environment. Notice how I said freeing water to bulk solvent? Enthalpic contributions? I said net entropy does increase - but my point is that, to a lay person that doesn't know anything about such a process, it may appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. That larger point still stands, in the context of planetary formation or whatever phenomena you wish to bring into the discussion - just because it seems like it's increasing order (and it may be, in a particular part of the system) does not mean it's increasing net order in the universe (the system as a whole).

In case you're missing the point, you stated this about the process of planetary formation:

Dispersed disorder does not just randomly come together as order. Are we playing the probability game again? Should we analyze these odds? Anyways according the second law of thermodynamics there is a tendency for systems to go form order to disorder.

Your characterization of the process as a whole is insufficient and your argument, as stated there, is incorrect.

So really what we have is an intricate design filled with a loophole to a law that cannot be broken thanks to wonderful design. My use of design and my inference is not flawed. According to Cambridge University in 2005 88 percent of the world's population believes in God. As to why you and others are not able to see the clear design of the universe. I don't know. But I call it irrational tunnel vision.

So what if 88 percent of the world's population believes in God? Argumentum ad populum - logical fallacy and has no bearing on the merits of the argument one way or the other.

[truthreality]

you see the pothole around you and you think, "how marvelously this pothole fits my watery form, it must have been made to fit me!"

A water molecule as you well know consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The center of each hydrogen molecule is close to 0.0957 nano meters. The net dipole moment on the molecule caused by partially positively charged hydrogen atom and the negatively charged oxygen atom results in hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding tends to get stronger as temperature lowers. An ice structure is completely hydrogen bonded and the water crystallizes into an open hexagonal form. The reason ice is solid is for this very reason. Heat causes the particles to move and shift around hence breaking the previous solid ice.

A pothole is a hole in a roadway. Potholes are caused by the expansion and contraction of ground water when the water enters under the pavement. When water freezes or becomes ice it expands. The expansion breaks the pavement on and below the surface. When the ice melts, however, it leaves gaps inside the pavement and moisture of the ice softens the pavement even more. As vehicles begin to drive over this newly weak spot a hole begins to form.

The only reason a pothole can form is because of the nature of water which is designed to take on different states (ice and liquid.

you can see the simulation around you, "how marvelous this simulation fits my physical form, but I can't see the simulator so it must not be designed."

If you cannot see the fallacy you're employing I can't help you and I suspect no one here can either.

[truthreality]

How does one infer the action of an intelligent agent in the universe as opposed to undesigned occurances? In other words, what evidence is there for a designed universe versus an undesigned universe.

All you've given is examples that you say to you points to design. Again, and the rest of your post is pointless without this, provide evidence - that is, a transferrable and objective metric by which one can infer that a natural law or system is, in fact, designed.



You see it as proof of design. I do not. Until you're capable of providing any objective evidence that it is, in fact, proof of design, then your inference is merely opinion.

More to the point, you're still putting things backwards. Clearly, we have noses so we could wear eyeglasses.

We don't necessarily know even that carbon-based life is the only life that can possibly exist elsewhere in the universe. Hell, life on earth isn't even as restricted to common structures as we once believed. There are forms of life on earth that a hundred years ago no one would expect to find: bacteria and living things in even the harshest environments, and then there's things like this: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...nic-life-form/



Then what you said is wrong. You can try to say now that what you really meant is that the laws of nature (as we know them) are capable of creating order. Sorry if I take you to mean literally what you say: what you said was wrong. Perhaps I shouldn't believe what I read, eh?



Actually, it's more that the laws of the universe are what keep the universe moving towards disorder.



Wait... so it's a logical fallacy to say "we don't know enough to infer designed intent in our universe or not?" Seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy



Alright, fair enough - you never explicitly stated it, in that you never said "The second law of thermodynamics says..." But clearly, you said it.



Right, systems and surroundings - except I didn't leave out any focus on the aqueous environment. Notice how I said freeing water to bulk solvent? Enthalpic contributions? I said net entropy does increase - but my point is that, to a lay person that doesn't know anything about such a process, it may appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. That larger point still stands, in the context of planetary formation or whatever phenomena you wish to bring into the discussion - just because it seems like it's increasing order (and it may be, in a particular part of the system) does not mean it's increasing net order in the universe (the system as a whole).

In case you're missing the point, you stated this about the process of planetary formation:


Your characterization of the process as a whole is insufficient and your argument, as stated there, is incorrect.



So what if 88 percent of the world's population believes in God? Argumentum ad populum - logical fallacy and has no bearing on the merits of the argument one way or the other.

DNA replication fits the definition of design. Protein folding fits the definition of design. Your point that it does not is a philosophical objection that stems from personal belief. DNA replication is a perfect example of a plan for the construction of an object. Your statement that we cannot conclude that this universe is by design because we do not know other universes are by design is a logical fallacy. I understand that falsifiability is necessary but such falsifiability can be used in the universe we are currently aware of. If we have evidence that this universe is designed it doesn't matter whether other universes are designed or not. I do not need to say now that the laws of nature are responsible for order because I have made that point throughout this thread. In fact I constantly cited the law of gravity for bringing order to a chaotic universe. Your inability to interpret the information I have given correctly is your fault since repeatedly throughout this post I have argued that chaotic matter comes together because of laws. Posts 188 and 189 confirm this. I never once said nor even implied in the remotest sense that the second law of thermodynamics prevents spontaneous creation in this universe. I never made the argument that planetary formation increases net order in the universe. I am not really concerned about or arguing against the impossibility or possibility of certain life. I am open to all forms of life.

You continuously assume that I am oblivious to the pitfalls you point out in my arguments. In previous posts I have stated the universe can be more chaotic then a war zone. I have acknowledged the fact that overall the universe is in a state of disorder and is moving towards more disorder. I have cited the laws that bring order to systems we can observe. An example is our solar system. When I say that laws like gravity bring order to this system I am not at the same time saying that order is increasing in this entire universe. You have invoked this correlation in my statement and it is a false assumption. I am correct in my statement that planet formation decreases disorder (entropy) and just because I do not explicitly do not state as an aside that the surroundings are increasing in entropy does not mean I am ignorant to it. In fact in my summary of protein folding I mentioned the transfer of entropy from the system to it's surroundings. I am making points about a specific system (our solar system) not the entire universe. My characterization of the process is not incorrect and your opinion that it is insufficient is meaningless since I used it to make a point which you have clearly ignored in order to find flaws in my reasoning.

I see your argument against design as a philosophical argument. It seems as though you are denying purpose to natural and biological systems which I find ludicrous considering lack of purpose in biological systems would mean you and I would not be able to carry out this discussion. You are asking me to provide evidence for design in the universe when I am pointing to specific processes and laws in the universe that fit the definition of design. Together these processes and laws are responsible for the formation of the universe. Stephen Hawking says the that the laws of physics are sufficient for explaining to creation of the universe. I am making the argument that every single one of these laws fits the definition of design so therefore the universe is designed when brought about by these laws.

I cited the fact that the majority of the people believe in God because you said:

From what do you infer that these processes are “clearly designed,”? If they are so “clearly designed,” why is it not clear to everyone? Either you’re bad at making your case, or they’re not so clearly designed.

[finder]

How does one infer the action of an intelligent agent in the universe as opposed to undesigned occurances? In other words, what evidence is there for a designed universe versus an undesigned universe

What evidence is there that shows specific patterns, laws ect. are not designed? Your opinions do not count.

[Dave In Canada]

What evidence is there that shows specific patterns, laws ect. are not designed? Your opinions do not count.

You are asking him to prove a negative. It's not a fair question.

Perhaps you should try answering his question first and provide your evidence that the universe it designed. At that point he should be able to either agree with the evidence you have provided or make arguments against your evidence.

Lastly, I find it amusing that you are telling him that his opinions do not count. I'll remember that going forward each and everytime you make an assertion without providing sources and evidence to back your claims.