Was Life Designed To Evolve?

[Warren]

Was Life Designed to Evolve? This is the question I'm interested in exploring. I haven't seen anything coming from either atheistic evolutionists or young earth creationists that is helpful to me. Any suggestions?

[Plaything48]

Does this question merit an answer? I think so. Life wasn't 'designed' it just happened. Heres a nice little way to think about it. The animal is a robot that has a brain, eyes, hands, and so on, but it also carries around its own blueprint, its own instructions. This is important, because if the animal gets eaten, if it dies, then the blueprint dies as well. The only genes that get through the generations are the ones that have managed to make their robots avoid getting eaten and succeed in living long enough to reproduce. These then evolve over time to become better 'protectors' for the genes. And thats the 'selfish' gene theory.

[harami]

There are so many questions about "evolution" that never get asked. For example, people fail to distinguish genetic drift (minor morphic changes) from evolution. Genetic drift has been observed many times from Darwin to the present, but as far as I know, it has not yet been clearly established (in the lab or paleontology) that there has been a new species that evolved from a pre-existing species. If I am wrong, I will be happy to read your evidence.

The argument "well, we have had billions of years for evolution to happen" doesn't cut it because random effects cannot produce the changes seen from protozoa/bacteria to mammalian forms in this time span. Nearly everyone admits that most random effects are counter productive, for example.

So, the argument continues. I am always amused by the fact that BOTH sides take their position as a matter of faith. I get as much heat from either one by arguing the other side.

[Pooeypants]

meh, once again, another misinformed poster whom has not seen the evidences for speciation, this link is very detailed, fully source cited will contain a lot of what you need to know.

As for;
"The argument "well, we have had billions of years for evolution to happen" doesn't cut it because random effects cannot produce the changes seen from protozoa/bacteria to mammalian forms in this time span. Nearly everyone admits that most random effects are counter productive, for example."

Evolution isn't random, natural selection is anything BUT random. Mutations on the other hand are random but as you know, they themselves alone do not constitute evolution.

[Capitalist Pig]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Warren,)
Was Life Designed to Evolve? This is the question I'm interested in exploring. I haven't seen anything coming from either atheistic evolutionists or young earth creationists that is helpful to me. Any suggestions?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Are you directing this specifically at "atheistic evolutionists" and YECs? Or did you just make a rather offensive generalization of both?

[white rice]

Life was created to survive. Evolution is the product of survival, but on a grander scale. Microevolution is nondisputed, even among the moderate religious type. Macroevolution is very debatable, but there is enough systematic and categoric proof to make it a very extensive and credible theory. Hopefully you'll study about both to understand the world around you better. Or you can take it as knowing your enemy better.

[LogicaLunatic]

The question, "Was Life Designed to Evolve?" is not a question about the first living organisms on Earth, rather it asks whether there was a designer or not. This question has been debated before without ever coming to a good conclusion. Before we can go further with this question we must find that a designer actually exists (whether it designed life or not is irrevalent at this point) So, first find a designer, then we'll debate about whether the designer designed life. Then if we decide that it did design life, we'll figure out if it designed life to evolve.

LogicaLunatic

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Warren,)
Was Life Designed to Evolve?  This is the question I'm interested in exploring. I haven't seen anything coming from either atheistic evolutionists or young earth creationists that is helpful to me. Any suggestions?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This question was dismissed by many of those that posted. Atheists may back away because the question may raise the point of 'intelligent design'. Some theists reject the notion because of the mention of evolution. Theists challenge 'evolution' by saying these complex events surely could not come about by 'chance' or random events'.

Modern math and science is aware of this issue and the results of recent research may suprize many. About fifty years ago a new mathematical relationship was discovered. It became known as the 'chaos theory'. The origins were in the nature of different types of equations in math, linear and nonlinear. Linear equations have very predictable results where nonlinear equations tend to give variable results, especially in complex equations where multiple variables are involved. Research into the 'chaos theory' was inspired by research into relationships in nature that were difficult to predict, like weather, stock and comodity market prices, and genetic mutations.

The research into 'chaos theory' found that there is an underlying pattern in all natural events in existence. In other words nothing happens that is truely random or occurs by chance. The application of the 'chaos theory' was found in everything from roles of dice to the shape of tiger stripes, maple leaves and clouds. There was an underlying pattern to all these events that could be expressed in 'chaos theory'. The individual roles of the dice appeared random, but the pattern of the occurance of the the different numbers showed a pattern. No two sets of tiger stripes, maple leaves or clouds were exactly the same, but they all fit within each design. The pattern of their occrance could be expressed as a chaos relationship. Chaos theory has a specific constant determined in the formulas which determines the nature and range of variability of any equation.

Weather fit this model very well. The difference between the ability to make short term and long term predictions in weather fit the chaos theory, so modern computer programs us this to improve weather predictions and understand the limites of weather prediction.

Scientists began to study the origins of life and the evolution of species in light of the math of 'chaos theory' and found the dice were loaded. For example, there are only certain combinations and patterns for the combination and recombination of proteins in a given natural environment. With the proteins present under a certain range of environmental conditions these combinations will eventually form. Once the very primative life forms formed scientists found by using computer models that higher life forms could only form a certain set of geometries from these primative forms. In Precambrian rocks almost all these forms were found as predicted.

The present theories of the events of existence is that everything from galaxies to solar systems to planets to life were designed by the limits of nature of the laws and materials of existence. Given the same conditions another universe would form similar to this one, Giiven another solar system similar to ours another planet like earth would form and life would evolve similar to ours.

You may consider this the creative acts of God or just the natural course of existence as scientist like Gould support. But either way science no longer believes anything takes place by chance or random events. The dice are loaded.

[Meatros]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Warren,)
Was Life Designed to Evolve? This is the question I'm interested in exploring. I haven't seen anything coming from either atheistic evolutionists or young earth creationists that is helpful to me. Any suggestions?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

What about theistic evolutionists?

In any event, nature shows no design-unless you are going to appeal to the unknown and commit a logical fallacy.

[Meatros]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harami,)
The argument "well, we have had billions of years for evolution to happen" doesn't cut it because random effects cannot produce the changes seen from protozoa/bacteria to mammalian forms in this time span. Nearly everyone admits that most random effects are counter productive, for example.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Random effects? You are totally cutting out natural selection-which when considered makes your position come up clearly as a strawman.

[Vitalij]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Warren,)
Was Life Designed to Evolve? This is the question I'm interested in exploring. I haven't seen anything coming from either atheistic evolutionists or young earth creationists that is helpful to me. Any suggestions?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Both camps can be easily subjected to criticism for they miss a number of key points. One silly mistake being that all the existing theories about evolutionary development of everything living and sentient being on the Earth, all the textbooks and visual ads never consider the fact that this whole phenomenal manifested world is a mere theatrical props. That is why it does not evolve, but just occasionally undergoes certain small designer's polishings. Only the consciousnesses (or souls) that are being grown for the specific cosmic needs in this biomachines can develop along the evolution or involution.

Vitalij
"Earth - the planet of biorobots"
http://www.godswhip.info/

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Meatros,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Warren,)
Was Life Designed to Evolve?  This is the question I'm interested in exploring. I haven't seen anything coming from either atheistic evolutionists or young earth creationists that is helpful to me. Any suggestions?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

What about theistic evolutionists?

In any event, nature shows no design-unless you are going to appeal to the unknown and commit a logical fallacy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Darwin was the first true Theistic Evolutionist. What I presented in the post on the 'chaos model' wouldn't be a logical phalacy, but a design inherent within the laws of nature if you chose to believe there is no God. If you believe in the Theistic Evolution approach it gives you evidence to seperate the theistic belief from the evolutionary stigma that everything happened by chance or random events.

[Meatros]

Quote by: shunyadragon, What about theistic evolutionists? In any event, nature shows no design-unless you are going to appeal to the unknown and commit a logical fallacy.

Darwin was the first true Theistic Evolutionist. What I presented in the post on the 'chaos model' wouldn't be a logical phalacy, but a design inherent within the laws of nature if you chose to believe there is no God. If you believe in the Theistic Evolution approach it gives you evidence to seperate the theistic belief from the evolutionary stigma that everything happened by chance or random events.[/quote]


Um...please forgive me here...I just can't resist...

How Freudian...

[Warren]

<< In any event, nature shows no design-unless you are going to appeal to the unknown and commit a logical fallacy.>>

Well, I certainly think I have good reasons for at least suspecting that certain evolutionary trajectories were rigged. Even an atheist like Richard Dawkins states:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Francis Crick says:

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”

Maybe the reason life looks designed and is able to evolve is because life was designed to evolve. To help me research this possibility I can look to engineering on one hand, and physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and astronomy on the other hand. Then, I simply ask into which of these hands is life a better fit. It is my position that life better fits in the class of things known to be designed through intelligent intervention. Here's why:

(1) The study of life is much more like the study of engineering than any other field of science. This is clearly seen from the fact that teleological language and concepts are very important in biology and engineering, but essentially missing from the other fields of science. If life is designed, this makes much sense. Molecular biology helps itself liberally to teleological concepts ("messengers," "codes," "proofreading," etc.). It must do so because nothing makes sense in the cell except in the light of functional logic. But molecular biology certainly does not explain the source of that functional logic. Without teleological concepts and terminology biological research would come to a screeching halt.

(2) Over the last few decades, the more we have learned about cell biology and molecular biology, the greater has grown the distance between chemistry and biology. Biological states are high information states and biological processes depend crucially on these high information states. Thus, in order for life to exist, we find such things as codes, sophisticated molecular machines, proof-reading of information, and quality control mechanisms. In the entire known non-living universe, such things are found only in artifacts and given that these things are at the very heart of life, the significance of the similarity is profound. In fact, note carefully the conclusions of physicist Paul Davies:

"If I am right that the key to biogenesis lies, not in chemistry, but with the formation of a particular logical and informational architecture, then the crucial step involved the creation of an information-processing system, employing software control. I argue that this step was closely associated with the appearance of the genetic code. Bringing some of the language of computation to the problem, I have endeavored to throw light on the highly novel form of complexity that is found in the genes of living organisms. This peculiarity of biological complexity makes genes seem almost like impossible objects - yet they must have formed somehow. I have come to the conclusion that no familiar law of nature could produce such a structure from incoherent chemicals with the inevitability that some scientists assert. If life does form easily, and is common throughout the universe, then new physical principles must be at work."

Where in chemistry, astronomy, or geology do we find essential information-processing systems employing software control??

I maintain that (1) and (2) constitute a positive case for life being designed to evolve. While these reasons may be insufficient as proof, or even to generate a widespread consensus, they are sufficient to form a working hypothesis.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
In any event, nature shows no design-unless you are going to appeal to the unknown and commit a logical fallacy.

Well, I certainly think I have good reasons for at least suspecting that certain evolutionary trajectories were rigged. Even an atheist like Richard Dawkins states:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This quote is short and out of context. One of the main problems I have with 'creation science' advocates is this selective short quotes out of context followed by long detailed quotes from people like Crick below. For a more detail scienific refutation of Crick and others read 'Abusing Science' by Philip Kitcher.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Francis Crick says:

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”

Maybe the reason life looks designed and is able to evolve is because life was designed to evolve. To help me research this possibility I can look to engineering on one hand, and physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and astronomy on the other hand. Then, I simply ask into which of these hands is life a better fit. It is my position that life better fits in the class of things known to be designed through intelligent intervention. Here's why:

(1) The study of life is much more like the study of engineering than any other field of science. This is clearly seen from the fact that teleological language and concepts are very important in biology and engineering, but essentially missing from the other fields of science. If life is designed, this makes much sense. Molecular biology helps itself liberally to teleological concepts ("messengers," "codes," "proofreading," etc.). It must do so because nothing makes sense in the cell except in the light of functional logic. But molecular biology certainly does not explain the source of that functional logic. Without teleological concepts and terminology biological research would come to a screeching halt.

(2) Over the last few decades, the more we have learned about cell biology and molecular biology, the greater has grown the distance between chemistry and biology. Biological states are high information states and biological processes depend crucially on these high information states. Thus, in order for life to exist, we find such things as codes, sophisticated molecular machines, proof-reading of information, and quality control mechanisms. In the entire known non-living universe, such things are found only in artifacts and given that these things are at the very heart of life, the significance of the similarity is profound. In fact, note carefully the conclusions of physicist Paul Davies:

"If I am right that the key to biogenesis lies, not in chemistry, but with the formation of a particular logical and informational architecture, then the crucial step involved the creation of an information-processing system, employing software control. I argue that this step was closely associated with the appearance of the genetic code. Bringing some of the language of computation to the problem, I have endeavored to throw light on the highly novel form of complexity that is found in the genes of living organisms. This peculiarity of biological complexity makes genes seem almost like impossible objects - yet they must have formed somehow. I have come to the conclusion that no familiar law of nature could produce such a structure from incoherent chemicals with the inevitability that some scientists assert. If life does form easily, and is common throughout the universe, then new physical principles must be at work."

Where in chemistry, astronomy, or geology do we find essential information-processing systems employing software control??

I maintain that (1) and (2) constitute a positive case for life being designed to evolve. While these reasons may be insufficient as proof, or even to generate a widespread consensus, they are sufficient to form a working hypothesis.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I already responded to the modern view of the 'chaos model' that shows the events of existence are not random or by chance whether you believe in a creation by design or not. The linking of proteins into chains is neither to complex nor to difficult for it to happen naturally. This has been demonstrated in the lab. The nature of forming protein chains into the genetics of simpler organisms like virus' and the progression to the more complex genetics of complex follows a predictable pattern. We had billions of years for these events to take place. No problem and no hurry.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

What about theistic evolutionists?

In any event, nature shows no design-unless you are going to appeal to the unknown and commit a logical fallacy.

Darwin was the first true Theistic Evolutionist. What I presented in the post on the 'chaos model' wouldn't be a logical phalacy, but a design inherent within the laws of nature if you chose to believe there is no God. If you believe in the Theistic Evolution approach it gives you evidence to seperate the theistic belief from the evolutionary stigma that everything happened by chance or random events.


Um...please forgive me here...I just can't resist...

How Freudian... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Um . . . please forgive me here . . . I just can't resist . . .
Freud was Freudian and rather old hat for any modern consideration of of behavior science or any other science.

Please, how about some kind of real intelligent response.

[Warren]

Dawkins<< "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." >>

This quote is short and out of context. One of the main problems I have with 'creation science' advocates is this selective short quotes out of context followed by long detailed quotes from people like Crick below.

Warren<< Please explain how I took this quote out of context. >>

[harami]

"You may consider this the creative acts of God or just the natural course of existence as scientist like Gould support. But either way science no longer believes anything takes place by chance or random events. The dice are loaded. "

Unfortunately, for your argument, is the fact that the field of "stochasitic differential equations" is an extremely important (relatively new) field in math and the sciences. Probabalistic arguments are crucial to the endeavor to understand certain pheomenona. Quantum mechanics (a venerable science) is almost entirely probabilty based, for example. So, a great deal of science deals with probability based theory.

A mathematical modeler can easily rig the hypotheses (axioms of the modeling) to suit the outcomes desired by the modeler. So, mathematical models must always be subjected to close scrutiny. But this is not easy, since there is no "lab" in which to test the predictions, and the arheological/geological evidence is vague and subject to much interpretation. It is clear, even from the conversation on this board, that many people have their "agenda" or "faith" that they have to argue for. So, be aware of this in all discussions. By the way, chaos is an intriguing mathematical fad, but not without its applications.

I have been to many seminars on cellular level biomechanics/biochemistry and have attended graduate level courses in bio-engineering (on the cellular level), and I can tell you that, when you become aware of the (unbelievable!!) intricate way in which cells and the human body react on a cellular level, you will become increduluous with the complexity and subtlety. You will wonder how a multi-step process could possibly evolved, when all steps are needed for the completion of the task: a deletion of any step would be counter productive. You will begin to wonder how such an elaborate and delicate dance of interwoven activities and chemical balances and resoponses could possibly arisen "by chance".

I tend to agree with Warren, who makes many good points. DNA coding/decoding must go on incessantly in the cell. One must surely be in complete awe of the complexity and "well designed" nature of life, the more one knows about it. How life got to this point is the question that is bedeviling, and cannot be answered by mere mortals, as I see it.

[Pooeypants]

I'm studying Biochemistry at Uni as well, I personally don't see why there needs to be design, the way the course is taught, it's always about evolution and how nature solves the problems. I think it's elegant how life has progressed from simple replicating units to a full blown factory cell.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harami,)
"You may consider this the creative acts of God or just the natural course of existence as scientist like Gould support. But either way science no longer believes anything takes place by chance or random events. The dice are loaded. "

Unfortunately, for your argument, is the fact that the field of "stochasitic differential equations" is an extremely important (relatively new) field in math and the sciences.  Probabalistic arguments are crucial to the endeavor to understand certain pheomenona.  Quantum mechanics (a venerable science) is almost entirely probabilty based, for example.  So, a great deal of science deals with probability based theory.

A mathematical modeler can easily rig the hypotheses (axioms of the modeling) to suit the outcomes desired by the modeler.  So, mathematical models must always be subjected to close scrutiny.  But this is not easy, since there is no "lab" in which to test the predictions, and the arheological/geological evidence is vague and subject to much interpretation.  It is clear, even from the conversation on this board, that many people have their "agenda" or "faith" that they have to argue for.  So, be aware of this in all discussions.  By the way, chaos is an intriguing mathematical fad, but not without its applications. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

The 'fad' side of chaos is entertaining, but not the point. The applications in predictive models like the weather are far more important. Chaos is an important mathimatical model used to explain the variability in data that 'appears random and by chance, and does not fit well with the change in the variables. I was avoiding the complexity of complex mathimatical models in this arguement. What chaos demonstrated was events in time are not truely random or by chance. There is an underlying rythum to events, which is an important issue when debating 'Creation Science/Evolution'.

In archeology and geology the evidence is not vague or subject to a great deal of interpretation, this realm is statistics. Interpretation and statistics is of course necessary, but it isn't a free for all. The predictive models of sedimentology and the cyclic nature of strategraphy over time are well documented all over the globe. The chaos modeling works well to show the variations in these cycles over time. The progressive evolving complexity of life found in these sediments over a very long time is very obvious and not subject to much interpretation. Working as a geologist in Appalachia for more than twenty years gave me plenty opportunities to investigate first hand thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I have been to many seminars on cellular level biomechanics/biochemistry and have attended graduate level courses in bio-engineering (on the cellular level), and I can tell you that, when you become aware of the (unbelievable!!) intricate way in which cells and the human body react on a cellular level, you will become increduluous with the complexity and subtlety.  You will wonder how a multi-step process could possibly evolved, when all steps are needed for the completion of the task: a deletion of any step would be counter productive.  You will begin to wonder how such an elaborate and delicate dance of interwoven activities and chemical balances and resoponses could possibly arisen "by chance". <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

As I have pointed out before these events do not occur totally by 'chance'. First, and most important, is early life formed and evolved with in the constrants of the nature of organic chemistry. There are only certain ways proteins can bond to each other on the road to complex DNA. Those combinations that were successful became the first one celled life forms.

Yes, life is also very complex today, but also very believable. The vaste amount of fossil evidence from precambrian to cambrian deposites in Western Canada is important, because it points back to a simpler time when the different life forms that were simpler models of today's species differentiated. The evolutionary relationship from the simple to the complex becomes clearer today now that we have this evidence.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I tend to agree with Warren, who makes many good points.  DNA coding/decoding must go on incessantly in the cell.  One must surely be in complete awe of the complexity and "well designed" nature of life, the more one knows about it.  How life got to this point is the question that is bedeviling, and cannot be answered by mere mortals, as I see it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I believe the steps in evolution leading to the apparent 'bedeviling' complexity of present life forms has been well documenting. Because I believe in God I don't question the existence of a cause, but I do question the anthropomorphic 'well designed' nature of life or even the need to argue the question of 'Inelligent Design'. I believe that the design is inherent within the nature of existence and can be well explained with or without a God as a source.

The question as to whether the more complex unanswered questions can be settled by science is answered usually in a matter of time.