Just when I think I’ve seen it all from Alaska Slim…
Really. I don’t know why I respond to him. It’s a losing battle from the get-go. I’ve learned my lesson, though. He really is the FANTASY-CHASER. (Sorry FC…)
I’ve observed that the words prove and proof are so abused that it’s more honest to not even use them. For one thing, you can only prove something to someone who wants to know and is open to accepting the result. Otherwise, he can keep on challenging points and starting assumptions forever. (And if the proof starts with bad assumptions, like evolution, that’s a reasonable thing to do.)
One explanation, yes, obviously life was designed. So why do you keep going on and on about evolution?
Yes we do. You can pull DNA from fossils, we have a soft tissue sample, and we have most certainly pulled DNA from mammoths frozen in the ice.
We’ve done this Dave, and we’re getting to the point where we can Clone a Mammoth because of it.
The proof is in the action. We wouldn’t be able to do this if it wasn’t true.
If you go far back enough along the Tree of Life? We have a common ancestor with Lobsters ( hence why we have a body constructed with bilateral symmetry, and a neurological system regulated by serotonin, the same as them), so why not Frogs?
Not Chimps, we have a common ancestor. Chimps and humans lines diverged, as, among other things, human females are choosy, whereas Chimp females go into heat, and will mate with anyone.
Meanwhile, being “choosy” set off a cognitive arms race between the human sexes, and lead to our brains expanding.
Yet we’re not using Godlike power to manipulate matter here, we’re using natures own in-built mechanisms to do what nature already does over time.
CRISPR can only work, in a situation where the mechanisms already exist, and there’s a standing reserve of genetic material already in each animal.
Genetic material, we didn’t put there. Evolution did, as the animals themselves changed overtime.
Remember that writer you cited before, Michael Behe, of Darwin’s Black Box?
He himself admits that Humans had a common ancestor with apes, as there’s a 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin.
He also admits that evolution must be occurring in our own midst, as there’s that pending question of how it is bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics overtime, creating superbugs.
His point is that at the level of organisms, Evolution works, and that human beings are one of its products. Ergo, he’s admitting that mechanical forces (and sex/natural selection) produce most of what we see.
His issue is that at the cellular level; the complex biochemical machinery within every cell, and how Darwinism doesn’t fully explain it (and I agree, as there’s other mechanism at play, and I’ve already mentioned one of them.)
This comes back to what I said before, we have less of that figured out, because there’s little to no fossilized record to go on to know what precisely nature did. We’re taking more time to eliminate the wrong answers, because we don’t have the fossil cheat sheet, and didn’t always have the proper testing apparatus to test even what our current theories on it were.
His argument is basically “God of the Gaps”, and I don’t find that persuasive, because of how much mechanical forces already explain.
We know how the universe got from the Big bang to forming the Earth, we know how the Earth formed its biodome, and we know how single-cell organisms formed more complex organisms overtime (and he admits this).
We know all of these things because nature left clear evidence of how it did it, Cosmic background radiation, astronomical examination of still-forming solar system, examination of other planets, examinations of the Earth’s crust, and fossils & DNA traces.
In short, If we’re using that book, then we’re not even talking about God forming humans, but rather the nuclei of cells and the mechanism used to produce them. Everything else has been explained, we already have practical science predicated on those theories working, and he (Behe) admits it.
The Catholic Church is not party to Intelligent Design FC, at least no more than the broad stroke that we have a creator. Here’s Benedict the XVI calling it into question:
That “philosophical question” he’s talking about? He’s making a reference to someone there, guess who? “Intelligent Design” isn’t necessary, because we have other ways for demonstrating the existence of God, as Thomas did.
ID is just Evangelicals buying into the framework of Positivism, even as they try to fight it.
As John Paul II said: “Fides et ratio”
Faith and reason.
We will not use one in place of the other.
You’re still hanging onto your faith that evolutionary “mechanical forces” can explain life. How extraordinary.
To celebrate this, let me give you my five favorite reasons we know life was designed.
- Proteins - As I’ve illustrated above, there is no possible way any natural process can explain the origin of any of the tens of thousands of proteins that make up our bodies, or the genes that code them.
- Information - Specified information doesn’t come about by natural processes, yet our DNA has loads of it.
- Sexual Reproduction - The male and female organs are different yet are worthless apart from each other. Plus, the careful design of internally fertilized eggs has differences from the design of externally fertilized eggs they supposedly evolved from. These differences are worthless without fully developed organs.
- Functional Coherence - There are many examples of hierarchical design in bodily systems. Components at each level have no value apart from their contribution to the whole, so natural selection would have no reason to preserve them if they evolved. (I include irreducible complexity (IC) in with this, though it may deserve it’s own point.)
- Order - We observe that in nature, the direction of order is from greater to lesser. This concept is captured in the second law of T, but it extends beyond that. Even life is obedient to it as mutations accumulate with generations. Evolution would violate it.
Because that includes more than Darwinism, while your criticism has only been on Darwinism.
What I described before, of a hunter cell and a prey cell merging into eukaryotic cells? That isn’t Darwinian. We know it happened though, through a process called endosymbiosis, which was uncovered by closely studying mitochondria and chloroplasts, and noting how their behavior mimics that of bacteria.
And that’s not the only instance, Darwinian theory may now have to make room for the theory it replaced. Lamarck. He wasn’t completely wrong. In fact, when it comes to how psychology affects (and is affected) by evolution, he was right on the money.
As to your list:
- " Proteins …there is no possible way any natural process can explain "
Proteins are not the first step, peptides are far simpler structures, and they’re capable of making forms that are self-replicating.
So this isn’t relevant to whether life could evolve. It isn’t the first step, and there are intermediate steps that are self-generating.
- " Information - Specified information doesn’t come about by natural processes. "
Actually, there’s a whole bunch of ways to “get information for free” as the Earth has a long list of niche environments that serve as a catalyst, taking a great amount of the probability out of it. The monomers that formed early self-replicating molecules, were not in equal distribution around the planet, so that creates biases in each of those environments.
I bet that you are familiar with this; if only in its most simple form, of life taking its cues from the environment. Whether its animals going by the lunar cycle for when to mate, or small plant life clinging to volcanic vents deep in the ocean in order to establish a cycle of metabolism.
That’s the environment providing information for free.
You can find this further explained by this Professor of microbiology and molecular genetics, who applies Information theory, explaining how you can use this same concept to dramatically raise the chances the word “origin” appears among randomly typed letters. Taking something that was one in 10 billion, to almost certain to happen.
- " Sexual Reproduction - The male and female organs are different yet are worthless apart from each other. "
Again, this has to do with taking a snapshot of what life is today after it has produced reinforcing structures to what was selected millions of years ago.
As we can see with microbial life (and I’m sure you know this), organisms of the same species can have multiple genders, some of which produce sexually, others asexually.
The question then becomes, which one of these gendered microbes served as the archetype of later, more complex forms of life? Ones that produced Sexually? Asexually? Both? As it turns out, this isn’t universal.
We have animals & plants that contain both male & female parts that produce asexually, and we have species that do both asexual and sexual reproduction.
We even have species that once upon a time could produce sexually, but lost it in favor to asexual production, and became only one gender – male or female (like this lizard).
In each case, it had something to do with what the environment favored, and as the organism became more complex, the “selection” was reinforced by other development in its structure. The development could even force a hybrid to become just a sexual or asexual species, when before it could do both.
- " Functional Coherence - There are many examples of hierarchical design in bodily systems. Components at each level have no value "
The argument made against Darwin about this concerned the eye. He pointed out that even a simple, light-sensing organ on a microbe would still have a purpose (which we’ve confirmed). Later structures on these microbes became more concave so that they could sense the direction light was coming from. Steps accrue from there.
Today, we’re able to prove that, through a process taking a few 100,000 years at most, you can most certainly produce eyes from simple light-sensing structures, and have each step be relevant to the rest of the creature.
(our own eyes btw have a flaw— something else pointing to this being an unthinking mechanical process.)
- " Order - We observe that in nature, the direction of order is from greater to lesser. "
? This is the simplest claim to disprove. I never thought I’d hear it from you, so I’m a bit surprised.
Here’s the 2nd law, I’ll high-lite the problem:
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.”
The Earth does not exist in an isolated system. Why? Well, the Sun, primarily, and then whatever the Universe throws in our direction for another (like those comets I mentioned before). If you have more energy being pumped into a system overtime, more things will be tried.
Evolutionists abuse thermodynamics so much that I actually dug out my college thermodynamics book and looked it up. In my text, it gives two definitions, and neither one says anything about a closed or isolated system.
Also, the second law doesn’t control nature the way man’s law controls man. Instead, it is an attempt by man to describe what is observed in nature. And there are different ways to describe it.
Nevertheless, if you read my statement more carefully, you’ll see that I did not directly use thermodynamics. The second law is just a special case of the larger observation that I did use.
It’s kind of you to be surprised. It implies you’re challenged by what I say.
I don’t know about the quality of that text book of yours, but Rudolf Clausius described the 1st law as thus in 1850:
“In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it.”
Clausius was one of the first explicit formulators of the laws, so viewing them as applicable to closed systems has been there since the very beginning.
In the meantime, when was On the Origin of the Species published? That would be 1859.
So Clausius formulating it that way, could not have had any involvement with discussions on evolution. No way no how. Conspiracy theories need not apply.
Do you REALLY believe that no one thought about or discussed evolution until Darwin???
Not at all. But the laws of thermodynamics were no talking point on it. And it was Darwin who promoted the idea the most.
Sorry Dave, but you know I’m right. The laws of Thermodynamics, were not written by naturalists with evolution in mind, but by physicists (and engineers) with physics in mind.
Where did I ask about the laws of thermodynamics? You are the one who claimed that Clausius couldn’t have considered evolution since Darwin’s book wasn’t published until AFTER Clausius’. To me, that means that you don’t believe anyone discussed or considered evolution UNTIL Darwin…and that’s simply BS.
That was the point of the post Dave; are you obfuscating, or contributing?
Neither. I’m asking you if you really believe that “evolution” wasn’t discussed or considered before Darwin wrote his book. Your post indicated that you DID believe that it wasn’t an issue before Darwin. Do you believe that, or not? Simple question.
A tangent, well, I’m not continuing it. I already answered it, so that should be enough.
The point is, Clausius did not formulate the Laws with Evolution in mind. There is no “Evolutionist” conspiracy here. The laws weren’t even a talking point on Evolution until well into the 20th century.
The laws have always included closed systems in their definition. End of story.
No one discussed it intelligently until Alaska Slim came along to set us straight…
I was wondering about that, too.
Oh, the optical lumber!
The difference here is interest.
That’s all it comes down to; not intelligence, plenty here are smarter than I’am. John and RET likely are.
Not conviction either, plenty here have those too.
It was interest.
Nothing I’ve stated here was beyond your own knowing. It still isn’t. You just haven’t had the interest to go find out.
FC, you’ve twice made accusations of me that came down to your own faulty memory, and I had to fight tooth & nail to get you to finally admit it.
I suspect that you’re still holding grudges for things other people have done, and have somehow confused me, for them.
You’re not in a position to criticize, when you don’t keep track of yourself, and you’ve done nothing to earn trust with me.
It’s only from a place of trust that people are willing to listen to advice… and when did you even try to do that?
To my recollection, it was guns blazing with you, straight from the start.
Nonsense. Are you HONESTLY trying to convince us here that some “soft tissue” of a T-Rex has avoided fossilization for over 145 MILLION YEARS? I call BS on a shingle when we know that WOOD fossilizes in a mere 5,000 years or so. Do you REALLY expect us to believe that T-Rex “collagen” avoided fossilization because it was “shielded” by IRON molecules for 1,450 millennia?
Dave, did you miss this part?:
This is an oversight paleontologists have been making for centuries. They didn’t even know to look for this, as even they weren’t expecting it.
As to how it works:
They can’t treat the skin with normal preservatives, and exposure to modern air can cause it to deteriorate. Just like skin found in more recent fossils. Like that mammoth.