Agnosticism and Intelligent Design

[excreationist]

This reasoning is the old, "I don't understand therefore god", only replacing "god" with "intelligence".

The thinking seems to be that the end results of a long string of chance occurrences and natural selection were a goal.
A simple test may help dispel this idea:
Flip a coin a hundred times and record the results of each flip. What results will be a record something like, "H..T..T..T..H..H..T.....". Now calculate the odds of that exact series of heads and tails occuring by chance. You could flip that coin for the rest of your life and there would be next to zero chance of repeating that exact same series and yet you got that series the very first time you tried.

What is, is because it is the end result of a hell of a lot of chance (accidental) occurrences. It wasn't goal driven to reach this specific end.

I think a better comparison would be letters that were randomly typed on a keyboard. If they ended up being in English then that would be significant even though there are a huge number of possibilities where it could be English. It could have some poor spelling but it would still be amazing if it were generally English.

- - - Updated - - -

To begin with as to 'intelligent' design, whoever designed humans did not do a very good job. And what about all those pesky asteroids, why couldn't they be avoided?

I agree. A better term would be "incompetent design"

I don't believe in a perfect intelligent force - just one that intervenes from time to time (see my Futurama God quotes)

 

[excreationist]

....It's just sciency. It's a bizarre statement that violates everything we know about evolution. If true the researcher would already have a Nobel prize. So it's clearly bullshit....

Well the first time you said "Ehe... what?" so maybe others would also not find it significant. Here's some more details:
https://www.cell.com/developmental-...m/retrieve/pii/S153458071630644X?showall=true

 

[excreationist]

ID is just rubbish. The pufferfish thing is mating behaviour.

But I'd say this instinctual behaviour is about the most complex out of any fish. And this was only discovered a few years ago

 

[phands]

ID is just rubbish. The pufferfish thing is mating behaviour.

But I'd say this behaviour is about as complex as all of its other behaviour combined - way more complicated than any other mating behaviour I'm aware of.

You don't know about other puffer fish behaviour, so you have no grounds for that comparison. And there is much more complex mating behaviour in other species. Look at Bower Birds or Birds of Paradise or even Bonobos. Or humans.


And...

A love game: Fish courtship more complex than thought

Date:November 12, 2010Source:Monash UniversitySummary:Researchers have discovered that male Australian desert goby fish are surprisingly strategic when it comes to courtship, adapting their tactics depending on the frequency of their contact with females.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101110101346.htm

Lots of hand-wavy woooooo and special effects in those videos, but little in the way of facts.

If you say so.

I do say so - because it's true.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think a better comparison would be letters that were randomly typed on a keyboard. If they ended up being in English then that would be significant even though there are a huge number of possibilities where it could be English. It could have some poor spelling but it would still be amazing if were randomly typed on a keyboard. If they ended up being in English then that would be significant even though there are a huge number of possibilities where it could be English. It could have some poor spelling but it would still be amazing if it were generally English.

That would still be looking at the end result as a goal. Evolution is not goal driven. What ends up is simply what worked (enhanced survival and procreation chances) along the way. Humans could have easily ended up with a prehensile tail (which would have been damned useful) if one of our distant ancestors had had a mutation that began the series of chance changes like happened in a distant ancestor of the South American monkeys. But such a mutation did not happen in our ancient ancestors or, if it did, the critter that had it was eaten by predators before procreating.

Occam's razor isn't a law but is a fairly reliable guide to understanding. Given two "theories", both of which explain a phenomenon, the simpler is generally the best explanation. We know evolution happens... adding a god to the evolutionary process is adding an unnecessary component. It adds a component that requires a hell of a lot of hand waving to justify since there is no evidence of its existence, only wishful thinking.

 

[excreationist]

You don't know about other puffer fish behaviour, so you have no grounds for that comparison.

So you think there is an undiscovered puffer fish with even more amazing behaviour?

And there is much more complex mating behaviour in other species. Look at Bower Birds or Birds of Paradise or even Bonobos. Or humans.

"MUCH more complex"? You could teach a 3 year old how to make a nest like bower birds and probably do what birds of paradise or bonobos do. But I am skeptical you could teach it to do what the puffer fish does and make a design MANY times larger than itself that is very symmetrical around the edges and has a different style with the outside vs the inside. Good luck trying to get a toddler to even make a very circular design in some sand.

A love game: Fish courtship more complex than thought

Date:November 12, 2010Source:Monash UniversitySummary:Researchers have discovered that male Australian desert goby fish are surprisingly strategic when it comes to courtship, adapting their tactics depending on the frequency of their contact with females.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101110101346.htm

Seriously? What about this: do a google search for:
pufferfish natures greatest artist
It comes up with a large number of matches...

...Lots of hand-wavy woooooo and special effects in those videos, but little in the way of facts.

https://www.livescience.com/40132-underwater-mystery-circles.html
"It takes about seven to nine days for the pufferfish to construct the circles."
"....this new pufferfish's geometric patterns have three features never seen before. First, they involve radially aligned ridges and valleys outside the nest site. Second, the male decorates these ridges with fragments of shells. Third, the male gathers fine sediments to give the resulting formation a distinctive look and coloring..."
"...although the fish are only about 12 centimeters (5 inches) long, the formations they make measure about 2 meters (7 feet) in diameter...."

What isn't factual in the video?

 

[excreationist]

I think a better comparison would be letters that were randomly typed on a keyboard. If they ended up being in English then that would be significant even though there are a huge number of possibilities where it could be English. It could have some poor spelling but it would still be amazing if were randomly typed on a keyboard. If they ended up being in English then that would be significant even though there are a huge number of possibilities where it could be English. It could have some poor spelling but it would still be amazing if it were generally English.

That would still be looking at the end result as a goal. Evolution is not goal driven. What ends up is simply what worked (enhanced survival and procreation chances) along the way.

Yes I'm talking about what happens along the way. There could be a person that approves a book, similar to a creature survives if it has valid enough DNA. Then more changes could be made to the book and some might pass or some might fail. Perhaps a better analogy is random data that is executed on a computer. It would either run or not and perhaps crash. Then it could be randomly changed. Though I'm talking about asexual reproduction in this case.

Humans could have easily ended up with a prehensile tail (which would have been damned useful) if one of our distant ancestors had had a mutation that began the series of chance changes like happened in a distant ancestor of the South American monkeys. But such a mutation did not happen in our ancient ancestors or, if it did, the critter that had it was eaten by predators before procreating.

Ok. Well here I'm advocating a form of theistic evolution with some blind processes.

Occam's razor isn't a law but is a fairly reliable guide to understanding. Given two "theories", both of which explain a phenomenon, the simpler is generally the best explanation. We know evolution happens... adding a god to the evolutionary process is adding an unnecessary component. It adds a component that requires a hell of a lot of hand waving to justify since there is no evidence of its existence, only wishful thinking.

I'm talking about intelligence from the future adding information into some DNA or intelligence coming from a simulation - not God as such.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So you think there is an undiscovered puffer fish with even more amazing behaviour?

More amazing?
How do you measure amazing?

What is the metric used to express it?

Amazing is something that happens in your head.
If you get drunk enough, pancakes become amazing. Even if they are the pancakes you made while you were sober and bored.

Being overly impressed by a trait that you are creating does not tell us anything about the rest of reality.

 

[excreationist]

So you think there is an undiscovered puffer fish with even more amazing behaviour?

More amazing?
How do you measure amazing?

What is the metric used to express it?

Amazing is something that happens in your head.
If you get drunk enough, pancakes become amazing. Even if they are the pancakes you made while you were sober and bored.

Being overly impressed by a trait that you are creating does not tell us anything about the rest of reality.

By "amazing" I mean a puffer fish that creates something that takes about a week that has been called on many videos/sites "Nature's greatest artist". You seriously think there might be another puffer fish that is better? If there was then people mustn't know about it - after all they're not calling that pufferfish "Nature's second greatest artist". It is possible that a better puffer fish that people don't know about exists, but I doubt it. In a similar way maybe there is a more intelligent animal on earth than humans but I think it is reasonable to assume that humans are the most intelligent.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't believe in a perfect intelligent force - just one that intervenes from time to time (see my Futurama God quotes)

Why? I don't understand why you would? It's such a strange thing to say IMHO

 

[DrZoidberg]

....It's just sciency. It's a bizarre statement that violates everything we know about evolution. If true the researcher would already have a Nobel prize. So it's clearly bullshit....

Well the first time you said "Ehe... what?" so maybe others would also not find it significant. Here's some more details:
https://www.cell.com/developmental-...m/retrieve/pii/S153458071630644X?showall=true

That was pretty straight forward IMHO. No God to be found.

I think it's simply down to Creationists not understanding what they are reading. A structure can evolve in one organism, for one use, and have another use in later creatures. Often with humourus results.

All they're saying is that stuff evolved in prokaryotes or archea first and then found another use in Eukaryotes. Which is common in nature. This is neither ground-breaking nor a threat to the theory of evolution.

Coughing evolved in fish to clear mucus and sediments out of your gills. Humans can still cough. But now has another use. Fish can direct which part is cleared. Humans can't but the function remains. Which is why we can cough and get the hiccups. Hiccups is pure genetic drift. It's a surviving fish function with no use in humans. But we're retained coughing and still use it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

ID is just rubbish. The pufferfish thing is mating behaviour.

But I'd say this instinctual behaviour is about the most complex out of any fish. And this was only discovered a few years ago

I'm not sure what you think it proves. Complexity is not a problem for evolution.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you think there is an undiscovered puffer fish with even more amazing behaviour?

More amazing?
How do you measure amazing?

What is the metric used to express it?

Amazing is something that happens in your head.
If you get drunk enough, pancakes become amazing. Even if they are the pancakes you made while you were sober and bored.

Being overly impressed by a trait that you are creating does not tell us anything about the rest of reality.

By "amazing" I mean a puffer fish that creates something that takes about a week that has been called on many videos/sites "Nature's greatest artist". You seriously think there might be another puffer fish that is better? If there was then people mustn't know about it - after all they're not calling that pufferfish "Nature's second greatest artist". It is possible that a better puffer fish that people don't know about exists, but I doubt it. In a similar way maybe there is a more intelligent animal on earth than humans but I think it is reasonable to assume that humans are the most intelligent.

So? How is this an argument for ID? Nature is strange and complex. That's what you get if you have evolution. It's a weirdness engine.

 

[excreationist]

I don't believe in a perfect intelligent force - just one that intervenes from time to time (see my Futurama God quotes)

Why? I don't understand why you would? It's such a strange thing to say IMHO

Well a lot of people believe that there is a God who is perfectly loving and just. I am suggesting that there is a benevolent force that only manifests in a very limited way.

....All they're saying is that stuff evolved in prokaryotes or archea first and then found another use in Eukaryotes. Which is common in nature. This is neither ground-breaking nor a threat to the theory of evolution....

Ok then. Well I thought it was worth looking into anyway.

...Complexity is not a problem for evolution....

http://detectingdesign.com/wp/2018/08/21/complex-organisms-are-degenerating-rapidly/
says:
"the ratio of detrimental vs. beneficial mutations is on the order of a million to one (Gerrish and Lenski 1998)."

What do you think the ratio might be?

The problem is trying to accumulate useful mutations (to evolve) while minimizing the affect of detrimental mutations. And some of those detrimental mutations might turn out to be a part of something that is ultimately useful. I guess you'd just say that natural selection can solve that. I probably can't convince you of the problems I see.

 

[excreationist]

By "amazing" I mean a puffer fish that creates something that takes about a week that has been called on many videos/sites "Nature's greatest artist". You seriously think there might be another puffer fish that is better? If there was then people mustn't know about it - after all they're not calling that pufferfish "Nature's second greatest artist". It is possible that a better puffer fish that people don't know about exists, but I doubt it. In a similar way maybe there is a more intelligent animal on earth than humans but I think it is reasonable to assume that humans are the most intelligent.

So? How is this an argument for ID? Nature is strange and complex. That's what you get if you have evolution. It's a weirdness engine.

I think its behaviour is one of the most complex instinctual behaviours that exist. A comparable one is bees that make a bee hive. But the bee hive helps bees survive. The puffer fish's creation is just an arbitrary design. If it was just a heap of sand it would have about 10% or less of the complexity. Earlier I was talking in terms of what a 3 year old toddler could do. A 3 year old could be taught to do what a bower bird does. It could make a mound of sand.

How old do you think a human would have to be before they'd be able to make a design like this? Note that to do it to scale for a human, it would be a few times larger than that. Note how precise the shapes are. I'm talking about them doing it above the water of course. Teaching them via language is a very efficient way of sending information to them. I suspect creating an instinct for this would involve more data. Why is it that this just seemed to pop out of nowhere in one species? I guess you think the chance of this happening isn't that unlikely and it is easy for things like that to evolve naturalistically.

 

[excreationist]

From the Quantum Gravity Research video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ztlIAYTCU

http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/lay-person-overview

....This collective consciousness conceives the fundamental, “primitive” consciousness that powers the quasicrystal from which it emerges.

A creates B.

B creates C.

And C creates A.....

....Given enough time, what can happen will eventually happen. By this axiom, universal emergent consciousness has emerged via self-organization somewhere ahead of us in 4D spacetime. And because it is possible, it is inevitable. In fact, according to the evidence of retro-causality time loops, that inevitable future is co-creating us right now just as we are co-creating it.

Maybe it doesn't make much sense but I think they are onto some things like E8 lattices, etc. They have several scientists working for them:
http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/about-quantum

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well a lot of people believe that there is a God who is perfectly loving and just. I am suggesting that there is a benevolent force that only manifests in a very limited way.

That didn't answer the question. The question is why you believe this?

....All they're saying is that stuff evolved in prokaryotes or archea first and then found another use in Eukaryotes. Which is common in nature. This is neither ground-breaking nor a threat to the theory of evolution....

Ok then. Well I thought it was worth looking into anyway.

Here's a suggestion. If you come across something about evolution that you don't understand, you could perhaps start a thread in the science subforum and ask if somebody can explain it to you.

This forum gets flooded with creationists who have swallowed some ID-propaganda or another which they think is bullet proof, come here and make pronouncements about how wrong evolution is. Only to crash and burn, because all it comes down to, is that their Evangelical bubble they don't know science well enough, yet continually re-enforce each others faulty beliefs.

It's always a good idea to face the world with a humble attitude. You will learn more.

...Complexity is not a problem for evolution....

http://detectingdesign.com/wp/2018/08/21/complex-organisms-are-degenerating-rapidly/
says:
"the ratio of detrimental vs. beneficial mutations is on the order of a million to one (Gerrish and Lenski 1998)."

What do you think the ratio might be?

The problem is trying to accumulate useful mutations (to evolve) while minimizing the affect of detrimental mutations. And some of those detrimental mutations might turn out to be a part of something that is ultimately useful. I guess you'd just say that natural selection can solve that. I probably can't convince you of the problems I see.

You don't have to see it. Science isn't rhetoric. It's goal isn't to convince. It's goal is to find the truth. You have to put the work in to inform you about what is true. Creationism is pure rhetoric. It's just sophistry. Science is above this.

All you need to understand is that there's plenty of scientists who are specialised on this, and they all keep a close eye on one another, and constantly question each other.

It doesn't matter if there's 100 000 000 000 detrimental mutations to 1 good one. Given enough time they'll be retained while the detrimental ones vanish. Because of natural selection. It's simply a waiting game.

You also need to get away from the idea that evolution wants anything. There's no goal to evolution. It just is. For evolution there's no good or bad mutations. They're all just mutations. We assign value to them when we analyse them. But nature doesn't care.

Nature also doesn't make a difference between death and life. That's just something we do because life is important and sacred to us. To nature it's just another one of the chained self perpetuating chemical reactions that exist in nature. Life is special to us, because we are alive. So we think that our specific chemical reaction is the most special one.

 

[excreationist]

That didn't answer the question. The question is why you believe this?

Well I don't believe that the Bible is 100% accurate or that there are any supernatural forces like demons or Satan. This is due to my reasoning that it seems that a lot of the Bible couldn't be true. Then in this thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists
I explained that it seems like there may be an intelligent force in my life. That reminds me of that excerpt of Futurama about God. The beliefs in I.D. are based on the existing belief that maybe there is a force at work.

 

[excreationist]

..It doesn't matter if there's 100 000 000 000 detrimental mutations to 1 good one. Given enough time they'll be retained while the detrimental ones vanish. Because of natural selection. It's simply a waiting game. ..

I'll reply to the other things later...

So I disagree with what you're saying here. I read we carry about 3000 mutations, perhaps only recessively. As an example a lot of people have eyesight problems. Do you think that given enough time that that problem will vanish from our species? (not using eugenics though) I think greater selection pressures would result in less detrimental mutations (e.g. in a harsh environment) but I think what they can get away with will remain. I was trying to explain my understanding of how inbreeding results in problems but I couldn't remember all of the terminology. I think the mechanism that helps to stop detrimental mutations passing on (when not inbreeding) would also make it hard for good mutations to be passed on. (it would depend if they were recessive or dominant though). I think detrimental mutations are more of a problem than you think they are.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That didn't answer the question. The question is why you believe this?

Well I don't believe that the Bible is 100% accurate or that there are any supernatural forces like demons or Satan. This is due to my reasoning that it seems that a lot of the Bible couldn't be true. Then in this thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists
I explained that it seems like there may be an intelligent force in my life. That reminds me of that excerpt of Futurama about God. The beliefs in I.D. are based on the existing belief that maybe there is a force at work.

All I see is that sometimes things get weird in your life. Where's the intelligent force? You not knowing something means just that. It's bizarre to insert something concrete and specific whenever you can't explain something.

I believe in God in the sense that God is a metaphor for the unknown. I don't actually believe that God exists. But it's a helpful mental tool to help me make sense of the world. Praying is a nice activity that helps center me and focus my thoughts. Why complicate matters by assuming God is real?