The Lowly Fruit Fly Befuddles the Evolutionists

[rhutchin]

So, you see a living cell - much more complex than a watch - and you conclude that it just popped into existence and no one made it. Why do you do that?

Funny rhutchin, Now care to cite any science document, formal presentation on Evolutionary Theory, or Evolutionary Scientist, or any non-theist person on these Forums that has ever anywhere stated cells "just popped into existence"?
That 'popping into existence' of cells (and of living creatures fully formed in one single day _per Genesis 1) is a fundamental claim of the CREATIONIST camp, not of Evolution.

The false claim that you are making about what evolutionary theory, or we 'conclude' about how cells came into being is not supported.
You are very badly misrepresenting evolutionary science and our views. Why do YOU do that?

The evolutionist says, First, assume a living cell. So, that is where it popped into existence. The cell would not exist otherwise.

 

[James Brown]

From George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God:

"Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)"



So, if you are taking a walk and happen to see a watch lying on the ground, would you think the watch to be a product of nature or a product of design?

Here, let me quote Smith again.

We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics.

To the rationalist, some things are designed, other things are not. To the creationist, everything is designed.

 

[rhutchin]

From George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God:

"Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)"



So, if you are taking a walk and happen to see a watch lying on the ground, would you think the watch to be a product of nature or a product of design?

Here, let me quote Smith again.

We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics.

To the rationalist, some things are designed, other things are not. To the creationist, everything is designed.

Sounds to me that you are saying everything is relative. Design is relative to one's thinking about design. The quote from Smith says nothing - what "natural characteristics" would suggest that DNA is not designed but a watch is (assuming that one could draw such a conclusion based on natural characteristics).

The creationist makes a proper comparison. If we find a watch, we assume that someone designed it and made it until we discover differently. If we find something more complex than a watch, like DNA, we also assume that someone designed it and made it until we discover differently.

 

[Keith&Co.]

OK. Let's use the example creationists use. If you are taking a walk and see a watch lying on the ground, you don't think that the watch was created through natural processes over a long period of time. You conclude that someone made the watch - that it had a designer.

Yes, the watch is not like a living thing, so it must be designed.

o, you see a living cell - much more complex than a watch - and you conclude that it just popped into existence and no one made it. Why do you do that?

Wait, we just concluded that the watch is an artifact because it is not like living things. So living things are not like artifacts, therefore we must conclude that a living cell is NOT an artifact.
To conclude anything else would make a mockery of your thought experiment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The creationist makes a proper comparison. If we find a watch, we assume that someone designed it and made it until we discover differently.

You're fucking it up. We CONCLUDE that it's an artifact because it's not like 'naturally occuring things,' such as living cells.

If we find something more complex than a watch, like DNA, we also assume that someone designed it and made it until we discover differently.

No, we never decided that the watch was an artifact because of complexity. You're using a bait-and-switch, here.
We would also conclude that a fork is an artifact, but not because of any inherent complexity.

You, of course, would ASSUME that DNA is an artifact designed by an intelligence, because that's your starting point, a predetermined conclusion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The evolutionist says, First, assume a living cell. So, that is where it popped into existence. The cell would not exist otherwise.

Absolutely balls-out incorrect.
The evolutionist observes that living cells exist. Evolutionary theory only concerns itself with living cells, which is distinct from assuming that they just popped into existence. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for you. It's certainly too subtle for your agenda.

An electrician observes that electricity exists. Electrical theory only concerns itself with the nature, generation and transmission of electricity, which depends on electrons. Electrical theory, in itself, does not require an electrician to understand or accept the Big Bang.

 

[rousseau]

Has anybody mentioned that the term 'evolutionist' is completely dumb yet?

 

[rousseau]

If you disbelieve or would like to disprove evolution, then consider for a second that your beliefs might be completely wrong, and legitimately spend a week or two researching and trying to disprove yourself. If you can come back after two weeks with the same original beliefs, start a thread, until then you're wasting our time.

 

[Jokodo]

From George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God:

"Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)"



So, if you are taking a walk and happen to see a watch lying on the ground, would you think the watch to be a product of nature or a product of design?

Consider the program that allows this forum to work. Is it a product of nature or a product of design?

In each case, how would you demonstrate that your conclusion is right.

Talking about computer programs...

Your main point seems to be that complexity is an argument for design (i.e. divine creation), while simplicity might be more compatible with evolution.

In other words, you seem to be saying that the hypothesis of an omnipotent, omniscient creator predicts more complex life forms than the hypothesis of a random process with culling of unsuccessful variants.

You've never made it explicit why this should be true, and the analogy of computer programs indeed suggests the opposite. Do you have any experience with writing computer programs/scripts? I have, though not enough to call myself a programmer.

An idealised good programmer would think about what kind of input he or has to be able to process, and what kind of output is required, and then think up a minimal architecture such that each subroutine produces exactly the kind of output that the next one requires, to get from input to output as directly as possible.

A "programmer" like myself, on the other hand, operates by trial and error. I think of a subroutine that looks managable, create some fake data as input to see that it produces the right kind of output in isolation, and than add another subroutine. Somewhere in the process, I'm going to find out that the output of subroutine A is in the wrong format for subroutine B to process it, which means I'll have to add another subroutine C to convert it from one format to the other (or, alternatively and equivalently, blow up subroutine B to three times the length it would otherwise have just in order to convert the input into the format with which can be processed to arrive at what the subroutine is actually supposed to do).

For any reasonable definition of "complexity", the program I arrive at is going to be 5-10 times more complex than the program an omniscient programmer could have created. So, if anything, unexpected complexity is actually an argument against creation.

 

[bilby]

Living organisms are complex! Who'd a thunk it? Science can't explain it! Therefore, the only explanation for that complexity must be a vastly more complex creator!

OK. Let's use the example creationists use. If you are taking a walk and see a watch lying on the ground, you don't think that the watch was created through natural processes over a long period of time. You conclude that someone made the watch - that it had a designer.

So, you see a living cell - much more complex than a watch - and you conclude that it just popped into existence and no one made it. Why do you do that?

The infamous Rev. Paley never does explain why, on his ramble across a heath, he notices and remarks upon a watch, and not, for example, a cockroach; or a rock; or a blade of grass.

He sees all of these things, and yet the watch stands out - it is so different from nature that he stops to examine it further. So if a designed object looks totally different from an animal or plant, surely that is evidence that animals and plants are NOT designed objects?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

You confuse me, rhutchin.

I read your original article segment and wondered what you were seeing there that supported your statement. Then I realised that any mention of the word "complex" triggers a specific response in you.

I just want to tell you that because something is too complex for you to understand doesn't mean it's too complex to be understood.

Go and do enough biology to have a good understanding of the workings of a single cell, and then hit the books again and study the development of a foetus.

Then contemplate, for about a year, the implications and ramifications of the phrase "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and then come back to me and tell me, from an educated perspective, that there are no observations that would lead anyone to believe that evolution is the best explanation of the known facts.

I'm not joking or being snide. This would be a good way to earn the right to have an opinion on this subject.

Everyone cannot do everything. That is why we have people like you to study biology and explain to others. So, start explaining, unless you are not the one who has done the biology and cannot.

You are so unwilling to do any of the ground work for yourself that I feel disinclined to try to compress centuries of other peoples' research and observations into a few sentences for you, even if such were possible.

But,

I suggested reading up on the workings of one cell because doing that would have given you a fair understanding of chemical reactions in the biological context. The processes of evolution are pretty well understood, but for that initial step from non-living to living. They are currently working on that, with every expectation of success in replicating the process.

So if you want to claim that there was a primordial soup, and god donated a divine spark that bridged that gap, and then sat back and let it all develop, I would have no problem with that. Anything else does not fit with known facts. You probably have about 10 years until you can't make that claim, either.

That being the case, I don't understand why you would make the arguments you do. Read a bit. Don't expect others to do your homework.

By the same 'logic' that a cell is too complex to be natual, mankind can not have invented or created the watch as it is obviously much too complex and dependent upon too many intricate interacting parts to not have came into existence at once fully formed and functioning.

Snowflakes are "too complex to be natural" by their arguments.

The snowflake is formed consistent with natural laws and smart guys can actually work out the math on this - so I am told.

Evolution speculates that life came about by natural law and have been able to demonstrate that speciation works - start with animal, A, and you can get many different species from A. However, no evolutionist has shown that nature has a process that can start with animal A and produce animal B that is not a species derived from animal A

I think you must have miswritten. Nobody has EVER made that claim. The whole mechanism of evolution is new species deriving from previous species in response to the exigencies of the environments that individuals encounter.

All you need do is demonstrate that a process exists whereby a cell can form naturally in an environment where no cell previously existed. Can you do that?

It didn't happen overnight. It was a slow process of chemical aggregation and reaction and only the immense time frame involved can possibly account for the lucky chance that caused life. Contemporary scientists have it easy because they are starting from the observed fact that life does exist, and are able to work backwards.

When you get a minute, read H2O a biography of water. by Phillip Ball. It contains a very easy to read discussion of the start of life on Earth and would expand your knowledge base considerably.

 

[Juma]

However, no evolutionist has shown that nature has a process that can start with animal A and produce animal B that is not a species derived from animal A

True! Because all animals species ARE derived from another.

 

[DBT]

Just making it harder for evolutionists to support their faith.

If scientific inquiry was a matter of faith, there would be no uncertainty. It is Faith and not science that supplies the ready made unshakable answers for the big questions: God created the Heaven and the Earth and all living things. There is your absolute certainty. But is it true and accurate?

 

[James Brown]

More George H. Smith:

f an archaeologist wishes to determine whether an unknown object is a primitive ax or merely a rock, he does not do so by “determining whether the object can serve a purpose; he looks instead for those peculiar marks left by flaking tools and not produced by weathering.” In other words, in order to conclude that an object was designed, we must first establish that it was manufactured. Therefore, in order to conclude that the natural universe was designed, we must first establish that it was manufactured by an intelligent being. It is here that the defender of the design argument faces his most serious problem. How can he demonstrate that the natural universe was in some way manufactured by an intelligent being? Only one way is open to the theist: he must first demonstrate the existence of an intelligent designer, and then—and only then—he can assert that the universe is the product of design. In other words, one must first know that a god exists before one can say that nature exhibits design. And this renders the design argument useless for proving the existence of a god.

The theist will undoubtedly object to his last claim.After all, he may argue, there are many cases where we can have knowledge of design without having prior knowledge of a designer. For instance, suppose that we discovered ancient ruins on another planet; this would convince us that intelligent life existed at one time on this planet. Here we begin with designed artifacts, the ancient ruins, and infer the previous existence of intelligent designers. It seems absurd, then, to claim that we cannot establish the presence of design in nature without prior knowledge of god’s existence.

This objection ignores an important difference between evidence of design on another planet and evidence of design in the universe as a whole. We would recognize ruins on another planet only insofar as those ruins resembled, at least to some extent, the methods of man. And our ability to recognize man-made characteristics depends on our ability to identify characteristics that are not found in nature. If, for example, a man was to design an object which looked like a natural rock in every respect, then, while this object would in fact be the product of design, another person could not tell this from merely examining the rock. As far as he is concerned, this rock is a product of nature. The closer the resemblance between a designed artifact and a natural object, the more difficult it is to determine that the artifact is in fact a product of design.

We see, therefore, that the characteristics of design stand in contradistinction to the characteristics of natural objects. Thus, if objects on another planet bear marks that are not usually found in nature, we might conclude that these objects were designed by an intelligent being.

Now consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning.

To repeat: unless the theist first proves the existence of a god, there is no way, in principle, by which he can demonstrate that the universe exhibits design. Knowledge of god must precede knowledge of natural design, so the design argument has no possibility of success. Appeals to complex and intricate structures, such as the eye, are of no help; the eye does not display characteristics that cannot be accounted for in natural terms, and the similarity between the eye and man-made artifacts is irrelevant. Natural and man-made objects also share the common trait of coloration, but this is no reason to suppose that there exists a master painter-dyer. Paley’s design argument must be rejected as a total failure.

 

[BH]

The fruit fly does indeed give evolutionists problems. An evolutionist was going to eat some fruit and use the energy gained from the fruit to study tiktallik. But the mean old fruit fly went and got his buddies and they flew over to the fruit and ate it before the evolutionist could, so now he is going to have to go to the store and buy more fruit, using the time to shop instead of study as he wanted.

The evil fruit fly wasn't the evolutionist. He bribed a crocodile and a duck to make a porn movie in the evolutionist's bed while away shopping, hoping a crocoduck would pop out a few weeks later. And it made a mess of the bed too.

 

[rhutchin]

However, no evolutionist has shown that nature has a process that can start with animal A and produce animal B that is not a species derived from animal A

True! Because all animals species ARE derived from another.

I agree. All canine species are derived from canines. All feline species are derived from felines. Evolutionists speculate that there is a common ancestor from which both canines and felines derive. There is no way to test this speculation through laboratory experiment so it remains speculation. So far as science is able to determine, if you start with canines, you get canines - that is how biology has been observed to happen.

 

[rhutchin]

More George H. Smith:

f an archaeologist wishes to determine whether an unknown object is a primitive ax or merely a rock, he does not do so by “determining whether the object can serve a purpose; he looks instead for those peculiar marks left by flaking tools and not produced by weathering.” In other words, in order to conclude that an object was designed, we must first establish that it was manufactured...And this renders the design argument useless for proving the existence of a god.

I think this is a strawman argument. The design argument does not prove the existence of God and is not intended to do so. The design argument says that natural forces cannot manufacture certain things. If we see a watch on the ground, we conclude that it did not evolve over time and it is not the product of natural forces. Design says that natural forces are not capable of evolving a watch. To distinguish why natural forces cannot evolve a watch, people say that the watch was not only "designed" but also manufactured by "design." Who or what designed the watch and then made it by design is not known - what is known is that natural forces could not evolve it. There is a "complexity" about a watch that makes it impossible for natural forces to evolve it.

There are things more complex than a watch. A computer program can have billions of lines of code. The program is designed to produce an outcome and this is by design. The design argument is that natural forces cannot evolve a computer program.

There are things even more complex than a computer program. DNA describes the workings of a living organism. DNA is designed to do what it does and this by design. Natural forces cannot evolve DNA.

The design argument says that it is impossible for natural forces to evolve certain things. Those things must be manufactured by a process involving supernatural (not natural) forces or forces outside nature. So, what supernatural force could do what natural forces cannot do. God is one option. Perhaps there are others.

The design argument does not purport to prove the existence of God; it says that natural forces cannot evolve certain things.

 

[rhutchin]

You are so unwilling to do any of the ground work for yourself that I feel disinclined to try to compress centuries of other peoples' research and observations into a few sentences for you, even if such were possible.

Even you are not doing the ground work. If you were, then you would be citing research to establish a position (unless that research does not exist). Since you are not willing to do the ground work, you want me to do it for you. Well, I pursue Science and Nature every now and then to see if anything is being produced that supports the claims of evolutionists. I am not finding anything. I'm betting that you are not finding anything either if you are doing the same thing because if you, or your fellow believers were finding good stuff to support evolution, you would be citing it. You are not.

I suggested reading up on the workings of one cell because doing that would have given you a fair understanding of chemical reactions in the biological context. The processes of evolution are pretty well understood, but for that initial step from non-living to living. They are currently working on that, with every expectation of success in replicating the process.

Genetics research is coming to one grand conclusion. The cell is incredibly complex and we have only begun to scratch the surface of that complexity. So complex is a living cell, that more and more people are concluding that evolution isn't the answer. That is why we see people suggesting that the first cell came to earth on a meteor or some alien life seeded the planet.The process of biology is not well understood - as genetics shows. Scientists are just starting to discover how cells work. Getting from non-living matter to a living cell is impossible despite the expectations of evolutionists.

So if you want to claim that there was a primordial soup, and god donated a divine spark that bridged that gap, and then sat back and let it all develop, I would have no problem with that. Anything else does not fit with known facts. You probably have about 10 years until you can't make that claim, either.

I understand that the primordial soup idea has been a bust.

All you need do is demonstrate that a process exists whereby a cell can form naturally in an environment where no cell previously existed. Can you do that?

It didn't happen overnight. It was a slow process of chemical aggregation and reaction and only the immense time frame involved can possibly account for the lucky chance that caused life.

That's the speculation. Problem is, no one has come close to establishing that the speculation could be true.

When you get a minute, read H2O a biography of water. by Phillip Ball. It contains a very easy to read discussion of the start of life on Earth and would expand your knowledge base considerably.

I suspect the book tells us that we know less about water than we would like. Given the off chance that you have read the book, perhaps you can tell us what it says about the emergence of oxygen following the big bang and how that process worked. Or does it assume oxygen and take off from there?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If we see a watch on the ground, we conclude that it did not evolve over time and it is not the product of natural forces.

But you keep pretending that the reason we make tha tconclusion is based on complexity.
THIS is your strawman argument, Rhutchin.

There is a "complexity" about a watch that makes it impossible for natural forces to evolve it.

Bullshit.
It has nothing to do with complexity.

There are things more complex than a watch.

And there are designed things far simpler than watches. Making that a pointless trait to rest your argument upon.

Unless it's your thesis that the design argument would be unable to distinguish between a forked branch and a fork?

The design argument says that it is impossible for natural forces to evolve certain things. Those things must be manufactured by a process involving supernatural (not natural) forces or forces outside nature.

So...are all humans outside of nature or just programmers?

The design argument does not purport to prove the existence of God; it says that natural forces cannot evolve certain things.

Wiki says you're making shit up, here.

A teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as an argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world".

 

[Kharakov]

How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects.

Slight problem with that (I know it's a quote from someone else).

The continued striving of humanity to simulate the "undesigned look", to create something that seems more "natural" sort of totally blows away the whole "we use nature to delineate whether something is designed or not". As humanity's ability to design increases, that which humanity creates, with the intent of looking "undesigned" becomes more undesigned looking. We don't seek to create artificial, robotic looking environments to relax in (well, all the time).

We even have sayings about capturing that "undesigned" feeling: it looks natural, it feels natural, etc. that we apply to objects that are designed to look undesigned.

We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics.

Except in well designed objects. When something is well designed, it fits right into "nature".

Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects.

There are things in reality, as a whole, that do not change. Following the axioms of arithmetic, one always arrives at specific answers. The answers one arrives at, following the exact same rules, do not change. So one does not design the outcome 222+76=298, that is a completely undesigned behavior, arising from specific rules of behavior (rules which are designed). This doesn't mean this "natural" behavior is not the consequence of following rules intentionally.

Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself.

Except that nature looks undesigned, even though it apparently is shaped by natural laws that just happen to be awesome enough to make something shaped by these laws look undesigned. The consequences of the axioms of arithmetic don't really make this guys criteria for the "undesigned look", although perhaps he'd think the axioms themselves are designed. Who looks at a perfect sphere, or some obviously mathematical structure, and thinks "undesigned"?

A creation that you cannot tell is designed is far more impressive than a creation that you can look at and say "oohh, that looks totally artificial".

To repeat: unless the theist first proves the existence of a god, there is no way, in principle, by which he can demonstrate that the universe exhibits design.

That's bullshit- God doesn't even need to be referred to to demonstrate the universe exhibits design. The universe could have been designed by a being higher in the hierarchy of beings than us (say someone that evolved out of a previous natural universe).