intelligent Design

S

spuriousmonkey

Banned
Banned
from new scientist 26 july page 38:

Niles Eldredge came up with the notion of punctuated equilibrium with S.J. Gould a long time ago.

He also like to collect cornets (sort of trumpet). He then went to reasoning that if the claims of intelligent design were true than the phylogenetic tree of something designed intelligently should resemble the phylogenetic trees of life.

He used his extensive collection of cornets for this and put them through the software. And guess what? The tree that was produced looked nothing like that of for instance Trilobites. That is mainly because features appearing in one branch can suddenly appear in a total different branch.
 
I think that intelligent design is a feasible theory.
I mean looking at the glorious patterns in nature, one cannt help but to give credit where credit is due.

I even read in a quantum gravity book about the possibility that a supercivilization designed the entire universe!
 
the point was that nature doesn't seem to have the same pattern of evolution of for instance the cornet, something that is clearly intelligently designed.

it doesn't matter if you believe in something. That is what the religion forum is for. You now have to come with arguments.
 
I think it a matter of preference: if you want to believe there is a higher force or intelligent will for the universe you will see it and find your own circumstantial evidence for it, if you want to believe its all random and there is no higher force ect, then you will find your own circumstantial evidence for that belief. There is much evidence for both philosophies all of which though I have not found to be meaningful or conclusive.
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
the point was that nature doesn't seem to have the same pattern of evolution of for instance the cornet, something that is clearly intelligently designed.

it doesn't matter if you believe in something. That is what the religion forum is for. You now have to come with arguments.
Click to expand...

OUCH!
Point taken.

Well, if one looks at the fractal nature of trees; where one leaf on the tree resembles the entire tree.
Or if one looks at the similarities in the spiral patterns of sea shells, rams horns, the cochlea, our DNA, the milky way, the multiverse,

then intelligen design is feasible.
 
ok that it tell me why this thing "must" be a result of intelligent design. I still don’t understand why they can’t be done by non-sentient forces.
 
I dont think that the multiverse 'must be' of intelligent design.

There is a possibility that it 'just happened'.
Personally, I doubt it, but I wont enforce my ideas on anyone else.
 
All you have to have to get the great array of life you see before you today is for at some point in the distant past a random collection of simple molecules to come together in a pattern that reacts with nearby matter to make replicas of itself. After that small random changes in the copies will start darwinism rolling.

You have a vast unoccupied world filled with reactive molecules. Every second untold billions of reactions are occuring on every square acer of ground. Do you really doubt that after a billion years one of them would have lead to self-propagation?

Anything that can be done by an intelligent hand can be done by the random shuffling of molecules. It just takes a LOT more time but the universe has that in spades.
 
Clockwood,

Don't forget this is one planet out of possibly infinity of others, even if life is truly unlikely to happen randomly the chances in the whole universe are very likely.
 
Eflex said:
Well, if one looks at the fractal nature of trees; where one leaf on the tree resembles the entire tree. Or if one looks at the similarities in the spiral patterns of sea shells, rams horns, the cochlea, our DNA, the milky way, the multiverse, then intelligen design is feasible.
Click to expand...

The fact that two things are spirals doesn't make them similar; cinnamon buns are also spirals, because that's what you get when you wind something up around itself. In each of these examples the force that creates the spiral shape is a different force entirely.

DNA is not the perfect immutable double helix that people imagine it to be. During the processes of replication and transcription it gets unzipped, kinked, bent, and so on. Furthermore, most of the time your DNA is condensed and looks like a lump.

An oak leaf looks nothing like an oak tree. (Although, if you look at the shadow of a leafless oak tree it looks like lightning.)

Natural coincidences of simple form do not prove intelligent design, because most of the organized things in the world DON'T look like everything else.
 
Natural coincidences of simple form do not prove intelligent design, because most of the organized things in the world DON'T look like everything else.
Click to expand...

Yes, but who's to say what an intelligent design is supposed to look like anyway?
 
Originally posted by BigBlueHead
Eflex said:


The fact that two things are spirals doesn't make them similar; cinnamon buns are also spirals, because that's what you get when you wind something up around itself. In each of these examples the force that creates the spiral shape is a different force entirely.

DNA is not the perfect immutable double helix that people imagine it to be. During the processes of replication and transcription it gets unzipped, kinked, bent, and so on. Furthermore, most of the time your DNA is condensed and looks like a lump.

An oak leaf looks nothing like an oak tree. (Although, if you look at the shadow of a leafless oak tree it looks like lightning.)

Natural coincidences of simple form do not prove intelligent design, because most of the organized things in the world DON'T look like everything else.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely with the notion of coincidences. Everything happens for a reason, for every cause there will be an effect. This pattern is evident throughout nature.

Your cinnamon bun example is not really valid or logical in that it is man made and not really comparable to DNA or the galaxy.

No one has denied that DNA takes other shapes besides the spiral. But the fact that the helix shape of DNA mirrors the shape of the galaxy is very interesting.
(some mathematicians call the Fibonacci sequence 'Gods Fingerprint')

and speaking of fingerprints, those are Fibonacci as well.
The mechanism by which plants grow is also a Fib sequence.

Oak leaves and Oak trees do share many similarities.
http://www.eryptick.net/bird/oak-leaf-burst-010508.jpg
http://www.virtual-knutsford.co.uk/images/images_history/joans_jottings/oaktree.jpg

but you have to understand fractal dimensions to fully grasp the concept.
http://www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/math/dimen.html

It seems that you have a resistance to even the possibility of intelligent design.
Thats good, most scientists should remain skeptical.

But you should at least consider the possibility because somethings are beyond proof in a laboratory.
 
Last edited:
Yes everything happens for a reason, but who is to say that reason has a sentient will behind it?

by the way DNA does take on other shapes then a spiral, depending on if its dry, aqueas ph or basa par patterns. DNA also supercoils which looks more like a sping then spiral.
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Yes everything happens for a reason, but who is to say that reason has a sentient will behind it?

by the way DNA does take on other shapes then a spiral, depending on if its dry, aqueas ph or basa par patterns. DNA also supercoils which looks more like a sping then spiral.
Click to expand...

There might not be a sentient being behind the creation of the multiverse. I am certainly not ruling out the possibility.

However, I think that intelligent design is a feasible concept as well.

And once again, the fact that DNA can take on so many different geometries is fascinating. Its hard to imagine chance being responsible for the patterns of change in evolution.
 
The fact that an apparently coherent system arises from an iterated equation (i.e. fractals and so forth) should not come as too much of a surprise; in any case, systems that don't propagate themselves don't really recommend themselves to our eyes.

That is to say, we noticed DNA's wonderful complexity because it already had it. The universe has a lot of complex and interesting phenomena, and many people tend to praise their wonderfulness as the touch of some higher intelligence. Few people try to think about how such things could have been better, because (in Scotty's words) we canna change the laws of physics.

On the other hand, when I look at something like, say, the human knee joint (and human bipedal structure in general) it strikes me as a poor design. We could definitely be built better to withstand the stresses we generally encounter, with respect to our structure and also the materials we are made of. There are many things in nature that are "good enough" to do their job, but not really well adapted even for the task they are specialized to perform.

This would tend to indicate that a founding intelligence would be powerful but not necessarily very bright...
 
Originally posted by BigBlueHead

On the other hand, when I look at something like, say, the human knee joint (and human bipedal structure in general) it strikes me as a poor design. We could definitely be built better to withstand the stresses we generally encounter, with respect to our structure and also the materials we are made of. There are many things in nature that are "good enough" to do their job, but not really well adapted even for the task they are specialized to perform.
Click to expand...

As a tall guy with bad knees, I empathize with that statement.
But perhaps, looking at the knee at this point in homo sapien development is premature.

Mabe in 10,000 - 20,000 years, the design will be much better.
 
Eflex tha Vybe Scientist,

I do not disagree that intelligent design is a feasible concept, but I do disagree on your evidence for intelligent design: As of so far chance seems very capable as the engine for evolution, natural selection chooses from random and by chance variables, selecting only the ones that reproduce best for their environment, there is no need for a sentient force, but then again there is no proof that a sentient force is not involved.
 
My main argument with the "watchmaker" arguement often brought up in Intelligent Design arguments is this: You already know that watches awere designed by intelligent beings. Of course apon finding one, you will assume that some intelligence created it, you've seen them before and know that it was made by an intelligent being.

If you had never seen one before, then while you still may be able to argue that an intelligent being made it, you have no real evidence for that assertion. Some pretty good circumstancial evidence, yes, but no scientific evidence.

I'm not arguing that intelligent design isn't possible, it certainly is. But there is just as much evidence against it as their is for it, so currently, I will withhold my judgement.

Eflex tha Vybe Scientist:
the main issue that I have with your evidence is this: similar forces will create similar products. No intelligent maker is needed to create similar looking waves in both water and oil when a strong wind is applied to it - they both have similar properties, and are being acted on in similar ways. Outcome? similar looking final products. Spirals, orbits, atoms, etc, are all being effected by the same principals, which will pull from them similar results. I see no need in that evidence for an intelligence.
 
Originally posted by river-wind


Eflex tha Vybe Scientist:
the main issue that I have with your evidence is this: similar forces will create similar products.
Click to expand...

what produced these initial forces?

strong
weak
gravitational
electromagnetic
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Eflex tha Vybe Scientist,

I do not disagree that intelligent design is a feasible concept, but I do disagree on your evidence for intelligent design: As of so far chance seems very capable as the engine for evolution, natural selection chooses from random and by chance variables, selecting only the ones that reproduce best for their environment, there is no need for a sentient force, but then again there is no proof that a sentient force is not involved.
Click to expand...

What we see as 'chance' might be a carefully ochestrated and well thought out pattern.

or it might not be.

I look at the biochemistry and diversity of life on this planet and I wonder......
I mean, here we are 72 trillion cells arguing with another 72 trillion cells about the existance of something greater than ourselves.

that is amazing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top