Evolution and Intelligent Design

[bippy123]

These living things are actualy physical functioning systems that were designed to persist by replication and were also designed to vary at each replication event

KBC

Could this also be the reason why there is such poor evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record. It seems there is an information addition in the fossil records that seems almost as if it were programmed to happen. An example would be the cambrian explosion where there arent any transitions found but a leap or an information explosion that brought us the phyla that we have today?

Just a thought:)
I must say this thread has really caught my attention.

[KBCid]

These living things are actualy physical functioning systems that were designed to persist by replication and were also designed to vary at each replication event

KBC, Could this also be the reason why there is such poor evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record. It seems there is an information addition in the fossil records that seems almost as if it were programmed to happen. An example would be the cambrian explosion where there arent any transitions found but a leap or an information explosion that brought us the phyla that we have today? Just a thought:)
I must say this thread has really caught my attention.

I would say from a mechanical POV no. The systems that control very different forms have a variety of very different organizations and functionality and they are irreducibly complex system wise. We cannot expect to get a land animal from a fish because of this. However, if we could see what the first creatures were, I think we would find that there were a great many initial 'kinds' and each of them had a limited range in their variability.
As it is written from a biblical perspective God did create different things on different days so there had to be an actual information explosion as they were placed on the earth. However, the great number shown in the cambrian showed nearly every basic body plan that would ever exist and realisticly we should not be seeing that within that limited span of time. If darwinism were correct then there should have been different body plans occuring in a fairly linear direction not all in a small time frome kind of occurance.
If you think about it ceolacanth appeared for awhile in the record and then nothing until the present so depending on the kind it is quite likely that there should be some that would have never appeared in the record at all, unless of course there was a global catastrophy that made sure every existing kind ended up within the layers. Then we would see the canbrian as it currently appears.
I also feel that the flood created a great number of layering and all the living forms then existing had to end up somewhere within that layering. So ultimately I feel that what has been considered layers equaling years and fossils in those layers being a linear progression of time is in error. A great many of the kinds we find in the layers may have all been existing at the same time and just deposited at different points in the layering.
One of the things we see fairly often in the record is the trunks of trees spanning what would be a huge anount of time if the layering = linear time and yet this cannot be true.
So, ultimately I would look at the variety part of life in this way, imagine you buy a car as a base model and then consider all the upgrades you could buy for it. Initial life had a variety of ways to adapt based on the mechanism of variability that is built into the system and as we know the same car may look quite different by the time you finish customizing it but it is still in essence the same foundational 'kind' and if you want to actually have a bike instead then you would need to go buy the base model bike and then customize that 'kind'. If you see what I mean.
I think we should also consider that since only a limited number of kinds were saved on the ark that a large number of initial kinds and their varients went extinct during the flood period and the variety we see now is only a partial amount of what could have been had there been no flood.

[bippy123]

As it is written from a biblical perspective God did create different things on different days so there had to be an actual information explosion as they were placed on the earth. However, the great number shown in the cambrian showed nearly every basic body plan that would ever exist and realisticly we should not be seeing that within that limited span of time. If darwinism were correct then there should have been different body plans occuring in a fairly linear direction not all in a small time frome kind of occurance.

Yes I never learned about the cambrian explosion in my biology classes, and when I first started reading up on it, it just didnt jive with darwinian evolution and this was the initial thing that started me down that road away from darwinian evolution. Sure people like Stephen Gould tried to explain this with punctuated equilibrium where evolution magically speeded up and then slowed down, but this is what I called the evolution of the gaps. The basilasaurus fossil find from 49 million years back made things even worse for darwinian evolution.

[KBCid]

Yes I never learned about the cambrian explosion in my biology classes, and when I first started reading up on it, it just didnt jive with darwinian evolution and this was the initial thing that started me down that road away from darwinian evolution. Sure people like Stephen Gould tried to explain this with punctuated equilibrium where evolution magically speeded up and then slowed down, but this is what I called the evolution of the gaps. The basilasaurus fossil find from 49 million years back made things even worse for darwinian evolution.

Even Darwin new that the fossil record was not showing the small stepwise type of progression that his theory demanded which is why he assumed that the fossil record would one day reveal a different picture. Of course we see now that the different picture never happened so rather than give up an error evo's choose to change their explanation to fit the observation. Evolution of the gaps is the usual method used to explain some of the evidences but in the case of the cambrian we have a bit of difference because they are trying to explain a pile of variation in what would be a relatively short time frame so this would be Evolution of the compression - too much variation appearing in a short time.
This is part of the problem with their mechanism. They have never actually defined how variation works mechanically so they feel confidant in asserting that it can occur at any rate they wish to infer to meet the observable evidence.

[Neige]

Question to KBCid:

Isn't this whole system you're talking about simply a part of code in the DNA?
If yes (and if we assume that DNA somehow came into existence via abiogenesis), then where does the idea of ID fit in?

Or is it the idea that it's irreducibly complex, therefore it cannot be a product of abiogenesis? If so, could you please explain why you believe it is irreducibly complex?

Or is this whole thing more complicated and I'm not getting it at all? If so, could you, please, explain the whole concept as simply and unsophisticatedly as possible?

[KBCid]

Question to KBCid: Isn't this whole system you're talking about simply a part of code in the DNA?
If yes (and if we assume that DNA somehow came into existence via abiogenesis), then where does the idea of ID fit in?

The system is indeed part of the automation that is coded for in the DNA. There is no asserted continuing control outside of the organism responsible for the process to proceed from DNA to 3 dimensional structuring.
We cannot 'assume' that such a system can be formed in the currently 'assumed' abiogenesis concept since the system is required in order to be able to replicate the 3 dimensional structuring of the DNA itself as DNA has 3 dimensional coding structure that is arbitrary from a physics standpoint.

Or is it the idea that it's irreducibly complex, therefore it cannot be a product of abiogenesis? If so, could you please explain why you believe it is irreducibly complex?

This system is indeed irreducibly complex. It has specifiable minimums from a physics perspective. To properly understand these minimums you would first need to understand how matter that has no inherent positional control can be precisely and repetetively positioned in 3 dimensional space. At its foundational understanding the laws of physics states that a force outside of the matter (to be moved) must be applied to it to move it at all and when this is applied to the understanding of movement in 3 dimensions then we know that force must be applied in all 3 of the spatial planes to precisely move it 3 dimensionally. This is a physically irreducible first minimum for precision movement in 3 dimensional space.

Or is this whole thing more complicated and I'm not getting it at all? If so, could you, please, explain the whole concept as simply and unsophisticatedly as possible?

I have posted in the Biology of life and 3D spatial positioning thread near the end of the thread, what in my view would be the simplest way I have conceived of to explain it. I would say at this point you should review the explanation I gave there first and then define where the concept fails to elucidate to your understanding how it works and what its implications are. It would probably be simplest to reply to that thread as it would provide further information within the thread to help others along the way.

[Neige]

So... let's see. Your main point is that it is impossible to replicate DNA from inorganic matter, because the system that is required for replication to be possible at all is inside the coding of DNA itself. Ok. But it seems to me an unusual way to call de novo creation (formation from inorganic matter in this case) a replication...

I get the idea behind evolution not being able to cause the system - the first organism (or set of organisms) had no parents, therefore there was no evolution and there was nothing they could have inherited the system from. But I want to understand better the irreducible complexity argument.

Earlier in this thread you wrote that this system could not be built in a stepwise manner "prior to having the functionality required to stepwise build it". The functionality implied here, I understand, is what you mentioned previously as the specifiable minimums from a physics perspective. Correct? If yes, does it mean that abiogenesis (being a stepwise process) requires the spatiotemporal control of matter?

[KBCid]

So... let's see. Your main point is that it is impossible to replicate DNA from inorganic matter, because the system that is required for replication to be possible at all is inside the coding of DNA itself. Ok. But it seems to me an unusual way to call de novo creation (formation from inorganic matter in this case) a replication...

The main point is that replication of matter that has no inherent positional control requires a system for that control and there are no simple systems for performing such an action.
No one is asserting a de novo creation. It is all entirely mechanical. The part requiring ID is for the initial setup of the systematic function itself.

I get the idea behind evolution not being able to cause the system - the first organism (or set of organisms) had no parents, therefore there was no evolution and there was nothing they could have inherited the system from. But I want to understand better the irreducible complexity argument.

The irreducible part is in the system for controlling matter positionally in 3 dimensions. 3D positioning requires the application of force on each plane, and for precise movement it requires a controller to modulate the amount of force applied and this is just a small part of the system.
You can go to any physics site and see the laws on the motion of matter and then consider what the simplest systematic method would be to make matter move and repeatedly end in a specific place.

Earlier in this thread you wrote that this system could not be built in a stepwise manner "prior to having the functionality required to stepwise build it". The functionality implied here, I understand, is what you mentioned previously as the specifiable minimums from a physics perspective. Correct? If yes, does it mean that abiogenesis (being a stepwise process) requires the spatiotemporal control of matter?

Yes
Abiogenesis is a conceptual perspective of what might be possible and this should be understood to begin with. The point where the 3 dimensional control of matter would be required is where matter that has no inherent positional control has to be replicated into precise 3 dimensional arrangements which includes the ability to replicate structure changes. Replication of variable material forms is the only way that a hypothetical evolutionary mechanism can begin to function so there is a physical requirement for the control of matter positionally into a functional and varied selectable form.
The range of what is considered replication has in the past also been applied to crystalline structures which have inherent positional control but this isn't quite the replication that life exhibits. Crytalline structure grows by tiling / accretion and it cannot precisely and persistently form a varied structuring. This is a key understanding for the type of replication that life requires and that I am pointing out. In order to evolve you must be able to persistently and precisely replicate material formations along with any variations and the variation has to be subject only to a value selection in order for it to persist or be eliminated. This type of precision requires a control system to act on the matter being used in the formation of a 3 dimensional structure to allow for an evolvable structure.
So it is easy to get some structures to repeat in nature but is entirely another thing to get these things to vary and precisely and persistently repeat that variation.

[Ivellious]

Wow...back hammering the whole abiogenesis thing again? Evolution says nothing about the origins of life. At all. Can you really just get that through your head? It's so absurd that you keep saying "evolution is fake because abiogenesis didn't happen!" when evolutionary biology only deals with pre-existing life. so, once again:

I concede that God or some vague designer may have created the first life with a 3-dimensional control system allowing for replication. Your argument that this system could not have evolved is moot because it doesn't have to. Now please move onto how evolution is wrong after the origins of life.

[KBCid]

Now please move onto how evolution is wrong after the origins of life.

Define how life replicates after its origin? Origination and continuation are two very different things. When you can define the mechanism for how life persists then you will have a method for testing the evolutionary mechanism. You know the mechanism that is asserted be able to act slowly over time or act in incredible bursts when the evidence requires that assertion to be made to keep the hypothesis valid.

The entirety of the understanding that evolution offers is that life changes in some unspecified and untested way and it is assumed that good changes stayed and bad ones went away and over a vast time frame it poofed you into existence. Thats not much of a scientifc explanation. If you wanna impress me with a theory then show me mechanically how an organism is able to repeat itself and then we can address how it is able to vary and maybe evolve.