Evolution questions from my creationist friend

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Minnesota Anti-Texan Act of 2011

[Seth]

Seth, how would one distinguish a random mutation from a deliberate bit of gene tweaking? How would one differentiate? Unless the aliens leave a limerick or a brand name encoded in the DNA of course.

It's a conundrum, isn't it?

That it may not be possible to detect such manipulations simply through examination of genes themselves does not render the notion invalid, any more than a cockroach scientist five million years from now being unable to distinguish Roundup Ready sugar beets or BT corn as the design of an intelligent organism does.

Nobody said science was easy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nobody said science was easy.

Ray Comfort
Ted Haggard
The Peanut Butter Guy

I could go on.

[Seth]

If ID was legitimate science why would it's proponents be employing such tactics as quote mining .Why have hidden agenda's? Why would they be still trying to make claims about complexity even after they get proved wrong ? Why would they be so keen to use fallacious arguments and special appeals to the 'man in the trailer park' ?

Creotards in white coats astrologers with telescopes .

Because they have a religious motivation and agenda. But a religious motivation, for all it precludes their agenda from being taught in schools by the First Amendment, does not in and of itself destroy or fatally taint what actual science they may be conflating with their religious beliefs.

"Irreducible complexity," which is to say the proposition that some fundamental parts of organisms are too complex to have evolved "naturally," and therefore must have been the products of intelligent design is, in and of itself, a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis, irrespective of how thoroughly it may have been debunked by other scientists. Only when it's conflated with the notion that the designer must be God, or that if true, irreducible complexity would prove the existence of God, does it become an impermissible-for-the-public-schools attempt at neo-Creationism.

Neo-Creationists are, as is seen in the Wedge Document, deliberately conflating legitimate scientific propositions with religion because they have a specific agenda of getting God back into the schools using science as a vehicle.

That's wrong.

But those aspects of "intelligent design" that are based in science, or are amenable to scientific examination and debate, are NOT inherently religious, notwithstanding the fact that neo-Creationists are attempting to add to the science the claim "...and therefore God exists."

I object most strongly to allowing neo-Creationists abusing science in this way, mostly because in doing so, as we can see here, they have nearly fatally tainted the perfectly legitimate and entirely scientific and non-religious argument that an intelligence may have designed, or been involved in the design of life on earth, or elsewhere. This is a valid area of scientific inquiry, and it angers me that because neo-Creationists have misappropriated legitimate science, that even suggesting that intelligent design of organisms on this planet might have occurred is now instantly labeled as religious kookery, without any rational examination whatsoever.

I despise the neo-Creationists for tainting an entire line of scientific inquiry to such a degree that the mere mention of the idea drives otherwise rational people into foam-flecked fury.

It's just ridiculous, and I'm fighting to separate the religion from the science and call the neo-Creationists what they are, and recover a legitimate line of scientific investigation.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, how would one distinguish a random mutation from a deliberate bit of gene tweaking? How would one differentiate? Unless the aliens leave a limerick or a brand name encoded in the DNA of course.

It's a conundrum, isn't it?

That it may not be possible to detect such manipulations simply through examination of genes themselves does not render the notion invalid,

Nobody said THAT notion was invalid. ID is an invalid notion.

Moreover, many valid notions are not science.

any more than a cockroach scientist five million years from now being unable to distinguish Roundup Ready sugar beets or BT corn as the design of an intelligent organism does.

Nobody said science was easy.

That's true. But, ID isn't science.

[Coito ergo sum]

If ID was legitimate science why would it's proponents be employing such tactics as quote mining .Why have hidden agenda's? Why would they be still trying to make claims about complexity even after they get proved wrong ? Why would they be so keen to use fallacious arguments and special appeals to the 'man in the trailer park' ?

Creotards in white coats astrologers with telescopes .

Because they have a religious motivation and agenda. But a religious motivation, for all it precludes their agenda from being taught in schools by the First Amendment, does not in and of itself destroy or fatally taint what actual science they may be conflating with their religious beliefs.

ID is not science. Genetic engineering is science. Genetic engineering, however, is not ID.

"Irreducible complexity," which is to say the proposition that some fundamental parts of organisms are too complex to have evolved "naturally," and therefore must have been the products of intelligent design is, in and of itself, a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis, irrespective of how thoroughly it may have been debunked by other scientists.

It's also not "ID." It's one of the bases of ID, but it is not, in and of itself, ID. Moreover, even if you find an irreducibly complex thing, it doesn't say anything about the theory of evolution. The judge in Kitzmiller saw that, too.

Only when it's conflated with the notion that the designer must be God, or that if true, irreducible complexity would prove the existence of God, does it become an impermissible-for-the-public-schools attempt at neo-Creationism.

That's all ID is. What you're talking about is genetic engineering and terreforming. Nobody thinks those are invalid notions. They think ID is an invalid notion.

Neo-Creationists are, as is seen in the Wedge Document, deliberately conflating legitimate scientific propositions with religion because they have a specific agenda of getting God back into the schools using science as a vehicle.

That's wrong.

Yes, that is wrong.

But those aspects of "intelligent design" that are based in science,

Which are? You've mentioned genetic engineering of life forms. That's certainly science. You call it ID, when it isn't. But, it's science either way.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The failure is the fault of science for not being very, very careful in using precise terminology in arguments against creationists ... <snip> ... and I would think that liberal and rational thinkers would agree that more information is always better than less information.

I'm sorry to have prompted the writing of an assignment. I was addressing "Intelligent Design" in the colloquial sense of "designed by a Designer". It is entirely possible that aliens seeded life on Earth. It is equally as unevidenced as the creatio ex nihilo of theists.

I'm not a scientist and therefore not bound to use the language with scientific precision; and while I appreciate precision in language, I will normally speak in the vernacular and assume you are cognizant enough to pick up on that. If I am speaking argot of any sort, I will make that plain.

[tsig]

Seth,

Either your understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection is far too flawed for you to argue effectively, or you are being deliberately obtuse because it amuses you. Either way, until you evolve into someone with something to say, I am done here.

Call me Brave Sir Robin if you must. You won! You managed to bore me with fatuous piffle for so long that I can't be arsed to keep up responding. Yay for you!

You realize that this means Jesus?

[tsig]

...intelligent design, or intelligent manipulation of species on Earth, cannot be ruled out at this point in our scientific understanding of the universe(s).

That's just Russell's teapot and invisible pink unicorns; you can do better than that...

No, it's not. Russel's teapot et al are analogies intended to justify poverty of imagination.

It's hardly irrational to suggest that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe, or some other universe, now is it?

It's actually a perfectly logical inference we can draw based upon an observation of the existence of intelligence on Earth. Moreover, the intelligence that exists on earth, which is an objective fact, is capable of manipulating DNA and changing the course of evolution of living organisms, which is also an objective fact. Therefore, it is a rational inference to say that it is possible that intelligence capable of manipulating DNA exists elsewhere in this, or another universe. In fact, many scientists think it's inevitable that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe, given its size and complexity. And there is no reason not to believe that such intelligence exists in other universes, if other universes exist.

And because it is a logical and rational inference to believe that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe at this time, since it exists here in this time, it is likewise a rational inference to believe that intelligence may have existed in this universe at another time. Thus, it is rational and logical to believe that intelligence may have existed in this universe in our past. After all, our planet is only 4.5 billion years old, and our intelligence evolved substantially only in the last few million years, so there is no reason to suppose that other intelligences have not come and gone in the 14 billion years since the Big Bang. Perhaps millions or billions of times.

And that's ignoring entirely the possibility of an intelligence evolving over billions of billions of years in some OTHER universe that has existed for much, much longer than our own, which may have evolved sufficient knowledge and developed sufficient technology to allow it to travel between universes, or even create universes in the laboratory.

Finally, because we are unaware of any inherent scientific limits upon intelligence or knowledge, it is rational to conclude that if other intelligence exists, it may be either greater or lesser than our own, and may be much, much greater than our own, if it has had substantially longer to develop.

None of this requires a "Russel's Teapot" evasion. The metaphor is used to dismiss the possibility of the existence of "supernatural" forces through a fallacious argument from incredulity. While credulity may be strained by the notion that there is a teapot floating around outside the orbit of Neptune, the idea that intelligence exists, or has existed elsewhere is noting even remotely of the sort.

What strains credulity is the notion that there are people out there who actually believe we are ALONE in the universe(s) and that it is impossible for other intelligence to exist, or have existed, and that it is impossible for such intelligences to have meddled in genomics here on Earth. Whether we can prove such an event happened or not, it's illogical and mindlessly irrational not to accept it as a perfectly scientific and valid possibility, however remote.

Did these "other intelligences" have designers?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's designers all the way down.

Or, maybe we get so supremely technologically advanced that we figure away to go back in time and create the universe, therefore humans are/were their own creators. Hey, it can't be precluded, and it's not "inherently theistic." Teach the controversy.

[tsig]

Evolution, as a force, is not negated or diminished or made "not"-evolution just because humans meddle with DNA.
Whatever manipulation we do will either have beneficial or neutral consequences, given conditions, and the affected organisms will have a good run before going extinct. Or it will have detrimental consequences and the organisms will never get a chance.

Evolution is greater than humans and humans are not necessary nor are our manipulations greater or fitter than anything evolution can produce. Human manipulation of DNA is as much a "tool" of evolution as oxygen, water, sunlight, and sex.

True, but not particularly relevant. I do not challenge the theory of evolution except insofar as it suggests, or occasionally insists, that it is THE, and THE ONLY process by which organisms change or come into being.

What is relevant about the point I am making is that it doesn't matter what humans do. Evolution will occur with or without us until there are no more life forms to act on.

Just because humans have been able to manipulate DNA does not mean that there is a designer because we--very late in the game--can manipulate DNA.

I didn't say it does. I merely said that it is logical, rational and scientific to INFER that there MIGHT have been a designer sometime in the 14 billion years prior to our emergence as an intelligent species. What is proven by our abilities is that it is POSSIBLE to design organisms. Therefore it is possible that organisms were designed in the past. If it was impossible for any level of intelligence to manipulate DNA to create or modify organisms, if for example any attempt to do so caused the organism to die immediately no matter how carefully the work was done, then one might be able to make a logical, rational inference that there CANNOT be a designer.

But that's not the case. Therefore, it is simply indisputable that if intelligence at least equal to our own existed at any time in the past, it is highly probable that such an intelligence would have manipulated DNA at some point. Perhaps 10 billion years ago an intelligent race, knowing that their sun was going to go supernova and destroy them utterly, create DNA packets and sowed them throughout space, hoping that after the destruction of their solar system, the DNA packets would eventually be deposited on another newly-formed planet created out of the debris of the supernova that destroyed their race. Perhaps that's how "Panspermia" actually occurred.

Is that a "religious" concept or a "scientific one?

The intelligent designer is a human with a bigger tool chest?

[tsig]

Jesus... has nobody told Seth that what he's talking about is Panspermia, and not Intelligent Design?

He appears to be obliquely advocating that things like panspermia, terraforming and genetic engineering be lumped together under some "Science of Intelligent Design" which would include aliens in other dimensions or universes theories of the origin of our universe, and presumably as well as deities, divinities and other non-natural causes. That way, we can have a science that requires us, using his logic, to teach about the non-natural causes.

Seems that he also argues that since humans design things then humans were designed.

[tsig]

If ID was legitimate science why would it's proponents be employing such tactics as quote mining .Why have hidden agenda's? Why would they be still trying to make claims about complexity even after they get proved wrong ? Why would they be so keen to use fallacious arguments and special appeals to the 'man in the trailer park' ?

Creotards in white coats astrologers with telescopes .

No, no, those are not the True IDers.

[Seth]

...intelligent design, or intelligent manipulation of species on Earth, cannot be ruled out at this point in our scientific understanding of the universe(s).

That's just Russell's teapot and invisible pink unicorns; you can do better than that...

No, it's not. Russel's teapot et al are analogies intended to justify poverty of imagination.

It's hardly irrational to suggest that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe, or some other universe, now is it?

It's actually a perfectly logical inference we can draw based upon an observation of the existence of intelligence on Earth. Moreover, the intelligence that exists on earth, which is an objective fact, is capable of manipulating DNA and changing the course of evolution of living organisms, which is also an objective fact. Therefore, it is a rational inference to say that it is possible that intelligence capable of manipulating DNA exists elsewhere in this, or another universe. In fact, many scientists think it's inevitable that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe, given its size and complexity. And there is no reason not to believe that such intelligence exists in other universes, if other universes exist.

And because it is a logical and rational inference to believe that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe at this time, since it exists here in this time, it is likewise a rational inference to believe that intelligence may have existed in this universe at another time. Thus, it is rational and logical to believe that intelligence may have existed in this universe in our past. After all, our planet is only 4.5 billion years old, and our intelligence evolved substantially only in the last few million years, so there is no reason to suppose that other intelligences have not come and gone in the 14 billion years since the Big Bang. Perhaps millions or billions of times.

And that's ignoring entirely the possibility of an intelligence evolving over billions of billions of years in some OTHER universe that has existed for much, much longer than our own, which may have evolved sufficient knowledge and developed sufficient technology to allow it to travel between universes, or even create universes in the laboratory.

Finally, because we are unaware of any inherent scientific limits upon intelligence or knowledge, it is rational to conclude that if other intelligence exists, it may be either greater or lesser than our own, and may be much, much greater than our own, if it has had substantially longer to develop.

None of this requires a "Russel's Teapot" evasion. The metaphor is used to dismiss the possibility of the existence of "supernatural" forces through a fallacious argument from incredulity. While credulity may be strained by the notion that there is a teapot floating around outside the orbit of Neptune, the idea that intelligence exists, or has existed elsewhere is noting even remotely of the sort.

What strains credulity is the notion that there are people out there who actually believe we are ALONE in the universe(s) and that it is impossible for other intelligence to exist, or have existed, and that it is impossible for such intelligences to have meddled in genomics here on Earth. Whether we can prove such an event happened or not, it's illogical and mindlessly irrational not to accept it as a perfectly scientific and valid possibility, however remote.

Did these "other intelligences" have designers?

Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps some intelligence developed spontaneously, without the benefit of evolution. We really don't know. That's no reason to resort to "God doesn't exist" as a rebuttal.

[Seth]

Jesus... has nobody told Seth that what he's talking about is Panspermia, and not Intelligent Design?

He appears to be obliquely advocating that things like panspermia, terraforming and genetic engineering be lumped together under some "Science of Intelligent Design" which would include aliens in other dimensions or universes theories of the origin of our universe, and presumably as well as deities, divinities and other non-natural causes. That way, we can have a science that requires us, using his logic, to teach about the non-natural causes.

Seems that he also argues that since humans design things then humans were designed.

Nope. I merely draw the logical and rational inference that since humans are capable of designing organisms, and since this capability is the product of intelligence, that therefore intelligence elsewhere is logically capable of designing organisms, provided that it is at least as advanced as human intelligence. Thus, it is scientifically possible that humans were designed by intelligence, and no resort to supernatural forces or "God" is required to support that possibility as a scientific question to be resolved.

Anything wrong with this logical inference?